Explore The NRA Universe Of Websites

APPEARS IN Legal & Legislation

New Hampshire: House Floor Votes On Anti-Gun Bills Possible Soon

Tuesday, June 4, 2019

New Hampshire: House Floor Votes On Anti-Gun Bills Possible Soon

At any moment, the New Hampshire state House of Representatives may hold floor votes to consider concurrence on a number of bills received from the Senate that would impact our Second Amendment rights, including legislation to criminalize the private transfer of firearms, impose waiting periods, increase arbitrary boundaries where law-abiding citizens are left defenseless, and take away the constitutional rights of individuals without due process.  Please contact your state Representative and urge them to OPPOSE House Bills 109, 514, 564, and 696.  Click the "Take Action" button now to contact your state Representative.


House Bill 109, as amended, would essentially ban the private transfer of firearms, with very limited exemptions.  It would employ a broad definition of "commercial sales" that would require private individuals, such as collectors and hobbyists who attend gun shows to trade firearms among each other, to conduct their transfers through Federal Firearm Licensed (FFL) dealers.  The exemptions in the bill for private individuals not attending gun shows are so narrow and this definition of "commercial sales" is so large that they are effectively useless.

This is a solution in search of a problem.  Federal law already requires firearm dealers, regardless of location, to do background checks when transferring firearms.  According to federal studies of how prison inmates acquired firearms, fewer than 1% reporting acquiring them at gun shows, and the vast majority acquired firearms on the back market, by straw purchase, or theft.  In addition, ATF has reported that nearly half of illegally trafficked firearms originate through straw purchasers alone.

House Bill 514, as amended, would delay Second Amendment rights by requiring a three day waiting period (excluding weekends and holidays) before an individual may receive firearms that they purchase.  There would be limited exemptions, such as for those who have completed the 16 hour hunter safety course and are seeking to buy a long gun.  The original version of the bill would have imposed the waiting period for seven days, excluding weekends and legal holidays, and included ammunition as well, but those provisions have been amended out.

Waiting periods are an archaic relic from before the digital age, since they were originally meant to give local law enforcement time to complete background checks.  Since the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) came into operation in 1998, technology has allowed background checks to be done instantly, activating the law that eliminated the federally required waiting periods.  There is no evidence that waiting periods reduce suicides.  A waiting period would not deter or affect criminals, as they obtain the vast majority of their firearms from illegal sources.  It would especially affect first-time buyers seeking a firearm for self-defense, as it would be a seven working day delay where they and their loved ones are left defenseless.

House Bill 564, as amended, would allow school districts to adopt policies to prohibit law-abiding citizens carrying firearms for self-defense from going onto school grounds.  Parents would have to deviate from their normal routes to leave firearms at home or to park off-campus when picking their children up at school or attending school events.  So called “gun-free zones” simply disarm law-abiding citizens and leave them defenseless against the criminals who ignore such arbitrary boundaries.  School safety is of the utmost importance, but restricting the rights of law-abiding New Hampshire citizens won't result in increased school safety.

House Bill 696, would violate an individual's constitutional rights and allow for the seizure of firearms with an ex parte order absent due process and without regard for the basis of the order.  Further, law enforcement would be immune from liability for any damage done to the firearms they seize.  If an order expires, an individual would have to go to court to have their constitutionally protected property returned to them, unlike when the court may have seized the property wrongfully.

Again, please click the “Take Action” button above to contact your state Representative and urge them to OPPOSE House Bills 109, 514, 564, and 696.

TRENDING NOW
U.S. Department of Justice Declares Age 18-20 Handgun Sales Ban Unconstitutional

News  

Wednesday, September 23, 2026

U.S. Department of Justice Declares Age 18-20 Handgun Sales Ban Unconstitutional

On September 17, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued a memorandum opinion to answer the question “whether restricting young adults from buying firearms comports with the Second Amendment as the Supreme ...

Virginia Gun Shops Brace for the New Jerseyfication of the Commonwealth

News  

Monday, September 28, 2026

Virginia Gun Shops Brace for the New Jerseyfication of the Commonwealth

Jay Jones, the anti-gun but pro-bullets to the head Virginia attorney general, announced on September 15 the creation of the Firearms Accountability & Industry Responsibility (FAIR) Unit within the Civil and Criminal Justice & Public ...

DOJ Calls Time on Minnesota’s Second Amendment Waiting Game

News  

Monday, September 28, 2026

DOJ Calls Time on Minnesota’s Second Amendment Waiting Game

For too long, Minnesota Governor Tim Waltz and his anti-gun allies in the state have treated the exercise of a constitutional right as something subject to government permission and whatever wait is required for the ...

Support of Self-Defense for Law-Abiding Citizens Continues to Spread Globally

News  

Monday, September 28, 2026

Support of Self-Defense for Law-Abiding Citizens Continues to Spread Globally

In spite of some countries deciding they cannot trust their own citizens with firearms, other countries seem to be rejecting this policy…at least a bit.  

“Law abiding citizens with an AR-15 are not a threat to anyone” — Law Enforcement Groups Weigh in on Supreme Court “Assault Weapons” Cases

News  

Wednesday, September 23, 2026

“Law abiding citizens with an AR-15 are not a threat to anyone” — Law Enforcement Groups Weigh in on Supreme Court “Assault Weapons” Cases

The Trace, the “newsroom” funded by anti-gun extremist Michael Bloomberg, reported in June on the extent to which the NRA-backed NYSRPA v. Bruen case has, to date, rebuilt the modern Second Amendment landscape.

Trump DOJ Sues San Jose, Ca., Over $1,600 Concealed Carry Licensing Fee

News  

Wednesday, September 23, 2026

Trump DOJ Sues San Jose, Ca., Over $1,600 Concealed Carry Licensing Fee

Do you know the way to San Jose? Dionne Warwick famously asked in her 1968 hit song. Well, Assistant U.S. Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon certainly does, and she recently made sure the city was served ...

Everytown Goes Hunting for Credibility

News  

Wednesday, September 23, 2026

Everytown Goes Hunting for Credibility

The irony is nothing short of comedy. Multiple outlets are having a field day with the Michael Bloomberg-backed Everytown organization, which has spent years and millions of dollars supporting extreme restrictions on lawful gun ownership, ...

Study Suggests “Safe Storage” Mandates are Ineffective

News  

Wednesday, September 23, 2026

Study Suggests “Safe Storage” Mandates are Ineffective

While it likely comes as no surprise to most readers, a recent study suggests that government-mandates that law-abiding gun owners always secure their firearms when “not in use”—usually unloaded, separate from ammunition, and either in ...

NRA Files Amicus Brief Urging SCOTUS to Review Lawsuit Blaming Firearm Ads for Criminal Acts

Friday, September 25, 2026

NRA Files Amicus Brief Urging SCOTUS to Review Lawsuit Blaming Firearm Ads for Criminal Acts

Today, the National Rifle Association and Second Amendment Foundation filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to grant review in Daniel Defense, LLC v. Lowy. The case asks whether firearm manufacturers can be sued ...

NRA Files Amicus Brief Urging SCOTUS to Hear Challenge to Maine’s 72-Hour Waiting Period Law

Thursday, September 24, 2026

NRA Files Amicus Brief Urging SCOTUS to Hear Challenge to Maine’s 72-Hour Waiting Period Law

The National Rifle Association and Second Amendment Foundation filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to grant review in Beckwith v. Frey, a challenge to Maine’s 72-hour waiting period requirement for firearm purchases.

MORE TRENDING +
LESS TRENDING -

More Like This From Around The NRA

NRA ILA

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.