Committee hears bill to require secure firearm storage statewide amid debate over scope and penalties

Chair Bartlett introduced House Bill 16‑08 to the House Judiciary Committee on March 13, describing the measure as an expansion of Maryland’s child‑access and secure‑storage rules intended to reduce child access, suicide and firearm theft.

"House Bill 16‑08 expands this prohibition to both locked, loaded, and unloaded firearms," Bartlett said, explaining the bill focuses on whether a firearm is stored in a way that makes unsupervised access by a minor likely and creates a secure‑storage standard and graduated penalties for repeated violations.

Supporters included Marylanders to Prevent Gun Violence (Karen Herron), the Brady Campaign (Daniel Segura), the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions (Molly Berger), youth advocates and health professionals. Speakers cited recent local incidents — including a child’s death in Montgomery County and in‑school weapon incidents — and reviewed studies linking secure‑storage laws to reductions in unintentional child deaths, youth suicide and gun theft.

Witnesses described the bill’s core elements: a requirement that firearms not under an owner’s direct control be locked in a "secure storage depository" (defined in the bill as a locked safe or container that cannot be opened without a key, keypad, combination or other unlocking mechanism), exceptions for lawful self‑defense, and the removal of civil‑liability limits so that negligent storage may be considered in civil cases. The sponsor also said the bill establishes graduated penalties, including a first‑offense misdemeanor and escalating fines and licensing consequences for repeat violations.

Opponents framed the bill as overbroad or vague. John Weber, representing the National Rifle Association, said HB16‑08 would criminalize ordinary storage choices and that the bill’s expansion beyond "loaded" firearms could punish law‑abiding owners for minor oversights. John Joslin for 2A Maryland called key terms in the secure‑container definition ("incapable," "fire resistant," "tamper resistant") unworkably vague, warned of disproportionate costs for low‑income households and argued the bill could create constitutional problems unless the language is tightened.

Committee members raised several detailed questions: how vehicle storage would interact with recent wear‑and‑carry changes; whether a locked bedroom or home could meet the bill’s container standard; whether biometric locks or keypad access would perform under stress; the meaning of "close enough" or "under direct control"; and whether an Attorney General opinion would be sought on constitutionality. Sponsors and witnesses said they were open to amendments and acknowledged the need to refine definitions.

The hearing concluded with no committee vote. Chair Bartlett said she may seek additional drafting, amendments and possibly an Attorney General opinion before the bill advances.

Ending: The committee heard extensive testimony for and against HB16‑08 and identified multiple drafting issues to resolve; the sponsor signaled willingness to refine language but no vote was taken at the hearing.