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

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.