Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Threatening topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers and witnesses spar over bill to expand criminal-threatening law for replica guns
Summary
A Senate Judiciary hearing drew sharply divided testimony on HB1240, which would broaden 'criminal threatening' to include conduct involving items that 'reasonably appear' to be deadly weapons. Attorneys, advocacy groups and law-enforcement critics warned the change could criminalize replicas and toys and give prosecutors extra leverage; sponsors argued stronger tools are needed to protect public servants and victims.
Senate Judiciary Committee members heard nearly two hours of testimony on HB1240, a bill that would expand the state's criminal-threatening laws to cover situations in which an object 'reasonably appears' to be a deadly weapon.
Attorney Penny Dean, who identified herself as a New Hampshire practitioner with federal court experience, urged the committee to send the bill to interim study or substantially rewrite it. "The road to heck is paved with good intentions," she said, arguing the measure would create prosecution risk for people who handle or display training guns, toy guns or starter pistols: "I have paintball guns. I have training guns, and they look as real to most people as you can imagine." She warned the change could enable "charge stacking" and prompt juries and prosecutors to treat ambiguous conduct as felonious.
Former Representative J.R. Hole, testifying for the New Hampshire Firearms Coalition, told senators the bill had little public support during the House phase: "During the public testimony, zero people testified in favor online, 162 testified against it online, and zero were neutral," he said, and he noted the bill's House passage by narrow margins (reported in committee and on the floor). Hole and other opponents argued the proposal would raise some offenses from misdemeanors to class B felonies and risk criminalizing lawful open carriage or mistaken displays.
Supporters and bill sponsors argued current statutory tools are sometimes insufficient to address threats. Representative Keith Ammon, who described personal threatening messages he received, said the measure addresses shortcomings in the state's statutes and sought stiffer penalties and protections for public servants and their families. Mr. Ammon described the bill's intent as ensuring meaningful sanctions in severe cases.
Committee members probed both sides on precise language and real-world scenarios — for example, whether costumed children, replica firearms or a finger in a jacket pocket could create criminal exposure under the bill. Several senators urged clearer drafting to avoid sweeping in harmless conduct.
The hearing record shows no final vote; senators concluded public testimony and left the bill for further consideration. The committee did not adopt a final recommendation during the session.
