Pennsylvania's powerful gun owners' rights lobby scored one more win Friday in a bill meant to separate domestic abusers from their weapons.

But the sponsor of the bill, Rep. Marguerite Quinn, said it was a compromise she's willing to take because the finished product still "beats the heck out of what we have on the books right now in terms of protecting our victims."

Quinn, a Bucks County Republican who is running for an open state Senate seat this year, appealed to other gun reform supporters to stick with her when the bill comes back to the floor next week.

House Bill 2060, at its core, would require persons subject to final protection-from-abuse orders to surrender all guns in their possession within 24 hours. It's a goal domestic violence advocates have been pursuing for more than a decade.

The change voted in Friday would apply to defendants in domestic violence cases who have reach a consent agreement with their accusers to stop complained-of behaviors and, possibly, refrain from future contact.

In those cases, judges would have the discretion to order a surrender, but it would not be mandatory.

Mandatory surrender would still apply in cases where a court imposed a PFA order after a contested hearing. But abusers who agreed to voluntarily accept orders would have at least a chance to keep their guns.

It's a significant step back in a state in which, according to court records, some 34,245 PFA's were granted in 2016. It was not clear how many of those resulted from consent agreements.

But Quinn, in an impassioned speech to House Appropriations Committee members, said the important question here is, is the final product better than what's on the books now?

Her answer was yes, because:

* It still requires the surrender of weapons in cases where a found abuser has contested the case against him or her, and possibly in other cases if a court finds it necessary.

* It eliminates the ability of that abuser to turn their guns over to family or friends.

Any such safekeeping under the new bill would have to be either with local law enforcement, licensed gun dealers or commercial armories, or the defendant's attorney.

Quinn said later that the consent agreement amendment, offered by Rep. Sheryl Delozier, R-Lower Allen Township, was the result of ongoing pressure from gun owners' rights groups like Firearms Owners Against Crime and an intense GOP caucus discussion.

That led, she said, to a request from House Republican leaders - who apparently are trying to tamp down splits in the majority caucus - to have further discussions about the PFA language.

It was, in part, a "guy" thing.

Quinn said there were concerns expressed in caucus discussions that PFAs - which have a lesser evidentiary threshold than a criminal conviction and can run up to three years - can be used at times as tools in divorce settlements or child custody fights.

Nonetheless, Quinn and Delozier both said they had no problem taking a step back.

"I think it's a thousand times better than what we have on the books, and honestly, if we didn't try to get some more folks on board we may lose the vote entirely," Delozier said.

The amendment ultimately passed on a strong, 29-6 vote.

That sets the stage now for a House floor debate, which Majority Leader Dave Reed, R-Indiana County, said is anticipated for Monday.

If the Quinn bill passes the House, it would still need consideration by the state Senate, which overwhelmingly passed a similar bill in March.

Senate Majority Leader Jake Corman, R-Centre County, said his team will give the bill serious consideration if and when it arrives in their chamber.

"We did that domestic violence package, which was very important to us," Corman noted.

"If they pass something and send it over, we're prepared to come back immediately... We're certainly open to coming back and finishing up important work."