Supporters call HB 16-42 a targeted tool to prevent firearm suicides; opponents warn of due‑process risks
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
HB 16-42 would allow courts to issue time‑limited orders removing access to firearms from people judged an imminent danger; supporters cited suicide data and recent local tragedies while opponents raised constitutional and implementation concerns about ex parte orders and storage logistics.
CONCORD, N.H. — Representative Lauren Selleck told the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee that HB 16-42 is primarily a public-safety measure to temporarily remove access to firearms from people who pose an imminent danger to themselves or others.
"House Bill 16-42 is first and foremost a public safety bill and an important step in suicide and murder prevention in New Hampshire," Selleck said, citing the percentage of firearm deaths that are suicides in the state and multiple recent local fatal incidents discussed in testimony.
Supporters — including family members of people who attempted or died by suicide and public-health advocates — emphasized that brief, court-ordered removal of firearms can prevent impulsive, lethal acts. "Red flag laws save lives," one proponent said, recounting a family suicide where a firearm was used and urging that a temporary removal tool could have changed the outcome.
Opponents, including firearm‑rights advocates, some county law-enforcement witnesses and civil‑liberties lawyers, argued the bill permits ex parte removal with insufficient process, risks misuse for personal grievances, and raises practical problems about inventory, secure storage and timely restoration of firearms. Attorney Penny Dean said the current draft raises questions about receipts, public filing of inventories and whether courts and sheriffs can manage complex, high-volume seizures in short time windows.
The bill’s language requires an expedited post‑order hearing (in many cases within days), but opponents said compressed timelines and the possibility of mistaken or malicious petitions create serious due‑process risks. Supporters countered that similar emergency processes (for domestic-violence protective orders or child-safety holds) are already in use and can be tailored to protect both safety and procedural rights.
No committee recommendation was reached for HB 16-42 on the day; the hearing included lengthy testimony from mental-health professionals, survivors, veterans and law‑enforcement leaders and was recessed for later action.
Sources: Public testimony and committee discussion at the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee hearing on HB 16-42.