HB1697

2nd Amendment gone wild again and absurd "state's rights" claims

This bill would exempt certain firearms and firearm accessories manufactured and retained in New Hampshire from federal regulation. That exemption would significantly weaken oversight in a state that already has some of the weakest gun safety laws in the country. New Hampshire does not require universal background checks. There are no mandatory waiting periods, and licensing requirements are extremely limited. Because of this, New Hampshire is especially reliant on federal firearms laws to provide baseline protections. Exempting any firearm or firearm accessory from those laws would make our state—and the rest of the country—less safe. Firearms do not remain within state borders. Weakening federal regulation in one state creates loopholes that undermine enforcement nationwide and make it harder for law enforcement to keep guns out of the wrong hands. At a time when gun violence continues to devastate communities, HB 1697 moves New Hampshire in the wrong direction. I urge you to reject this bill and focus instead on policies that strengthen accountability and protect public safety. Thank you.

Time to stop the random killing by crazies and ICE in this country.

NH has very limited laws - lack of universal background checks, no required waiting periods, and limited licensing requirements. This makes New Hampshire reliant on federal laws. Exempting any firearm from these laws would make our state and the rest of the country unsafe. Americans live in more fear of gun violence than any other developed nation. Reducing regulations is NOT the answer to making our citizens more safe.

As a state, NH has very limited laws - lack of universal background checks, no required waiting periods, and limited licensing requirements. This makes New Hampshire reliant on federal laws. Exempting any firearm from these laws would make our state and the rest of the country unsafe. I have personally been impacted by domestic violence in the home and do not wish to have even less stringent rules to protect our citizens. Please do now allow this bill to proceed.

Testimony Opposing HB1697: An Intersectional Examination of Harms New Hampshire's HB1697, which seeks to exempt certain firearms and firearm accessories from federal regulation, poses significant risks and harmful consequences that must not be overlooked. Through an unwavering examination of its implications, it is clear that this bill not only jeopardizes public safety but also exacerbates existing social inequities, particularly affecting marginalized communities. This legislation threatens to erode the foundational principles of responsibility and regulation that govern firearm use and ownership. The notion of exempting firearms produced within state borders from federal oversight demonstrates a profound disregard for the broader implications of unregulated access to dangerous weaponry. It invites chaos and poses severe threats to community safety, public health, and the rule of law. Intersectional Harms of HB1697 1. Public Safety Risks: Exempting firearms from federal regulations opens the door to increased gun violence and accidents. Communities most affected by gun violence are often those with fewer resources to address the repercussions of unchecked firearm access. Low-income neighborhoods, which already face significant challenges, risk becoming even more vulnerable to gun-related incidents, perpetuating cycles of trauma and instability. 2. Disproportionate Impact on Marginalized Communities: This legislation distinctly neglects the voices and needs of marginalized communities—particularly people of color and those living in economically disadvantaged areas. These groups experience a higher incidence of gun violence, and yet the bill does nothing to address the root causes of these issues. By further normalizing firearms' unrestricted availability, the state fails to protect those who are most at risk and exacerbates ongoing inequalities in access to safety. 3. Regulatory Erosion and Accountability: Allowing firearms to evade federal regulation undermines accountability. The fact that firearms can be marked "For N.H. Use Only" suggests an intent to sidestep laws designed to keep our communities safe. This not only emboldens those who engage in illegal activities related to firearms but also complicates the landscape for law enforcement, who may struggle to manage an increasing number of untraceable weapons. 4. Legal and Ethical Concerns: This bill raises serious constitutional questions regarding state versus federal authority, not to mention the ethical implications of prioritizing gun rights over public welfare. By challenging federal regulations, New Hampshire risks alienating itself from a broader commitment to community safety and responsible governance. 5. Chilling Effect on Advocacy and Safety Initiatives: The passage of HB1697 sends a dangerous message that the state prioritizes individual firearm rights over collective community safety. This prioritization may stifle dialogue surrounding gun safety, prevention programs, and advocacy for responsible ownership. For communities desperately in need of effective solutions to gun violence, this bill undermines potential progress and protections. Conclusion: An Urgent Call for Responsibility In conclusion, HB1697 represents not merely a legislative proposal but a potential crisis for public safety and social equity. This bill places the interests of the few over the needs of the many, perpetuating inequalities that our society should be striving to dismantle. As concerned citizens, we must reject this ill-conceived legislation and instead advocate for policies that prioritize the welfare of our communities, ensure responsible firearm regulations, and promote equality for all individuals, regardless of their socioeconomic status. We must stand firm against efforts that threaten our collective well-being and actively work toward creating safer, more equitable environments for everyone in New Hampshire.

Repeat after me: GUN REGULATION IS GOOD. It’s even part of the US Constitution under the Second Amendment. You know, the “well regulated” part. I oppose this stupid bill

The state needs more not less firearms regulations

This bill will make NH citizens less safe. We need gun laws which protect our citizens

I strongly oppose attempts like this to inoculate NH from reasonable federal regulations .

I urge you NOT to pass this bill! It is incredible to me that New Hampshire has so few laws limiting gun regulations, there are no universal background checks (this should be mandatory!), no required waiting periods (really, just incredible), and limiting licensing requirements. Because of this, NH has to rely on Federal laws, which are pretty minimal in and of themselves. This exemption would make NH and the rest of the country unsafe.

Absolutely NO

NH has very limited laws - lack of universal background checks, no required waiting periods, and limited licensing requirements. This makes New Hampshire reliant on federal laws. Exempting any firearm from these laws would make our state and the rest of the country unsafe.

I oppose this effort to exempt NH weapons from Federal regulation. It doesn't make any sense to exempt NH weapons as they are just as dangerous as weapons manufactured in other states. WHy would anyone in NH, other than the manufacturer, want to exempt weapons from consumer protections? This is a brazen attempt by gun manufacturers to avoid responsibility for unsafe and defective products.

I do not support this bill!

I oppose this bill. There is no difference in dangers posed by firearms and accessories produced in NH vs those made elsewhere. If the same risks are associated, the same laws should apply.

Guns like cars or anything else that can cause severe trauma, injury or death should follow federal regulations.

Dear Members of the Committee, I am submitting this statement to express my opposition to HB 1697. While I support the principle of state autonomy and the rights of law-abiding gun owners, I do not believe that New Hampshire should enact a law that would exempt certain firearms and firearm accessories manufactured and retained in our state from federal regulation. Federal firearm safety standards and background checks exist to promote public safety and help prevent guns from being obtained by individuals who pose a risk to themselves or others. HB 1697 would create a carve-out that could weaken those protections and introduce confusion into the regulatory framework governing firearms. Creating exemptions from federal oversight for specific firearms or parts could also increase complexity for law enforcement agencies tasked with ensuring compliance with both state and federal law. Unclear or conflicting regulations can make it harder for police to do their jobs effectively and safely, ultimately undermining the public safety goals we all share. Additionally, instead of pursuing broad exemptions from well-established regulatory systems, I believe the legislature should focus on evidence-based policies that reduce gun violence and support responsible gun ownership — such as improving mental health resources, supporting voluntary safety training, and strengthening coordination between state and federal authorities on enforcement and compliance issues. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the committee to oppose HB 1697. Thank you for the opportunity to share my views and for your public service. Sincerely, Amie Price

As a mother to three children, I oppose exempting certain firearms and firearm accessories manufactured and retained in New Hampshire from federal regulation.

House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee Members: My name is Sarah Gentile, I am a resident of Rochester, New Hampshire and I am reaching out to express my opposition to HB 1697. New Hampshire already has some of the weakest firearm safety laws in the country. We lack universal background checks, no required waiting periods, and we have extremely limited licensing requirements. Because of this, New Hampshire relies heavily on federal firearm laws to provide basic guardrails that protect public safety. HB 1697 would deliberately undermine those guardrails by exempting certain firearms and firearm accessories manufactured and retained in NH from federal regulation. Not only would this make NH less safe, but it would make the rest of the country, especially surrounding states, less safe. This bill is not new or innovative. In fact, it uses language that is almost identical to the Firearm Freedom Acts that began circulating a decade ago. Those efforts are part of a coordinated, state by state campaign to assert that firearms made, sold, and kept within a state are somehow exempt from federal laws. Courts have repeatedly rejected this theory because firearms do not stay within state borders. New Hampshire’s minimal firearm regulations means that federal law is really the only meaningful line of defense in preventing dangerous individuals from obtaining or misusing weapons. Exempting any class of firearms or accessories from federal oversight would create loopholes that could be exploited not just in our state, but nationwide. Guns do not stop being dangerous because of where they are manufactured. This bill also fits into a broader effort to weaken federal gun laws and override state authority. Proposals like this are close in line with efforts to impose a federal concealed carry mandate that would force every state to accept the weakest gun laws in the country. This would undermine state laws governing who may carry hidden, loaded handguns in public and eliminate a state’s ability to protect its own residents. New Hampshire already repealed its concealed carry permit requirement in 2017. Today, anyone, including non-residents, may carry a concealed firearm without a license, so long as they are not prohibited under state or federal law. That is New Hampshire’s policy choice and other states have made different choices; they should have the right to enforce their own standards and laws. Today, we are seeing the consequences of ignoring those boundaries. NH Attorney General John Formella has sued Massachusetts, arguing that NH residents should be allowed to carry their firearms through Massachusetts without complying with MA laws. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled correctly that its state laws apply to everyone within its borders, including NH residents. That case has now been moved to the Supreme Court with other states joining in. HB 1697 only pushes us further down a dangerous path. It erodes respect for state sovereignty while simultaneously weakening federal protection. This bill does nothing to protect our freedom or enhance safety – it undermines it by protecting dangerous loopholes. For the sake of public safety, legal clarity, and responsible governance I urge you to vote in opposition of HB 1697. Thank you for your time. Sarah Gentile Rochester, NH

I see no reason to exempt weapons made in the state of NH. That could constitute a conflict of interest. Thank you for your work on behalf of NH citizens.

We need federal regulation because we keep making it easy and easier for bad guys to get guns here. Someone needs to keep us and check if we won’t do it ourselves.