Bill to report some court adjudications to federal background check system draws divided testimony

Senate Judiciary Committee members took testimony on SB 144, a bill to authorize New Hampshire courts to report certain adjudications to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and to create a process for people to seek restoration of firearm rights.

Sponsor Senator Deborah Ochsler (D–Seacoast) said the bill is narrowly drawn to authorize reporting only after court adjudication in three contexts: involuntary mental‑health commitment, a finding that a defendant is not competent to stand trial and is dangerous to self or others, or a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. She said the bill does not sweep in voluntary patients or people treated for temporary crises and would limit data shared to name, Social Security number, date of birth and a reason code. The sponsor emphasized confidentiality safeguards and a restoration procedure that includes a right to counsel and an independent psychiatric evaluation.

Witnesses offering support included Holly Stevens of NAMI New Hampshire, who described the bill as a measured approach and noted the IEA (involuntary emergency admission) process includes multiple hearings and counsel at later stages; Simone/Simonita Thurber and other survivors and family members told the committee the state’s failure to report adjudications to NICS creates gaps that have enabled prohibited people to pass federal background checks. Lana Nurk cited national reporting gaps and the Virginia Tech mass shooting as an example of the consequences of incomplete reporting.

Opponents including the Women’s Defense League of New Hampshire and other witnesses argued the bill would not address the underlying problems—including access to illegally obtained firearms and lack of treatment capacity—and said the measure discriminates against gun owners and people with mental illness. Testimony also raised operational questions about the 48‑hour window for relinquishing firearms, whether relatives or cohabitants would be required to move or surrender weapons, and how the court should balance public safety and due process.

Committee members asked technical questions about when reporting would be triggered, what items would be reported, the evidentiary standards at the various hearings (probable cause, preponderance, and clear-and‑convincing standards were discussed), and whether temporary hospital stays or voluntary treatment would be captured. Supporters and witnesses described safeguards intended to avoid stigmatizing people who receive mental‑health care, and several witnesses urged the committee to pass the bill as a narrow public‑safety measure.

The transcript does not record a final committee vote on SB 144; committee members discussed procedural details and evidentiary standards and did not adopt final language during the hearing.