Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Firearm Return Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to speed return of firearms after court orders draws mixed testimony over NICS process
Summary
HB 506 would create specific timeframes and a procedure for courts and the Department of Safety to handle return requests for firearms seized under court order. Supporters called it a property‑rights fix; state police cautioned about operational complexity and requested flexibility.
Representative Dennis Mahan, sponsor, said the bill “is more about property than it is about firearms,” describing instances where people waited months to have firearms returned after a court order expired. The bill would amend RSA 159‑D to establish an expedited process for returning firearms and ammunition: courts could request a NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) check via the New Hampshire Department of Safety within two business days of a motion for return; the Department would have 10 business days to reply with “proceed” or “deny.” Denials must cite specific statutory prohibitions; an applicant may request a hearing and the court must schedule it within 10 business days.
Supporters from the firearms retail and owner community framed the bill as restoring property rights. Holly Novolecki said she waited 69 additional days to get her firearms back after her case was dismissed; she called the bill a needed “timely due process” fix. Jonathan (Joe) Stone, an industry operations manager, said agencies and courts can be slow and that statutory timeframes would protect owners from prolonged deprivation of property.
State police and the Department of Safety asked for careful drafting. Captain Muzzy (Department of Safety) urged preserving discretion in some cases and asked the committee to change “may” to “shall” in draft language or otherwise ensure the department can provide the information the courts need before being required to issue a blanket “proceed.” He cited examples where additional reports or criminal dispositions would affect the return decision and noted that the state’s gun‑line procedures mirror NICS checks used for purchases.
Legal and compliance witnesses urged clarifications. A federally licensed dealer explained that under federal regulations NICS may be used only by agencies with lawful authority in given circumstances and that the bill’s interaction with federal rules needs verification. Several questions at the hearing focused on whether the bill would require a NICS check in scenarios such as civil commitments or where mental‑health reporting is incomplete; witnesses noted that state access to mental‑health commitment records is inconsistent.
The bill drew practical concerns about operations (who notifies owners, how courts would provide orders to agencies, and whether the Department of Safety can reliably complete checks within the proposed timeframes). No committee disposition was recorded at the hearing.
Ending: Proponents emphasized restoring property and due‑process speed; law‑enforcement witnesses urged adjustments to retain investigatory flexibility and to resolve uncertainties about federal NICS rules before the legislature finalizes the bill.
