The North Dakota House of Representatives on the floor approved House Bill 15‑88, a measure that changes several statutes governing where people may carry firearms and creates a new process for political subdivisions to control weapons in publicly owned buildings.

House Bill 15‑88 passed after the chamber approved Division A (sections 1, 2, 5 and 6) 82‑10 and Division B (sections 3 and 4) 52‑40; the final vote on the full bill was 49‑43 in favor. Representative Heinert, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee presenter for the bill, described the major changes in Division A, including raising a knife‑blade length threshold from five inches to six, a new liability exemption for some public and private entities, and a modification to the requirement that a person produce a license to carry when asked by law enforcement.

The bill also modifies a statutory exception for parking lots and grants the Board of Higher Education authority to control buildings under its ownership, a change several members said could expand or clarify where firearms are prohibited on college campuses. "The key word there is buildings, publicly owned and operated buildings. And now this says property," Representative Koppelman said, warning that the change could broaden gun‑free zones across campuses. "Where this would be very different is property — if you think of an entire campus." Representative Porter, a committee member who spoke in support, replied that the statute referenced in committee (Section 62.10213 of the North Dakota Century Code) already addresses parking lots and public walking areas and that higher education would still control their buildings.

Division B contains two elements: it allows a political subdivision (city, county, park district or school district) to enact an ordinance prohibiting possession of firearms in public areas of publicly owned or operated buildings, and it adds a new criminal enhancement tied to the use of a binary trigger in the commission of a crime. "This now puts the onerous back on our political subdivisions," the bill presenter said of the local ordinance language. Opponents said the change undercuts the state's long‑standing preemption on firearm ordinances dating to 1981 and risks creating a patchwork of local rules. "As soon as we have a checkerboard of ordinances, and you come into a building and you're unsure, 'What is the city's ordinance on this?'" Representative Koppelman said.

Supporters said the change preserves statewide gun law preemption while recognizing a property owner’s ability to post and restrict weapons on its own premises. Representative Porter said the committee aimed for a compromise modeled in part on Minnesota law: property owners who do not want firearms must post that restriction. "It's their building. If you don't want guns in there, you need to now put a sticker on the door," Porter said.

A separate controversy in the debate involved a provision creating an additional felony for using a binary trigger during a crime. Some members called that provision symbolic or unnecessary; Representative Conmeade urged support, citing a local police fatality he linked to a weapon with such a trigger.

Votes on the bill were taken by division after Representative Koppelman requested the question be divided into Division A (sections 1, 2, 5 and 6) and Division B (sections 3 and 4). Division A passed 82‑10; Division B passed 52‑40; the full bill passed 49‑43.

Representative Heinert closed debate by recommending a green vote after committee adoption of all sections. The bill now moves to the Senate as passed by the House.

Provisions accepted in the bill will take effect according to existing statute timelines unless the Senate or enacted changes specify otherwise.