[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6345491,"mediaKeyId","2249126-040f73235d013416837d5d7a1363af24","parentId",2249126,"title","Votes at a glance: Committee moves and outcomes during the session","audioSeconds",161,"startMs",13031000,"endMs",13192000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2249126-040f73235d013416837d5d7a1363af24&start=13031&end=13192","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2249126-040f73235d013416837d5d7a1363af24/thumbnail_13031000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6345491/New-Hampshire/Votes-at-a-glance-Committee-moves-and-outcomes-during-the-session","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6345491-ce0f238653d072888a60c9dc39a1dfd8/orig.mp4?Expires=1771142275&Signature=CT8uTCnxZp7ERlUT4SFOWbdvfxXzx-Y5QPAMzCpYDGwQYsCSgpapxBBZ7ilpvR4EPobiBCIVjtP9Prr7E1lXtyx~a7ctOac2bKfEWiv0e7lH6wnFyQdb5tVJnkLWqWgCkrRItO60HXbWttrOSJriZOvjP01hxqX6x4ybU3vLU8SER2GNiVkRANsWWe8azdg7sxzYY9yYogDOxLt~oIiL-tZBORwWmwRIuzkT6kf1dYayiR7T2SU8xfziO-NossxF3bG2ad2du0p8XxchHumbIu~yVZ5Uz67uWaa5~i5l7jJmWSuTop0he3jjexvx4nxD2KZ5cOt9qjAFu5qRXFwauA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","NH House of Representatives Committee","date","2025-02-07T00:00:00Z","article","At the end of the public hearings the committee moved several measures into executive session and recorded votes. Key outcomes recorded in the transcript included:

- House Bill 777 (New Hampshire Law Enforcement Accreditation Commission): Ought to pass. Roll call recorded as 16‑0; listed members present voted yes. Sponsor, Representative Terry Roy, and Director John Scopa (NH Police Standards & Training) had described the measure to codify a governor’s executive order creating a state accreditation commission and a bridging process with CALEA.

- House Bill 778 (allow police‑training staff to accept law‑enforcement details and invoice agencies): Ought to pass with amendment (amendment clarified details could only be provided at the request of a state, county or local law enforcement agency). Roll call recorded as 16‑0 after adopting amendment 0329H.

- House Bill 338 (warrant/probable‑cause change for fish & game investigations): Motion recorded as inexpedient to legislate (ITL). Roll call recorded as 16‑0.

- House Bill 257 (criminal neglect/child endangerment revisions): Motion recorded as ought to pass; roll call recorded as 11‑5 with a minority report requested.

- Several other motions were taken: one later motion recorded as inexpedient to legislate for another bill (transcript shows a 16‑0 result) and the committee moved bills to consent with no objections on multiple items.

Roll calls and votes were made publicly and tallied in the transcript minutes; the clerk recorded the member votes for the measures above.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Criminal Justice and Public Safety (02/07/2025)","oneSentenceSummary","Summary of executive‑session outcomes and roll‑call results announced in the meeting: accreditation bill sent to pass, training‑detail bill passed as amended, several bills were tabled or recommended; roll‑call tallies recorded in minutes.","taxTitle","Criminal Justice and Public Safety, House of Representatives, Committees\t, Legislative, New Hampshire","taxId",17744,"location","New Hampshire","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6345495,"Advocates, Prosecutors Oppose Changes That Would Limit Firearm Relinquishment in Stalking Orders",1135,7435000,8570000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2249126-040f73235d013416837d5d7a1363af24&start=7435&end=8570","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2249126-040f73235d013416837d5d7a1363af24/thumbnail_7435000.jpg","/articles/6345495/New-Hampshire/Advocates-Prosecutors-Oppose-Changes-That-Would-Limit-Firearm-Relinquishment-in-Stalking-Orders","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6345495-86d70c3cc9c48394293e05134a8e12d1/orig.mp4?Expires=1771142275&Signature=gTEq6sjmK-ongZahjhMuHMXaHN6qd0jMMOruJFdPzNd-S0VVq5WZA3iHHLDuiFiI241uSvtMWkNorZhc1Id7HJTns~dhcT2MB2Ww4DCSWYt9rsY3riJpQO-tKLMXN4GpcWGWkCsjuK868YrKCPuD~kE26PkNTzF0rNt5w1VvToAqYIsNW4cIS-ovE4a498bIV0lWxedjYJk76udTvrREM5afnV94DdOOI1oI4vzPCzYC6SRLcb5~B7uizYwIjUyqfl6nS19MNZcssYi4iA-4O3aLkjxZzNi-VDeYYDxesfE2QZHoDs55i7Pjrr2G3B2G0tOEau5cl3SIqwruicrlwQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The committee held a lengthy hearing on House Bill 700, which proposes changes to the stalking/protective order petition forms and would add language intended to deter false petitions and to narrow automatic firearm relinquishment in certain non‑intimate‑partner stalking petitions. The bill drew sharply divided testimony from victim‑service organizations, prosecutors, victims and people who said they were harmed by what they described as weaponized petitions.

Representative Kelly Potenza (Strafford) said the bill addresses a gap that she and constituents found after a local experience in which a protective order filing led to the immediate confiscation of firearms that later escalated retaliation and a family hardship. The sponsor asked the committee to require that petitioners who make false statements be liable for perjury and to create more clarity around when firearms are seized; she also proposed language to prevent opportunistic or retaliatory filings that have collateral consequences for families.

Victim advocates and domestic‑violence organizations spoke strongly against the proposed changes. Pamela Kielig of the New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence and Shauna Foster of New Beginnings (Laconia) urged the committee to reject HB 700, saying it would put victims at risk and create new barriers for people seeking protection. They and other advocates noted that stalking and non‑intimate partner violence can be as dangerous as intimate‑partner violence; they pointed out that petition forms already include warnings about false statements and that judges need discretion to order firearm relinquishment when a court finds the case poses a risk.

Survivors and some witnesses offered starkly different testimony. Shauna Van Der Linda, whose father was killed after a neighbor intentionally ran over her family, urged lawmakers to keep all protections and to allow courts to remove firearms when the judge finds it necessary. Representative David Love and other witnesses described instances in which perceived false petitions triggered firearm seizures that imposed hardship on the accused and their families; they argued for stronger deterrents to misuse.

Assistant Merrimack County Attorney Steven Endres testified opposing the bill on procedural grounds and said existing statute and forms already contain perjury language; he cautioned that narrowing judicial discretion to order weapons relinquished could increase victims’ risk. He also explained that stalking petitions are intended for cases in which the parties are not intimate partners, and that federal law (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)) applies to certain restraining‑order scenarios tied to intimate partners, but not automatically to all stalking petitions.

The committee heard technical questions about forms used after hours, differences among protective‑order statutes and federal firearms rules, and whether changes might have unintended consequences of discouraging victims from seeking relief. The committee did not vote on HB 700 during the hearing.","Law enforcement advocates, victim‑service agencies and prosecutors told the committee they oppose House Bill 700 because it would make it harder for courts to remove firearms in stalking and protective‑order situations; petitioners and some lawmakers said the bill is needed to prevent weaponized, retaliatory petitions.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6345498,"Panel Divided Over Bill Requiring States to Report Involuntary Psychiatric Commitments to NICS",3530,20835000,24365000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2249126-040f73235d013416837d5d7a1363af24&start=20835&end=24365","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2249126-040f73235d013416837d5d7a1363af24/thumbnail_20835000.jpg","/articles/6345498/New-Hampshire/Panel-Divided-Over-Bill-Requiring-States-to-Report-Involuntary-Psychiatric-Commitments-to-NICS","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6345498-36dece6787e40437f587f2c0ab22453c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771142275&Signature=II2KCudZss7hvx8gKfw4o~e22SSIFlxHyIzooNJghfnJwmEphV335-A0dTrTIaeSMqT~oxYCXTPnI6gm0SQxsITShyXmAK360DvFr-x71RlVp57Qxvz3Aa-dSC0bpfDiYz~qwr7kE6IInUriS46wAJv4ajVOpZ-NL0EQ3Lf3xK4BiAhcRLoYTEtZFhy3RmZaD-KTTLPlBD9Sd1OytQKQs~oENvVGBmfHBzOih7N7nhSfgrByRvKv4C2gVKYw~OUEMrm12g6iR56zgdKF41YQ1V1rdX2cH-coyH5jPOJcC-N5veXQSEhklpaP6~rnJoUMxXgFe0Wi1QFz~Y8H5CkwmQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee took testimony on House Bill 159, a bill that would require New Hampshire courts or the Department of Safety to submit identifying information for people the court finds to be a danger to themselves or others and who are involuntarily committed, so the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) would block firearm purchases by those individuals.

Representative Terry Roy (Rockingham) sponsored the measure and said the change is intended to close a reporting gap: under current practice, New Hampshire does not routinely forward names from involuntary commitment findings to NICS, and the committee heard testimony that gaps contributed to a fatal shooting at New Hampshire Hospital where the shooter had previously been committed.

Supporters included physicians, psychiatric professional groups and suicide‑prevention advocates. Dr. John Hank, representing the New Hampshire Psychiatric Society and the Medical Society, described the measure as a public‑health step that could reduce suicides and prevent some homicides. Holly Stevens of NAMI New Hampshire testified in cautious support and emphasized that the bill applies only to those involuntarily committed after a court process (not people seeking voluntary care or simply evaluated) and that the bill includes procedural protections.

Medical testimony opposing the bill raised confidentiality and due‑process concerns. An emergency physician with decades of practice warned that sending mental‑health adjudication data to a criminal background check database is invasive and that the bill’s draft language contained internal contradictions about whether involuntary hospitalizations would be included in the exclusion for voluntary admissions. Multiple witnesses said the restoration‑of‑rights process in federal law is difficult: once a person is entered into the federal prohibited list, restoring rights is procedurally complex and, in practice, rare.

Gun‑rights organizations and private‑defense advocates strongly opposed the legislation. The New Hampshire Firearms Coalition and other witnesses argued the federal NICS system is imperfect, that thousands of denials are not followed by prosecution and enforcement is inconsistent, and that putting mental‑health data into a criminal database would further stigmatize people with mental illness and complicate employment and other civil rights.

Other witnesses urged lawmakers to focus on better mental‑health treatment and inpatient capacity rather than firearm reporting. Sponsor Roy responded that the bill includes a pathway for judicial restoration of rights if a person can show they are no longer dangerous, and he said the measure is narrowly targeted at individuals who have been involuntarily committed after a due‑process hearing.

Committee members asked technical and constitutional questions; the committee did not immediately move the bill to a vote. Lawmakers asked staff to review federal reporting rules and practical restoration pathways, and multiple witnesses offered to provide additional written materials.","House Bill 159 would add the names of people involuntarily committed as dangerous to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS); testimony split between clinicians, suicide‑prevention advocates and gun‑rights groups over privacy, due process and public safety.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6345500,"Committee Hears Broad Testimony for Bill Letting Some Lifers Seek Parole at Age 60",595,1907000,2502000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2249126-040f73235d013416837d5d7a1363af24&start=1907&end=2502","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2249126-040f73235d013416837d5d7a1363af24/thumbnail_1907000.jpg","/articles/6345500/New-Hampshire/Committee-Hears-Broad-Testimony-for-Bill-Letting-Some-Lifers-Seek-Parole-at-Age-60","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6345500-d8df48c71af69784b756f45672926a2e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771142275&Signature=okyXpGzfdghQqa-LwdFa5N-rKJYiK~ibuYEpzg0EpGZ7DRpTAAOhtfEra0sJVd4pzx7zfKxLiob8HEDMNuIoCAHSId1gL~~HktOMVrwXzWKYGwTSxrueWuhvEu1YoQxdQvJz79yXFA10GEQwKfGKdtOEI6B2oD7f93TaiIaYtMdglPKHU8amxgTWdHbLKsCxtEJCL7jPTtG74hq4Q9gkTE91VBZA-wna3jDBtkxQprNdRAx8eBSnNC3JkOIaDkWI2IpTIYO6KNesVPz7NWSL9pfrPbyPKixPmNxmgw5OAb9N7MbdTadoa26w1qiBxHLvBB0gxVyc1mP~dJpyGvxoFA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee members heard hours of testimony — much of it from survivors, advocates and the family members of long‑term prisoners — on House Bill 638, which would make some people serving life without parole eligible to request a parole hearing when they turn 60 if they have served at least 18 years and have no major conduct violations in the prior 10 years.

Representative David Muse (Portsmouth), the bill’s prime sponsor, told the panel the measure is not aimed at any one person but at the question of whether “there is a point where our need for retribution as a society can end.” Under the proposal, prisoners convicted of capital murder under RSA 630:1 would be excluded. Muse cited the state Department of Corrections fiscal note that estimated 15 inmates would have been eligible at the end of 2024 under the bill’s parameters, noting that the population and eligibility could shift slightly over time.

Supporters — including survivors of violent crime, forensic psychologists and advocacy groups such as Drop LWOP New England and the New England Innocence Project — said the bill would provide a carefully limited opportunity for review, not an automatic release. Alexandra Bailey, who described herself as a two‑time survivor, said national survey research and survivor voices often favor second‑look opportunities tied to rehabilitation, restorative processes and public‑safety analysis. Dr. Rishani Rees, a forensic psychologist and survivor, told the committee criminological research shows people ‘‘age out’’ of violent offending and that recidivism rates fall substantially with age.

Multiple witnesses used a specific incarcerated person — identified repeatedly in testimony as Gary Place — as an example of a person who supporters say has engaged in long‑term rehabilitation. Family members, ex‑colleagues and a number of former and current correctional staff described Place’s educational courses and mentorship inside prison and urged lawmakers to allow a parole hearing process for similarly situated people.

Opponents and some questioners urged caution and stressed that parole is a high‑bar, case‑by‑case process that already considers victims’ input and supervision and reentry planning. Representative Sarah Rhodes asked how reentry supports and supervision would operate for people released after decades behind bars; witnesses said parole processes require a plan and victims retain the right to participate. Sponsors said the parole board would continue to make final decisions about suitability and release.

Fiscal and policy details were raised several times. Muse noted an annual per‑inmate cost cited in the fiscal note of about $78,542 and argued that older incarcerated people often have higher health‑care costs. Several witnesses said the bill would not eliminate the governor’s power to commute or pardon but would provide an administrative parole avenue for review.

The committee heard personal stories across a wide range of views — from victims and survivors asking for accountability to advocates and clinicians citing research on aging and recidivism. Committee members did not take final action on the bill during the hearing. The debate underscored both the relatively narrow reach of the bill’s eligibility criteria and the strong feelings it raises among victims’ advocates, defense and innocence organizations, clinicians and family members of incarcerated people.","Lawmakers and dozens of witnesses debated House Bill 638, which would allow certain inmates serving life without parole to be eligible for parole hearings at age 60 after at least 18 years served; supporters said it creates a narrow second look and may reduce incarceration costs, opponents raised victims’ concerns.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: Committee moves and outcomes during the session

Advocates, Prosecutors Oppose Changes That Would Limit Firearm Relinquishment in Stalking Orders

Panel Divided Over Bill Requiring States to Report Involuntary Psychiatric Commitments to NICS

Committee Hears Broad Testimony for Bill Letting Some Lifers Seek Parole at Age 60