Alabama House approves bill allowing participation in firearm surrender program
Rep. Rex Reynolds, R-Huntsville (left) listens to Rep. Russell Bedsole, R-Alabaster on the floor of the Alabama House of Representatives on Feb. 13, 2025 at the Alabama Statehouse in Montgomery, Alabama. The House Tuesday approved SB 40, sponsored by Sen. Keith Kelley, R-Anniston, and carried by Bedsole, which creates a firearm surrender program for people experiencing suicidal thoughts. (Brian Lyman/Alabama Reflector)
The Alabama House of Representatives passed a bill Tuesday that would allow people experiencing suicidal thoughts to surrender a firearm to a licensed gun dealer.
SB 40, sponsored by Rep. Keith Kelley, R-Anniston, passed 93-1. Known as the Houston-Hunter Act, it would provide liability protection for federally-licensed firearms dealers who choose to participate in the Safer Together Program, where they may accept surrendered firearms from community members.
'They can place their weapon in there and they can walk away,' Bedsole, who carried the Senate bill in the House, said.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
He said any federally licensed firearm dealer or gun store can choose to participate in the program.
Bedsole sponsors the House version of the bill, which passed the House 98-2 in February.
Alabama has some of the highest rates of firearm death in the nation. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1,278 Alabamians died by gunfire in 2022, a rate of 25.5 per 100,000 people, the fourth highest in the nation and a larger total than New York States, which has almost four times the population of Alabama.
The CDC said 840 Alabamians died by suicide in 2022. That ranks Alabama 26th for suicides per capita. In the United States, 54% of suicides were done by gunfire.
Rep. Travis Hendrix, D-Birmingham, a former policeman, shared a story of a co-worker that almost committed suicide.
'If this program was available two years ago, he probably would've been in a better situation,' Hendrix said.
Bedsole said the idea for the bill came from a crisis intervention conference he went to in Indiana. He said he met some people from Alabama that told him about the nonprofit program.
'Here's the heart and passion: If we can save just one person's life and prevent them from using their own weapon as an act of suicide, then this program is worth it,' he said.
The bill passed with a House Judiciary Committee substitute that mirrored the language of the House bill in the Senate bill. It goes to the Senate for concurrence or a conference committee.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
E&E News
19 minutes ago
- E&E News
New reconciliation text spares forest program from cuts
A program that protects privately owned forests for timber and other uses has survived in a megabill being put together in the Senate, after falling victim to House budget cutters in May. The Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee saved the Forest Legacy Program in its piece of the big tax-cut and spending bill, refusing to cut off $100 million in Inflation Reduction Act funding. 'This is a victory not only for forests, but for the families, economies, and ecosystems that depend on them,' said Lesley Kane Szynal, chair of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Coalition, an advocacy group, in a news release Thursday. Advertisement The Forest Legacy Program pays for conservation easements and land purchases that prevent privately owned forests from being converted to other uses. In many cases, they've been used to keep timber operations in business while protecting forest watersheds and allowing for recreational access.
E&E News
19 minutes ago
- E&E News
Senate axes regulation-slashing measure from megabill
A major deregulatory proposal that Republican hardliners had hoped to include in their party-line megabill was cut in the Senate. Absent from a new section of the GOP budget reconciliation bill released Thursday is language from the 'Regulations from the Executive In Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act,' which would have given Congress final approval over certain agency rules and would have expanded Congress' ability to undo rules already in place. Initial versions of the House reconciliation bill included parts of the 'REINS Act.' But House leadership slashed it at the eleventh hour, replacing it instead with a blanket appropriation for the White House's Office of Management and Budget to conduct deregulatory actions. Advertisement The Senate Judiciary Committee's portion of the megabill, released Thursday night, included no mention of 'REINS Act,' and also excluded the funding the House wanted for the budget office.
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Wants to Make It More Expensive to Sue Over His Policies
(Bloomberg) -- President Donald Trump and his allies are pursuing an alternative strategy to defend against mounting court orders blocking his policies: Raise the financial stakes for those suing the administration. Shuttered NY College Has Alumni Fighting Over Its Future Trump's Military Parade Has Washington Bracing for Tanks and Weaponry NYC Renters Brace for Price Hikes After Broker-Fee Ban Do World's Fairs Still Matter? NY Long Island Rail Service Resumes After Grand Central Fire Republicans want to force people suing the US to post financial guarantees to cover the government's costs if they win a temporary halt to Trump's policies but ultimately lose the case. A measure in the House's 'big, beautiful' tax-and-spending bill would condition a judges' power to hold US officials in contempt for violating their orders to the payment of that security. A new proposed version of the bill announced by Senate Republicans on Thursday removes the contempt language but would broadly restrict judges' discretion to decide how much of a security payment to order from challengers who win initial pauses to Trump's policies, or to waive it altogether. While the legislation faces hurdles, the push to make suing the government more expensive is gaining steam. Critics say it's part of a broader effort to discourage lawsuits against the Trump administration. In addition to the tax bill provision, Republican lawmakers have introduced a plan to require plaintiffs who lose suits against the administration to cover the government's legal costs. Meanwhile, Trump has directed the Justice Department to demand bonds from court challengers when judges temporarily halt his policies. Trump has also targeted law firms over everything from past work for Democratic rivals to their diversity policies. Courts historically haven't required bonds to be put up in lawsuits against the government. In recent cases, the Trump administration's bond requests included $120,000 in litigation over union bargaining and an unspecified amount 'on the high side'' in a fight over billions of dollars in frozen clean technology grants. Judges in those and other cases have denied hefty requests or set smaller amounts, such as $10 or $100 or even $1. 'Having to put that money up is going to prevent people from being able to enforce their rights,' said Eve Hill, a civil rights lawyer who is involved in litigation against the administration over the treatment of transgender people in US prisons and Social Security Administration operations. The Trump administration has faced more than 400 lawsuits over his policies on immigration, government spending and the federal workforce, among other topics, since his inauguration. A Bloomberg analysis in May found that Trump was losing more cases than he was winning. White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said in a statement that 'activist organizations are abusing litigation to derail the president's agenda' and that it is 'entirely reasonable to demand that irresponsible organizations provide collateral to cover the costs and damages if their litigation wrongly impeded executive action.' Dan Huff, a White House lawyer during Trump's first term, defended the idea but said the language needed fixes, such as clarifying that it only applies to preliminary orders and not all injunctions. Huff, whose op-eds in support of stiffer injunction bonds have circulated among Republicans this year, said that Congress wanted litigants 'to have skin in the game.' Some judges have already found in certain cases that the administration was failing to fully comply with orders. Alexander Reinert, a law professor at Cardozo School of Law, said the timing of Congress taking up such a proposal was 'troubling and perverse.' 'Defy Logic' Some efforts by the Trump administration to curb lawsuits have already paid off. By threatening probes of law firms' hiring practices, the White House struck deals with several firms that effectively ruled out their involvement in cases challenging Trump's policies. Other aspects of the effort have been less successful. Judges have overwhelmingly rebuffed the Justice Department's efforts that plaintiffs put up hefty bonds. A judge who refused to impose a bond in a funding fight wrote that 'it would defy logic' to hold nonprofit organizations 'hostage' for the administration's refusal to pay them. Several judges entered bonds as low as $1 when they stopped the administration from sending Venezuelan migrants out of the country. In a challenge to federal worker layoffs, a judge rejected the government's push for a bond covering salaries and benefits, instead ordering the unions that sued to post $10. The clause in the House tax bill tying contempt power of judges to injunction bonds was the work of Trump loyalists. Representative Andy Biggs, a Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee, pushed to include the provision, Representative Jim Jordan told Bloomberg News. Jordan, who chairs the committee, said Biggs and Representative Harriet Hageman, another Republican, were 'very instrumental in bringing this to the committee's attention.' Biggs' office did not respond to requests for comment. Hageman said in a statement that the measure will 'go a long way in curbing this overreach whereby judges are using their gavels to block policies with which they disagree, regardless of what the law may say.' Liberals have slammed the proposed clause in the tax-and-spending bill as an attack on the judiciary, but it may not be the controversy that dooms it in the Senate. Reconciliation, the process lawmakers are using to pass the bill with only Republican support, requires the entire bill to relate directly to the budget. 'Make It Happen' Several Republicans have expressed skepticism the measure can survive under that process. But, Jordan, the House judiciary chair, said Republican lawmakers will seek an alternative path to pass the measure if it's ruled out in the Senate. 'I'm sure we'll look at other ways to make it happen,' Jordan said. The bond fight stems from an existing federal rule that says judges can enter temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions 'only if' the winning side posts a security that the court 'considers proper.' The bond is to cover 'costs and damages' if they ultimately lose. University of Notre Dame Law School professor Samuel Bray, a proponent of injunction bonds, said courts should account for whether litigants have the ability to pay. Still, he said, defendants should be able to recover some money if a judge's early injunction — a 'prediction' about who will win, he said – isn't borne out. 'If courts routinely grant zero dollars, what they are doing is pricing the effect of a wrongly granted injunction on the government's operations at zero,' Bray said. Courts have interpreted the rule as giving judges discretion to decide what's appropriate, including waiving it, said Cornell Law School Professor Alexandra Lahav. The bond issue usually comes up in business disputes with 'clear monetary costs,' she said, and not in cases against the federal government. 'It's not clear to me what kind of injunction bond would make sense in the context of lawsuits around whether immigrants should have a hearing before they're deported,' Lahav said. 'I'm not really sure how you would price that.' (Updates with Senate proposal in the third paragraph.) American Mid: Hampton Inn's Good-Enough Formula for World Domination The Spying Scandal Rocking the World of HR Software New Grads Join Worst Entry-Level Job Market in Years As Companies Abandon Climate Pledges, Is There a Silver Lining? US Tariffs Threaten to Derail Vietnam's Historic Industrial Boom ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
