Bill
S 1775
The bill removes the antique firearm exemption when the owner is subject to protective, harassment, or extreme-risk orders, allowing such antique firearms to be treated like other
Note on inconsistencies
- The materials provided contain conflicting metadata. The bill number S.1775 / Senate Docket No. 702 and the bill text presented concern an amendment regarding antique firearm detainment (filed/presented by Sen. Bruce E. Tarr). Other labels (a different short title, committee referrals, and sponsor names such as Elizabeth Warren, Eric Schmitt, Mark Walczyk) appear to be mismatched or from other bills. This summary focuses on the actual bill text and docket information (Senate Docket No. 702 / "An Act relative to antique firearm detainment") and flags inconsistencies where relevant.
Purpose and intent
- The bill narrows the current exemption for "antique firearms" by removing the exemption when the owner or possessor is subject to certain protective, restraining, or extreme-risk orders. The intent is to allow law enforcement/courts to treat antique firearms like other firearms for purposes of suspension, surrender, or detainment when the owner is restrained by specified orders.
Key provisions
- Amends Section 20 of Chapter 135 of the Acts of 2024 by modifying the definition of "firearm."
- Current language that excludes "antique firearm" from the firearm definition is retained except when the person who owns or possesses the antique firearm is subject to any of the following:
1. An order for suspension or surrender issued under sections 3B or 3C of Chapter 209A;
2. A permanent or temporary protection order under Chapter 209A;
3. Any order described in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) (federal domestic violence-related firearms disability);
4. A permanent or temporary harassment prevention order under Chapter 258E;
5. An extreme risk protection order under sections 131R through 131Y;
6. A similar order issued by another jurisdiction.
- Effect: an "antique firearm" will not be excluded from the definition of "firearm" for purposes of enforcement actions connected to those orders (e.g., suspension, surrender, detainment).
Who would be affected
- Individuals who own or possess antique firearms and who are subject to protection orders, harassment prevention orders, extreme risk protection orders, or similar out-of-state orders.
- Law enforcement agencies and court systems enforcing surrender/suspension provisions tied to protective orders.
- Domestic violence and public-safety stakeholders: the amendment expands the tools available to remove access to weapons (including certain antique firearms) from persons subject to protective or extreme-risk orders.
- Antique firearm owners not subject to such orders remain unaffected by the change (antique firearms retain their exclusion in other contexts).
Procedural and timeline notes
- Docket/filed: Senate Docket No. 702 (filed 1/14/2025; presented by Bruce E. Tarr).
- Legislative actions (as recorded) include multiple committee referrals (Public Safety and Homeland Security; Armed Services; Elections entries appear inconsistent) and scheduling/rescheduling of hearings (multiple entries noting hearings scheduled, canceled, and rescheduled for 10/31/2025).
- Status markers in the provided record are inconsistent; verify current committee assignment and status on the official legislative website for up-to-date action.
Potential impacts and considerations
- Closes a potential loophole that could allow individuals subject to protective or extreme-risk orders to retain antique firearms that otherwise would be treated as firearms for surrender/detention.
- May raise questions about definitions: the scope of "antique firearm" and processes for verifying out-of-state orders or federal orders under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8).
- Administrative impacts: law enforcement will need procedures to identify antique firearms and to determine when the exception no longer applies due to listed orders.
Related/ancillary info
- Docket notes reference a related/replacement SD 702 and a companion HR 3434 (per the provided data). Sponsors in the docket text are Sen. Bruce E. Tarr and petitioners David F. DeCoste and Peter J. Durant (per the Senate filing). Verify sponsor and companion bill matches on the legislature’s website due to conflicting sponsor metadata.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
