New Hampshire Preemption Law Dies Amidst GOP Infighting

New Hampshire had an interesting bill. It was basically an expansion of the state’s preemption measure. As originally written, it expanded the list of self-defense products that weren’t to be touched by local governments. Yes, guns were already covered, but not everyone is comfortable with the idea of shooting another person. Some popular products weren’t covered under preemption, meaning local communities could restrict them.

That’s bad, obviously.

So, a bill was introduced. The House and Senate amended their version, and the state’s pro-gun attorney general had some issues with it, which I talked about on Thursday.

Well, it’s a non-issue now, since the bill is dead.

Legislators did not advance a gun bill backed by some Republicans that would have limited the ability of state agencies to unilaterally implement their own gun regulations on Thursday. The proposal faced criticism from some gun-rights proponents, including the state’s Attorney General, who warned it could have unintended consequences.

House Bill 609 came to the floor on the last day of the session with numerous provisions aimed at ensuring the Legislature maintains preemptive control over gun and other dangerous weapons regulations in the state. The measure was driven, in part, by frustration among some staunch Second Amendment advocates that the New Hampshire Department of Transportation has a policy that prohibits contracted plow truck drivers from carrying weapons.

The bill was amended to also include a sunset provision on existing weapons-related policies not already in statute, which could have put the University System of New Hampshire’s authority to prohibit guns on campus in jeopardy. Lawmakers previously failed to advance a separate “campus carry” bill this session that would have allowed students to have weapons on publicly funded campuses.

…

The House voted to table the measure on a 182 – 160 vote with no debate, with 28 Republicans joining 154 Democrats in opposition.

Earlier Thursday, Sen. Tara Reardon, a Democrat, said the bill had become “the backdoor to campus carry.” She also told Senate colleagues the measure could raise doubts about the ability of courts and airports to set their own gun restrictions.

To be fair, Reardon is probably right. The Senate’s version, with the sunset provision, covered all state entities. I didn’t think about it at the time, but yeah, that would have impacted the state’s colleges and universities.

I, however, don’t see that as a bad thing in the least. Nor do I see it as a problem for courts and airports to not be able to restrict law-abiding citizens exercising their right to keep and bear arms. I get why courthouses are considered sensitive places in many states, but that doesn’t mean I agree with it.

Still, this is where it stands in New Hampshire, and while I think they should have at least stepped back and looked at the House’s amended version, which didn’t include the sunset provision and I don’t think would have impacted the universities, if for no other reason than because anything is better than nothing, this is what they did.

This wasn’t a game-changer in the state, but it was still something that should have passed, and I’m disappointed in lawmakers there.

Hopefully, this can be revisited next year and get passed then.

Editor’s Note: The radical Left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.

Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.