H.B. 86 Restricted Person Amendments

What this bill does

This bill would treat a person found not guilty by reason of insanity or incompetent to stand trial in a criminal case as a restricted person for dangerous weapons purposes, whether the charge is a felony or a misdemeanor. Under current Utah law, that restriction applies only when the case involves a felony.

Plain-English summary written by AI from the official description. Check the official text below.

Your legislators on this bill

Enter your address to see what your own representative and senator did on this bill.

Quotes come from the official recordings' automatic captions, which can mishear words. Speakers and summaries are identified by AI and can be wrong. Use the ▶ links to check the recording.

Take action

This bill's session is over, but your legislators still want to hear from you. Ideas that died often come back next year.

Enter your address to get your legislators' contact information and a ready-to-send message about this bill.

Every vote

• 11 yes, 0 noHouse Judiciary Committee: Refer to Committee · Jan 23, 2026Who voted how
• 7 yes, 1 no, 3 absentHouse Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee: vote to approve it · Jan 28, 2026Who voted how
• 48 yes, 18 no, 9 absentFinal House vote · Feb 6, 2026
• 4 yes, 0 no, 3 absentSenate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee: vote to approve it · Feb 27, 2026Who voted how

Hearings and debates

• Jan 23, 2026 House Judiciary Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (4 turns)

  1. Rep. Verona Mauga39:33

     I am asking if we could lift this bill and, and move it to criminal justice. We've done some work on it with some of the members on that committee. And so it, um, it's a bill that died last session, but passed the house and committee, so I'd like to take it back there.

  2. Committee chair (presiding)39:46

     All right. So the motion is to refer HB 86 to Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee. Any discussion to that motion? Seeing none, uh, would you like to say anything more? I

  3. Rep. Verona Mauga40:03

     Waive. Thank

  4. Committee chair (presiding)40:03

     You. All right. All in favor of referring this bill to law enforcement and criminal justice committee. Say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. The motion passes unanimously. Our speeding Right along. Is Representative Teuscher in the room or should we go to my bill? Okay. I'll present really quickly on my bill. I'm gonna turn the chair over to represent Clancy, the vice chair, and then I'll just present from here if that's okay.

• Jan 28, 2026 House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (15 turns)

  1. Committee chair2:39:36

     So thank you. Thanks for being here with us.

  2. Rep. Verona Mauga2:39:40

     This is House Bill 86. Thank you Mr. Chair and colleagues. Um, this is the bill I brought to your committee last session. Got a lot of really good feedback from you all. We were able to make some adjustments, um, and then it passed here unanimously. Hoping to get, um, some support and answer any questions you guys have today. Uh, this bill addresses when someone is prohibited from possessing dangerous weapons after a court has determined that they aren't mentally capable of understanding or participating in their own criminal case, or not criminally responsible to due to mental illness. What this bill does is straightforward it, if a court finds an individual not guilty by reason of insanity or mentally incompetent to stand trial in a criminal case, that person is considered a restricted person for the purposes of dangerous weapons, regardless of whether the underlying charge is a felony or a misdemeanor. Right now, Utah law only applies this restriction to felony cases, while federal law applies it based on the court's mental capacity finding alone. This bill clears up confusion by aligning Utah statute with federal law. So there is consistent, a consistent standard for when someone is considered a restricted person following that type of court. Finding this restriction isn't permanent. Permanent, um, there is a clear legal pathway for individuals to restore their rights once they're found competent or no longer meet the restriction criteria. And I just wanted to share, 'cause I got some questions from constituents. Um, this applies only in criminal cases. It after a formal court finding, it does not apply to civil or voluntary arrangements, including veterans or others who choose to have family members help manage their affairs. And it really just brings clarity. It's a public safety bill. I have Brett s Robinson here with me to, um, continue the presentation. Thank you. Alright, Thank you.

  3. Brett Robinson, Chief Policy Advisor, Salt Lake County Attorney's Office2:41:46

     Thank you, Mr. Mr. Chair and good afternoon members of the committee. Um, I am Brett Robinson, the Chief Policy Advisor for the Salt Lake County District Attorney's Office, and we'd like to thank the sponsor for bringing this forward. Um, one thing that I'm, I'm not sure that people realize that is when competency is raised, um, whether it's for a felony or whether it is for a misdemeanor or even I Justice Court, when that's adjudicated, it's a adjudicated in district court according to the same policies. So all the same due process rights are afforded, they're represented by counsel. Um, they have forensic, um, experts who are weighing in on this as well. Um, and since the process isn't different, it just seems odd to that one person would be restricted while the other one wouldn't, um, under the same process. But what is the same is that whether they're a felon, uh, or in a felony court or in a misdemeanor court, um, is that we can't hold them accountable, um, for crimes that they may have committed. And for that reason, we think we probably shouldn't be giving them firearms as well because we wouldn't be able to hold them accountable for anything that they did with those as well. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have.

  4. Committee chair2:42:50

     Okay. Thank you. Uh, we like, we've heard this one before. Right? Okay. Bring it to the committee for clarifying questions.

  5. Unknown speaker2:43:01speaker not certain

     The only one I have, you haven't changed anything from what we did last year. The end, Nothing's changed. Yeah, that's what I thought. Okay.

  6. Committee chair2:43:06

     I didn't see anything, but, um, is there anyone, uh, here to speak to this one? Okay, come on up, Brett. She's kicking you out.

  7. Marlis Jones, Director, Victim Services Commission2:43:21

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. Marlis Jones, director of the Victim Services Commission. We do support this bill, um, for many reasons. Uh, on a personal note, formerly a prosecutor and before that victim advocate, over 25 years, we worked with a lot of misdemeanor cases. And in those we did have individuals that suffered from mental health issues and they absolutely were a risk. Some of them were able to get the help they needed, some did not. Uh, but, but there is a risk factor with it. And even though it is appearing in a misdemeanor court, um, with an alleged misdemeanor lower level offense, it doesn't mean that the potential risk to others around them is any less. And, and the risk to them themselves, um, is also of great concern because mental health issues can also contribute to suicidal ideation. So I think that, um, this is a good bill. We really appreciate Representative Mauga work and Mr. Robinson's as well, and hope that you'll consider it and, and pass it through. Thank you. Thank You. Thank you.

  8. Committee chair2:44:24

     So I gotta ask your representative, did she say it right or did I say it right? I wasn't paying attention. Say it again. Let me hear you say it. Representative Manna? Yes. Manna? Yes. Okay. Yep. You got it right. Thank You. Okay, good. I still was scared just now. Alright, thank you. Alright, go ahead. Good luck.

  9. Ryan Robinson, Statewide Association of Prosecutors2:44:46

     Good. You, uh, chairman and committee, uh, Ryan Robinson was swapping. I just wanted to briefly, uh, uh, let the court, uh, let the committee know that, uh, this is a bill that we supported last year. We continue to support, uh, we see this need, uh, sadly, you know, often in our courtrooms with people who suffer from mental illness, but are to such an extent that, uh, they can't even be brought to trial, which means we can't sentence them, we can't, uh, provide the services that come with probation. And, uh, they're really people that would be best without a firearm. And so we, uh, we appreciate the sponsor, uh, writing this bill.

  10. Committee chair2:45:26

      Okay. Thank you. Does that conclude our public comment? Looks like. Okay. Nobody on mine. Okay. Return to the committee for discussion or action. Hit those buttons quick, guys. There we go. Representative Hollins.

  11. Rep. Doug Hollins2:45:43

      Thank you. I move that we pass out HB 86 with a favorable recommendation.

  12. Committee chair2:45:49

      That's in order. Would you like to speak to it? I'll waive Thank you. Any discussion to the motion? Okay. Seeing none, sponsor, I'll waive. Thank you, Representative. I'll waive. Okay. The motion is that we pass out House Bill 86, which was really worked on last year again this year. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Say nay. Nay. Okay. We've got one Nay representative. Is that Peterson? Okay. Okay, so we lost, uh, we lost one member. So seven one is our total on that with Representative Peterson voting against. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, representative. Okay. Now to the last item on our agenda. Um, Senator Wilson. This is Senate bill 1 34, second substitute. Um, while he's doing that, we have a, we have a quorum. I do need a motion on our minutes from January 23rd.

  13. Committee chair2:46:58

      Uh, Representative Ballard, go ahead. Motion

  14. Rep. Melissa G. Ballard2:47:01

      Approve the minutes. Sorry. Motion to approve the minutes. That's in order.

  15. Committee chair2:47:06

      Would you like to speak to it? Waive. Okay. Any discussion of the motion? All those in favor approving our minutes of, of January 23rd, say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, well done. And we got it.

• Feb 6, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (13 turns)

  1. Madam Reading Clerk37:52

     Madam Reading Clerk House Bill 86, restricted person amendments by Representative Mauga. This bill was heard in law enforcement and criminal justice with the vote. 7 1 3

  2. Rep. Verona Mauga38:05

     Representative Mauga. Thank you Mr. Speaker Pro tem HB 86 is a narrow clarification to Utah's restricted person statute relating to dangerous weapons. This bill says that when a court finds someone not guilty by reason of insanity or mentally incompetent to stand trial in a criminal case, that individual is considered a restricted person for purposes of possessing dangerous weapons, regardless of whether the underlying charge is a felony or a misdemeanor. Right now, Utah law applies that restriction only when the case involves a felony. HB 86 removes that distinction and instead focuses on the court's mental capacity finding. I wanna be very clear about what this bill is and what it is not. First, this bill respects constitutional protections and due process. Any restriction only applies after a formal court finding, following a very thorough and rigorous mental health evaluation process, legal representation and judicial review. A finding of incompetency or not guilty by reason of insanity, is among the most carefully reviewed and consequential determinations a criminal court can make. When a court has determined that a person is not mentally capable of participating in their own criminal case, severe or has severe mental illness, this bill recognizes that allowing access to dangerous weapons creates a serious safety concern for both the individual and the public. Second, this bill does not create any new categories of restricted persons. Utah already restricts individuals who have been found not guilty by reason of insanity or incompetent to stand trial. This bill simply applies that same standard consistently across criminal offenses. Third, this bill align Utah law with existing federal law, which already applies this restriction regardless of offense level. And fourth, this restriction is not permanent. There is a clear established legal pathway for individuals to restore their rights once Sarah found competent or no longer meet restriction criteria. And finally, this bill only applies to criminal cases. It does not apply to civil or voluntary arrangements, including veterans or others who choose to have family members help manage their affairs. HB 86 is about clarity, consistency, and public safety while respecting constitutional protections. And with that, Mr. Speaker Pro tem, I'm happy to answer any questions.

  3. Speaker Pro tem (presiding)40:32

     Thank you, Representative Mauga discussion to the bill Representative Peck.

  4. Rep. Nicholeen P. Peck40:38

     Thank you Mr. Speaker Pro tem with the sponsor. Yield to a question.

  5. Rep. Verona Mauga40:42

     I'd Be happy to. A question? Yes, go ahead.

  6. Rep. Nicholeen P. Peck40:44

     Thank you. I really appreciate the intent of this bill and how the bill is, um, trying to make it so that the people who maybe should not have weapons because of having mental duress or something like that, should, should not have them, thereby, hopefully not causing as many crimes. And I get that. Um, but as I read the bill, it looks to me as if a person could steal something and then be in court and have a lot of anxiety because of the court and related to that court, maybe even have PTSD episode and so then be ruled as mentally incompetent. And then later when they're maybe on medication, maybe not even on medication, just the anxiety is gone and they're fine, then suddenly they wouldn't be able to possess a weapon when it has nothing to do with that situation anymore. There's so many situational occurrences that I feel like, um, that this is a little narrow and, and because it lowers it down to just criminal instead of felony situations, a a situation where somebody steals something could come into play. So what I'm wondering with my question is, um, with that situation, um, how would that play out with this law if somebody steals and then has anxiety in court and can't focus and then is ruled incompetent? But then is is okay after court Representative manga, would you like to respond?

  7. Rep. Verona Mauga42:20

     Yes. Thank you for the question, Mr. Speaker. Pro tem, uh, that particular situation probably wouldn't, um, be affected at all. These findings only happen after thorough evaluation. Um, again, it's a rigorous evaluation process and the judge has to determine that this person is mentally incapable or they plea insanity.

  8. Rep. Nicholeen P. Peck42:43

     Okay, thank you. I I'm still just really concerned this could be a loophole. I'm not sure this is ready yet, even though I do appreciate the intent.

  9. Speaker Pro tem (presiding)42:51

     Thank you, Representative Peck further discussion to the bill representative Steve Ellison.

  10. Rep. Steve Eliason42:57

      Uh, thank you Mr. Speaker. Um, I rise in support of this bill. Um, regarding the previous, uh, questions that were raised. A, uh, a finding of incompetency would be, in my opinion, and I work full-time in the mental health area, uh, completely unrelated to somebody experiencing anxiety in a courtroom. This is a very, uh, uh, deliberate process to declare somebody incompetent because it involves the taking away of a number of rights, including their liberty. So, um, I think that, uh, and if they're incompetent to stand trial, they are typically then ordered a competency restoration. So it's not something taken lightly. The last thing I wanna mention, uh, several years ago I was invited to do a presentation at the American Psychiatric Association, presented, uh, with a, an esteemed psychiatrist on mass killers, mass shooters and how to prevent them. He had been a professor at, uh, Stanford University for 40 years and had done deep research into firearm violence. And the data shows somebody with a mental illness is more likely to be a victim of crime than somebody without a mental illness. But also some of the most serious mass shootings we've experienced in this country are disproportionately committed by an individual with a serious mental illness. I think this is a targeted way to help keep an individual that is generally temporarily in this state of mind, safe from themselves, as well as helping keep the community safe. Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro. Tim.

  11. Speaker Pro tem (presiding)44:47

      Thank you, Representative Eliason. Further discussion to the bill being none Representative Mauga for summation.

  12. Rep. Verona Mauga44:55

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro tem HB 86 is a clarification bill. It just aligns federal law with Utah law, um, and it it's a good bill. It, it creates a pathway. There's also already a pathway to restore your rights. Thank you. I ask for your support.

  13. Speaker Pro tem (presiding)45:12

      Thank you. Representative Mauga voting is open on house bill 86, restrict being all present, having voted voting will be closed. House bill 86, having received 48 yay votes. 18 nay votes passes the house and will be transmitted to the Senate for further consideration matter. Reading Clerk

• Feb 27, 2026 Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (11 turns)

  1. Committee chair1:36:35

     Okay, the next item on the agenda is house bill 86 restricted per person amendments. Representative Mauga, welcome to our committee. Time is yours.

  2. Rep. Verona Mauga1:36:51

     I thank you chair and thank you committee. Uh, you know, this is a bill I actually brought to your committee last year and we passed here, um, but it died on the last night. It's a simple fix to our restricted person's statute right now in Utah. If someone is found guilty, um, not guilty by reason of insanity or found mentally incompetent to stand trial, they are restricted from possessing a firearm, but only if it's a felony. This bill closes that gap and aligns us with federal law. Um, if a court has already determined that someone is insane or not competent to stand trial, this just applies that same standard across the board and that's all it does. Happy to answer any questions. Okay, Thank you.

  3. Committee chair1:37:34

     Any questions from the committee? The board's not lighting up, so we'll go to the public. Has anyone here like to speak? I see two hands. Please come forward and just occupy both chairs. If you would introduce yourself and if you represent a group, group or just yourself. And

  4. Brett Robinson, Chief Policy Advisor, Salt Lake County District Attorney's Office1:37:57

     Go ahead. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Brett Robinson. I'm the Chief Policy Advisor at the Salt Lake County District Attorney's Office, and we encourage support of this bill. Um, sometimes, uh, up here, it, the issue of guns can be sometimes divisive. Um, but this is one that is, um, that hasn't, that hasn't been the experience that we've had with this one. Um, the CCJJ supports, you can see that on, on their website. Um, victim Support commission also supports statewide Association of prosecutors supports as well. Um, as does the Law Enforcement Legislative Commission, um, across the board, their support for this because we do have a very robust due process in place already for those things that are already felonies. And it's the exact same process for those things that are misdemeanors. And because of that, at the end of the day, um, whether it's a felony or whether it's a misdemeanor, if somebody's not competent to proceed to trial or if they're found not guilty by reason of insanity, then we cannot hold them accountable in the criminal justice system. And because of that, we feel like it's appropriate for, regardless of what level of offense, if we can't hold 'em accountable, they probably shouldn't have a firearm. And for that reason, we encourage support. Thank you.

  5. Committee chair1:39:04

     Thank you for your testimony. Go ahead.

  6. Trevor Dyches1:39:06

     Yeah, my name is Trevor D***s. Um, just speaking for myself, but I'm in favor of this bill. I really love the power of, of small changes to lead to big effects. And that's what this bill does. Um, we already have the system set up, we already have the thing set up, and so just changing almost just a couple words in this, in this can lead to so much, um, change and even to, to some powerful, powerful effects. And for that, I'm in favor of this bill. Thank you.

  7. Committee chair1:39:31

     Thank you. Appreciate you coming and testifying. Any others? Would like to speak to the bill and the public? I don't have any online either, so I'm gonna close public comment and bring it back to the committee for further. I'll bring it to Senator Hankins.

  8. Sen. David P. Hinkins1:39:48

     Uh, thank you Mr. Chairman. I would just, uh, I'd like to make a motion that we pass out house bill 86 restricted persons amendment with the favorable recommendation from full parties

  9. Committee chair1:39:58

     Senate. Thank. Thank you Senator Motions. In order we pass out house bill 86 of discussion from the committee. I'm not hearing any seeing any, so I'll bring it back to you, representative for summation.

  10. Rep. Verona Mauga1:40:11

      Thank you for your time, Mr. Chair and committee. I, I think just one last point I'll make is that, um, not only do we have a robust, um, system to determine if someone is mentally incompetent or if they're gonna plead insanity, um, but there is also a pathway to receive your, your rights back. And I, I think that's an important note. Um, because sometimes we are, um, sometimes we, there are situations or times in our life where we, we do need additional supports or, or we're incapable of, um, of, of standing trial in our own criminal case. And, um, and then you get better. And so I just wanna point that out that there is a clear pathway to get your rights back. Thank you.

  11. Committee chair1:40:58

      Thank you representative. I actually had written down I wanted to ask that and you brought it up, so thank you for making that point. Senator. I'll waive, I'll waive. Okay. Alright. I'll place the motion. All in favor of passing out house bill. 86 restricted person amendments indicate by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Oppose, if any say nay passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Good weekend.