HB94 makes it a state crime to confiscate, seize, take, or transfer a firearm from someone the statute treats as a "law‑abiding citizen" unless the government follows constitutionally defined due process. The bill also forbids state or local governmental entities from accepting federal money to implement or enforce any federal statute, order, rule, or regulation that would result in such a seizure.
The measure adds criminal penalties for violations and defines three key terms—"due process," "firearm," and "law‑abiding citizen"—to govern how the prohibition would be applied. For professionals watching compliance, public safety operations, grant administration, and litigation risk, the bill installs a state‑level legal barrier that is likely to create conflicts with federal enforcement priorities and grant conditions.
At a Glance
What It Does
HB94 criminalizes the deprivation of firearms from individuals the statute labels as law‑abiding unless the government provides notice, a hearing opportunity, and a neutral decision‑maker. It separately bars governmental entities from accepting federal funding to implement federal rules that purport to authorize such seizures.
Who It Affects
State and local law enforcement agencies, district attorneys, courts that adjudicate firearm‑related proceedings, agencies that administer federal grants, and private firearm owners who are not otherwise disqualified from possession under state or federal law.
Why It Matters
The bill creates a state‑law shield around firearms possession that shifts decisionmaking toward pre‑seizure process and away from summary administrative or federal actions. That shift creates practical conflicts with federal statutes and grant conditions and raises immediate questions about operational cooperation, loss of federal funding, and litigation risk.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
HB94 adds a new state criminal provision making it unlawful for government actors to remove a firearm from someone the law classifies as a "law‑abiding citizen" unless the government follows what the bill describes as "due process." The statute spells out that due process requires notice, an opportunity to be heard, and a neutral decision‑maker, and it says the government must be able to point to an articulated standard of conduct to justify its actions. That structure pushes the determination about seizure into a pre‑seizure adjudicative frame rather than permitting summary administrative or warrantless takings.
The bill also instructs that no state or local governmental entity shall accept federal funds for the purpose of implementing, serving, or enforcing any federal measure that would have the effect of seizing firearms absent the statutory due process. Practically, this ties compliance obligations to grant administration: an agency that participates in or benefits from federal funding streams must reckon with whether those funds condition cooperation with federal seizure mechanisms and whether accepting them would expose the agency to criminal liability under the new state provision.HB94 includes a short penalties clause that makes violation a criminal offense.
It concludes with three definitions that set the scope of the protection: a broad list of devices that qualify as "firearm," a definition of "law‑abiding citizen" by cross‑reference to Louisiana and federal prohibitions on possession, and a textured definition of "due process." Taken together, the definitions narrow who receives protection (people not disqualified under specified statutes) while setting a relatively robust procedural hurdle the government must clear before removal of weapons.For on‑the‑ground actors, the bill creates immediate operational questions. Who determines whether someone is a "law‑abiding citizen" at the moment of an encounter?
How does an officer handle exigent circumstances or temporary protective orders? Which state office bears responsibility for deciding whether accepting a particular federal grant would violate the prohibition?
The answers are not supplied in the text and would fall to implementing agencies, prosecutors, and courts, producing uneven application and likely litigation.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The statute makes it a state crime to remove a firearm from a person classified as a "law‑abiding citizen" without constitutionally required process and makes violators subject to a fine up to $10,000 and imprisonment up to two years, with or without hard labor.
"Law‑abiding citizen" is defined by explicit cross‑reference to R.S. 14:95.1 and 18 U.S.C. 922(g) (and other state or federal laws), meaning people disqualified under those provisions remain outside the bill's protection.
The bill's definition of "due process" requires notice, an opportunity to be heard, a neutral decision‑maker, and an articulated governmental standard justifying the action—language that suggests pre‑seizure hearings rather than post‑seizure review.
Subsection B bars any governmental entity from accepting federal funding or grants specifically for implementing, serving, or enforcing a federal statute, order, rule, or regulation that would result in such firearm takings.
The provision begins with an "notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary" clause, signaling that the legislature intends this statute to operate even where other state rules or administrative practices might permit temporary seizure.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
State prohibition on firearm dispossession without process
This subsection declares that no firearm may be taken from a protected person except pursuant to due process. Practically, it converts many takings that today may occur during arrests, emergency response, or pursuant to federal orders into actions that must be justified under the bill's procedural standard. The statutory text does not list exceptions for exigent circumstances, so agencies will need to interpret whether and how emergency public‑safety seizures fit under the required procedures.
Prohibition on accepting federal funds tied to federal seizure schemes
This subsection forbids governmental entities from accepting federal grants for the purpose of implementing or enforcing a federal law, order, rule, or regulation that would effectuate firearm seizures absent the bill's due process. That places grant administrators and recipient agencies in a bind: accepting conditional federal dollars that require cooperation with federal seizure efforts could expose the entity to state criminal liability under this bill, while refusing funds risks loss of programs and services tied to those grants.
Criminal penalties for violations
The bill creates a state criminal penalty for violating the prohibition: a monetary fine and a potential term of imprisonment. Because the penalty applies to violations by a governmental entity or actors enforcing law, it introduces the prospect that individual officers or officials might face prosecution for carrying out seizures that the state later deems unlawful—raising questions about indemnification, departmental discipline, and prosecutorial priorities.
Definitions: due process, firearm, and law‑abiding citizen
The definitions section narrows and shapes operation of the prohibition. "Due process" is given a procedural gloss that foregrounds pre‑action notice and adjudication; "firearm" uses a broad catalog encompassing pistols, rifles, shotguns, machine guns, and black powder weapons; and "law‑abiding citizen" removes from protection anyone who is statutorily prohibited from possession under specified state and federal provisions. Those definitions will be focal points in any litigation or rulemaking about how strictly the state must limit seizures.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Criminal Justice across all five countries.
Explore Criminal Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Private firearm owners who are not disqualified under state or federal law — the bill raises the procedural bar before government can remove their guns and creates a statutory deterrent to seizure without process.
- Defense attorneys representing individuals facing pretrial or civil forfeiture actions — the statutory due‑process requirement and narrow definition of protected takings provide additional defenses and procedural arguments.
- State officials and elected leaders seeking to limit perceived federal overreach — the funding prohibition gives a statutory tool to refuse particular federal grant conditions tied to seizure activities.
Who Bears the Cost
- State and local law enforcement agencies — they face operational constraints, potential criminal exposure for officers, and the administrative burden of reconciling federal cooperation with the new state prohibition.
- State and local governments that rely on federally funded programs — refusing conditional federal funds to comply with the statute could lead to lost grant dollars for public safety, public health, and other programs.
- Courts and prosecutors — increased pre‑seizure hearings, contests over the status of "law‑abiding" and whether exigent exceptions apply, and potential criminal prosecutions against government actors will impose caseload and resource pressures.
- Victims and people subject to protective orders — if local actors interpret the bill narrowly, temporary seizure tools used to protect people in imminent danger could become harder to use, affecting public‑safety responses.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is straightforward: the bill aims to protect individual gun possession by requiring robust pre‑seizure process, but that protection directly clashes with government responsibilities to remove firearms in the name of public safety and with federal authorities' power to enforce national laws and condition grants—resolving one value (individual possession rights) risks undermining another (coordinated public‑safety and federal enforcement).
HB94 sets up a classic state–federal collision and leaves several practical gaps. On the federal side, the Supremacy Clause limits state laws that obstruct federal officers carrying out federal duties; HB94's funding prohibition and criminal penalty may generate immediate constitutional challenges or operational standoffs if federal authorities continue to execute seizures under federal law.
Separately, the bill's bar on accepting federal funds raises Spending Clause questions: the federal government can condition grants, and recipients who decline conditions risk losing funding rather than the federal government being bound by a state refusal.
Operationally, the bill's definition of "due process" elevates pre‑seizure adjudication but does not define timing, emergency exceptions, or the forum for hearings. That vagueness invites litigation and uneven local practices.
The statute also narrows protection to people who are not disqualified under certain statutes, but real‑time determination of disqualification (e.g., pending charges, temporary protective orders, or emergency mental‑health determinations) is messy in the field. Finally, criminalizing particular enforcement actions by public actors may chill cooperation between state/local and federal agencies and create choices for prosecutors about whether to pursue charges against officers who believed they were following federal law or court orders.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.