[{"_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",6607603,"mediaKeyId","2949609-c10456dcdf2350525de4d6403944ba3d","parentId",2949609,"title","Committee reviews amendment to limit product‑liability suits over optional firearm features; SIG Sauer urges change","audioSeconds",253,"startMs",3201000,"endMs",3454000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2949609-c10456dcdf2350525de4d6403944ba3d&start=3201&end=3454","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2949609-c10456dcdf2350525de4d6403944ba3d/thumbnail_3201000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6607603/New-Hampshire/Committee-reviews-amendment-to-limit-productliability-suits-over-optional-firearm-features-SIG-Sauer-urges-change","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6607603-5a7edc7f5fa854942b6996cb35a73448/orig.mp4?Expires=1771165504&Signature=e9MJqL0JGff6MiWOD4BdCnmRjHhpTCO5GLr8m4vCiV6gaV1ZUX4bcVlILxjpvOn8y7sNKV0x1rl1ti0xe7TCq000n9m-StgXGvcCPjNloSe~CjsU7uqND-hnm56wuhgFxthpZ3fyeQS-0bcz7zv-t0EudMtM7r5Iz6irgRZxOlRsZyW35t--5Xn3JQaeTC~wZP5Egd50A7dJeYDaifA8dwRmRhCtVSM43S8F8E~QWz2fdZJ69PB~KNMfMNiPBMKRadMWEGwVYiXk7fKvGPoamrhXmOmTJnVMVTuZK0OhHU3nuEvLTwlbHDMTsn8LflFceFO1pwtAbq~61a6aQqjQVQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","New Hampshire Legislature","date","2025-04-10T18:41:48.563Z","article","Senators heard an amendment intended to curb product‑liability litigation over optional safety features on firearms, a measure presented by Senator Bill Gannon with testimony from Bobby Cox of SIG Sauer.

“Just because they don't have those optional features does not make the gun ... defective,” Bobby Cox, vice president of government affairs for SIG Sauer, told the committee while describing a recent wave of litigation the company said targets firearms made in New Hampshire.

The amendment would narrow the circumstances under which a manufacturer could be found liable in tort on a design‑defect theory for a firearm that lacks certain optional features — such as external manual safeties, loaded‑chamber indicators or magazine disconnects — when those features are marketed as optional by manufacturers.

Why it matters: SIG Sauer and other supporters told the committee that out‑of‑state attorneys have filed multiple cases alleging that popular pistols are defective because they lack optional features, and that those suits in New Hampshire courts are imposing legal costs and forum shopping. SIG’s counsel said the company has voluntarily offered “upgrades” but maintains the base design meets industry standards.

Committee members pressed on legal reach and fairness. A senator asked whether the amendment would bar pending lawsuits or apply only prospectively. The sponsor and supporters said the intent is to prevent future forum shopping; they acknowledged pending cases may not be subject to a retroactive bar. Another senator asked whether dealers and other commercial sellers should be included in any limitation on liability; a questioner suggested the draft could be broadened to apply to licensed dealers as well as manufacturers.

Opponents said the change could limit remedies for injured people and risk insulating defective products. Senators also noted some product‑safety claims involve malfunctions or inadvertent discharges that are not about optional features and would remain actionable, the sponsor said.

No committee vote is shown in the hearing transcript. The amendment drew extended questioning from multiple senators and the company, and the committee indicated it may request drafting clarifications and counsel input before further action.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Judiciary (04/10/2025)","oneSentenceSummary","Senators heard an amendment intended to curb product‑liability litigation over optional firearm safety features, presented by Senator Bill Gannon and supported by representatives of SIG Sauer.","taxTitle","Judiciary, Senate , Committees\t, Legislative, New Hampshire","taxId",29511,"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},6607608,"House bill would limit exports of certain firearms and seek Supreme Court test of commerce clause",722,1689000,2411000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2949609-c10456dcdf2350525de4d6403944ba3d&start=1689&end=2411","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2949609-c10456dcdf2350525de4d6403944ba3d/thumbnail_1689000.jpg","/articles/6607608/New-Hampshire/House-bill-would-limit-exports-of-certain-firearms-and-seek-Supreme-Court-test-of-commerce-clause","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6607608-a092fe2d494ca3ee4fbcf6c2a9e8a9b5/orig.mp4?Expires=1771165504&Signature=OEyxU7Z-oQrumunKVDwYqCel5d91T3TJHxJqXnQDR4rr0Mt1JM4r81ucQA~Mov4MsJrbnmxlyb44W31Z1HfXJbmV4T7~yT2Mx7nWNWwPCZtexLfSrhYqaZ3u7TrAs1D7jp578CGKrmoiH9BT3bCfw364NQFQ~jEls~AhV4YerCvvKXRHzqIjQErqQSgUpuGpRcoed2L-sRw3zVMyWGOfRi0HwXYVVFPEOpuY8qfCCrbjvcZN4rgcFR12te8b7IYGHJ59~u0yJfXE4PiIZcYlVUoHUs3zVke2EpFvZ7TnfJa619BuQ7vvnFDI7lsb3SGBCK1hCtxXyRxHYSXlFI0xgw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Rep. Mike Belcher told the Senate Judiciary Committee that House Bill 381 is aimed primarily at setting up a court challenge to federal regulatory power and is not itself a blanket nullification of the National Firearms Act.

“For the record, Representative Mike Belcher out of Carroll County District 4, Wakefield,” Belcher said while introducing House Bill 381. “The foremost point of this bill is a legal battle that I would like to see us get into the courts and potentially all the way up to the level of the Supreme Court.”

Belcher told committee members he crafted the measure to create a narrow state law that would permit intrastate manufacture of certain firearm components and accessories — including suppressors, short‑barrel rifles and shotguns — while making it a crime to export items that the state had specifically marked as “for New Hampshire use only.” He said the strategy is intended to force a judicial test of long‑standing Commerce Clause precedent, particularly the Supreme Court’s decision in Wickard v. Filburn.

Why it matters: supporters described the bill as an effort to restore states’ authority over intrastate commerce and to remove federal administrative barriers for items they consider safety‑oriented, such as suppressors. Opponents and several senators asked whether the proposal would effectively restrict where a lawful owner could take a firearm and whether the bill would create new conflicts with federal law.

Witnesses who testified in support said the bill would make it easier for in‑state makers and individuals to obtain items that now require federal NFA paperwork and tax stamps if those items remain inside New Hampshire. “If we were in a situation where the reality on the ground was you could manufacture anything in the state you want, and then take it out of state to any other state where it might be legal, then I would say yes,” Belcher said when asked whether limiting export could be viewed as restricting firearms. “But that's not the reality on the ground as it stands. The reality is this would give people the authority, should it be upheld, to manufacture within the state items such as a suppressor, for instance, which is a very important item for hearing protection, without having to go through a lot of federal legal hoops that are arguably unconstitutional under the NFA.”

Casey, identified as a board member of the New Hampshire Firearms Coalition and a part‑time employee at a Merrimack firearms shop, told the panel the measure would mirror recent state actions elsewhere — for example, Texas — that permit in‑state fabrication of suppressors that are not intended for interstate commerce. “It allows you to build firearms and accessories that are not meant for interstate commerce that are legal and don’t have to go through the NFA process,” Casey said.

Milo Myrecht of Pittsfield testified on the hearing‑loss benefits of suppressors and urged the committee to consider hearing protection when weighing the bill. “Almost every firearm ought to have a suppressor on it,” he said. Myrecht said his own hearing suffered after recreational range use and he described suppressors as “the same technology” as automotive mufflers.

Senators pressed sponsors on legal risk and downstream effects. One senator asked what would happen if a New Hampshire‑marked firearm or accessory were taken to another state where it is also legal. “Let's say someone were to buy something that's limited for only the state of New Hampshire…and then they want to move to another state... They can't bring it with them,” the senator said. Belcher responded that the bill is intended to create a legal record and noted that whether the measure would survive judicial scrutiny depends on appellate rulings the sponsor hopes to see.

No action or vote was recorded in the transcript. The bill remains in committee pending further comment and possible amendment.","Representative Mike Belcher told the Senate Judiciary Committee that House Bill 381 is designed to create a legal vehicle to challenge the reach of federal commerce‑clause authority, allowing intrastate manufacture of items such as suppressors while prohibiting their export from the state.",{"_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},6607612,"Senate Judiciary hears bill to allow adults to own brass knuckles, blackjacks and slung shots",683,601000,1284000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2949609-c10456dcdf2350525de4d6403944ba3d&start=601&end=1284","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2949609-c10456dcdf2350525de4d6403944ba3d/thumbnail_601000.jpg","/articles/6607612/New-Hampshire/Senate-Judiciary-hears-bill-to-allow-adults-to-own-brass-knuckles-blackjacks-and-slung-shots","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6607612-0cac0a10589fc03ef57519763dcef971/orig.mp4?Expires=1771165504&Signature=nGLUWvFVBJPyfhBnBz1~-LSU-KMRaBslC45x8~ZfzS2HJSVQ2GD-N6VLqf-xW32RMyknqwoGzCb~cXQ1x8oya5EIdB2X5y1We9I4xxgSvX-zOv~GrHUZpMx752XjLodPU21t5C5Nl27xfurEKiHc88sVTNqU7yctO~MsVrBFZLGMyGz9~ny069Chz32se-4ZHtSUyLrxdii~WyjHvIJFzyYIOdvBlsJdCviiWSk2jdPEC7vOfG29AY3DSlrOXB6B7J3TI4AdgGznioEsXiKT~SQHYvfYa9gIfDNxjXvcOSfA0LYaHP8bsX3c8bM5Y2jbpjBtSonvrOA3KoS9V0ZhAg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony on a bill that would repeal the state’s ban on ownership of certain impact weapons by people 18 and older.

Representative (Rep.) Splane told the committee the measure would align possession rules for brass knuckles, blackjacks and slung shots with current laws governing knives and similar items. “I would love to see us come in line with our knife laws and say that anyone 18 may not possess, buy, or sell these weapons, but that, they can be possessed, sold, and owned by people older than that age just like any other,” Rep. Splane said during the public hearing.

The bill’s sponsor argued the existing statute contains a long list of exemptions — including for licensed hunters and fishers, night watchmen and certain on‑duty personnel — that has rendered the prohibition largely unenforceable. Rep. Splane highlighted examples he said made the ban anomalous: “If I have a hunting and fishing license, which I do, I can carry brass knuckles. But if another representative doesn’t have a hunting and fishing license, he can’t,” he said, noting the statute’s list of exclusions is nearly as long as the prohibition itself.

Why it matters: supporters said the law is a technical mismatch with other weapons rules and criminal enforcement priorities. Opponents and some committee members raised enforcement and public‑safety questions, and several senators asked whether easier online availability would undercut the proposal’s intent.

Senator Osterholm questioned whether modern retail channels would make the weapons widely available even if the ban remained. “Are you aware that actually these items can be purchased brand new, updated, not vintage, on Amazon?” Osterholm asked during the hearing. Rep. Splane acknowledged that such items are sold in multiple forms, and said the proposal sought to reduce inconsistencies between statutes rather than expand access.

Members of the public who testified offered differing views on risk and enforcement. Jeff Kelman of Bedford, a member of his temple’s security committee, told the committee he supported the bill. “I am inclined to support HP 207 here,” Kelman said, adding he believed these items are less lethal on average than firearms and that enforcing the current prohibition could divert law‑enforcement resources from higher‑priority threats.

Committee members pressed sponsors on where the bill would leave law enforcement and how courts and prosecutors should treat the remaining exemptions. The hearing record shows discussion focused on whether the statute’s exemptions — for hunters and fishers “in the act of hunting and fishing,” for on‑duty personnel, and for other narrowly defined activities — were reasonable or unduly broad when applied across daily life.

The public hearing closed with no immediate vote. The bill remains in committee and could be amended before any floor action.","Representative Splane told the Senate Judiciary Committee the state's ban on certain impact weapons is inconsistent because numerous exemptions already allow possession; public witnesses and senators questioned enforcement and online availability.",{"_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},6607598,"Dealer tells committee federal law makes New Hampshire handgun‑seller license redundant",370,5688000,6058000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2949609-c10456dcdf2350525de4d6403944ba3d&start=5688&end=6058","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2949609-c10456dcdf2350525de4d6403944ba3d/thumbnail_5688000.jpg","/articles/6607598/New-Hampshire/Dealer-tells-committee-federal-law-makes-New-Hampshire-handgunseller-license-redundant","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6607598-1df6a504b784839ab309454eb5d1ef21/orig.mp4?Expires=1771165504&Signature=jrHdtfHwx9-Fe6k2nhVT~y0bHKhdAN4fU9~Q~hXNpLki~mv-HV0P79WbOwjXzhb3l5GI9~ECHVvQW9VppOBRIrLVjrTkcqmR19o3B0GfaT7X3pb06Gydxv0Z~6uOZu6n0qs4xb0Dpoffx2abD2X~KCYDJlCVskTO4fWnJj4kCs-5RIFwVYYta5Sh7kIyQajyiZiiM-puWjJ9XLy5dcYL2YBlm5hxiodHXLd~qfb9AuaYmdJ9Q2atIS~QwxG6V~Y95urSX~cXRcHUyysWyqQN6heOGpRv9udRHbGHLwH56MbssXyYHxaMVxgONfr0HyGRWrsSfVu2deg-Bvw0uyW-IQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A federally licensed firearms dealer told the Senate Judiciary Committee that state licensure of handgun sellers, enacted in 1923, is redundant because federal licensing and regulation already require local notification.

“I want to state upfront I will benefit if this bill is enacted,” said Jay Simkin, a federally licensed firearms dealer testifying in support of House Bill 551. Simkin said the state license costs him $10 every three years and imposes administrative steps he believes duplicate federal requirements.

Simkin told senators the federal Gun Control Act of 1968 and subsequent federal licensing and recordkeeping rules have long required transfer records and have the effect of notifying local authorities when a licensed dealer applies for or renews a federal firearms license. He said that overlap means the 1923 state law can be repealed without leaving a regulatory gap. “In short, federal law and regulation make 1 59 colon 8 redundant, and it can therefore go away,” Simkin said in his testimony.

He also flagged language in the state statute that appears to permit issuance of a New Hampshire permit for a nonresident to acquire a handgun in New Hampshire. Simkin said that language conflicts with federal law and practice, which require transfers to be processed through a federally licensed dealer in the buyer’s state of residence. “If someone from, say, Ohio wants to buy a firearm from me… I may not lawfully deliver that firearm to them. I have to ship it to a federal firearms licensee in the state of Ohio who will transfer it to that buyer,” he told the committee.

Why it matters: supporters said repealing the old license would remove duplication and paperwork for in‑state dealers without weakening federal controls. The witness said the repeal should be followed by cleanup of statutory language that conflicts with federal transfer rules.

No action or committee vote was recorded in the transcript. The committee acknowledged the testimony and indicated it may request clarifying amendments to align state law with federal transfer rules.","A federally licensed firearms dealer told the Senate Judiciary Committee House Bill 551 would remove a 1923 state licensing requirement that the witness said federal law and modern licensing already duplicate; he also warned that statutory language allowing nonresident handgun permits conflicts with federal law.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee reviews amendment to limit product‑liability suits over optional firearm features; SIG Sauer urges change

House bill would limit exports of certain firearms and seek Supreme Court test of commerce clause

Senate Judiciary hears bill to allow adults to own brass knuckles, blackjacks and slung shots

Dealer tells committee federal law makes New Hampshire handgun‑seller license redundant