This amendment addresses fundamental fairness and due process issues pertaining to DSP’s powers to discipline licensees (FFLs).

Plain English Breakdown

The official status shows the amendment was 'Stricken in House,' meaning it did not pass as written, though the source notes the bill reached final enrollment before this action.

Amendment on Fairness for Firearm License Discipline

This amendment changes how the Department of Safety and Professional Services can discipline firearm license holders by clarifying rules about warnings, fines, suspensions, and which laws apply.

What This Bill Does

• Removes a phrase that could allow punishment based on minor state law violations like speeding tickets or barking dog summons.
• Gives licensees the right to challenge an official warning before it counts toward future penalties for subsequent violations of the same type.
• Sets civil penalty fines between $500 and $3,000 instead of using vague terms about costs.
• Adds a new option for agencies to suspend a license for up to 6 months without taking it away completely.

Who It Names or Affects

• Firearm dealers who hold licenses (FFLs)
• The Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSP)

Terms To Know

Licensee

A person or business that holds an official permit to sell firearms.

Civil penalty

A fine of money required by law for breaking a rule, not a criminal punishment.

Limits and Unknowns

• This amendment was removed from the House on June 25, 2026, so it may not become active law.
• The text does not state when these changes would start if they were approved by a governor.

Official Summary Text

This amendment addresses fundamental fairness and due process issues pertaining to DSP’s powers to discipline licensees (FFLs).
The first issue is the inherent vagueness in the term “any other state law”, as written that term might mean a speeding ticket or a summons for a barking dog.
The second issue is that of fundamental fairness and due process, allowing a licensee to contest a “warning” which could lead to harsher penalties for alleged subsequent violations.
The third issue is also one of fundamental fairness and addresses the dual issues of the range of “fines” (civil penalty) and the vagueness engendered by the term “and cost” as it applies to an administrative procedure penalty.
The fourth and final issue is the addition of a possible period of license suspension short of a full revocation. Again, an issue of fundamental fairness.

Current Bill Text

Legislation Document

SPONSOR:

Rep. Spiegelman

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

153rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY

HOUSE AMENDMENT NO. 7

TO

SENATE SUBSTITUTE NO. 1

FOR

SENATE BILL NO. 300

AMEND Senate Substitute No. 1 for Senate Bill No. 300 on line 371 by deleting the phrase “

or any other state law,

”.

FURTHER AMEND Senate Substitute No. 1 for Senate Bill No. 300 by inserting at the end of line 373 the following: “

The licensee has the right to contest the issuance of the warning pursuant to Chapter 101 of Title 29, the Administrative Procedures Act.

”.

FURTHER AMEND Senate Substitute No. 1 for Senate Bill No. 300 on line 374 by inserting after the phrase “subsequent occurrence” the phrase “

of the same violation,

”.

FURTHER AMEND Senate Substitute No. 1 for Senate Bill No. 300 by deleting line 376 and inserting in lieu thereof the following and redesigning accordingly:

“

b. Impose a civil penalty of no less than $500 and no more than $3,000.

c. Suspend the licensee’s license for a period not to exceed 6 months.

“

SYNOPSIS

This amendment addresses fundamental fairness and due process issues pertaining to DSP’s powers to discipline licensees (FFLs).

The first issue is the inherent vagueness in the term “any other state law”, as written that term might mean a speeding ticket or a summons for a barking dog.

The second issue is that of fundamental fairness and due process, allowing a licensee to contest a “warning” which could lead to harsher penalties for alleged subsequent violations.

The third issue is also one of fundamental fairness and addresses the dual issues of the range of “fines” (civil penalty) and the vagueness engendered by the term “and cost” as it applies to an administrative procedure penalty.

The fourth and final issue is the addition of a possible period of license suspension short of a full revocation. Again, an issue of fundamental fairness.