My mmI think it may be important to teach students basic safety especially in the current climate with vast presence of firearms and violence. This should be thought out though, with full specifics about what exactly will be taught to which grades (with the curriculum basics included in the bill), not buried in another bill. Sneaking this in an as an amendment of an unrelated bill is egregious. Also, I firmly believe consent should be better addressed in schools. If we're even going to think about teaching firearm safety, we should be teaching middle schoolers and high schoolers also about the realities of domestic violence, sexual violence, and the sex trade. Gun violence, substance use, and forms of intimate interpersonal violence are very intertwined. If we're going to address any aspect, we should be talking about the realities of all.
SB54
Senate · 2025 sessionRepublicanDied in HouseTougher penalties for drunk driving
AILengthens license suspension periods for refusing a chemical test for alcohol concentration and modifies the criminal penalties, fines, and jail terms for aggravated driving while intoxicated offenses.
relative to refusal of consent to testing to determine alcohol concentration and penalties for aggravated driving while intoxicated.
Status
Died on the table in the House · June 5, 2025- ✓Introduced
- ✓Senate
- ✕House
- Governor
- Law
Division of testimony
1,324 submissionsArgument digest · AI-generated
from 246 of 767 written submissionsSB54 as introduced addresses penalties for refusing alcohol testing in DUI cases, but nearly all public testimony instead concerns a non-germane floor amendment that would mandate firearms safety training (including NRA Eddie Eagle/Hunter Education material) in New Hampshire's K-12 public schools. Most submitters oppose the amendment, citing improper legislative process, cost to underfunded schools, NRA influence, and concerns about exposing young children to firearms; a smaller number support mandatory firearms safety education as a way to reduce accidents, and a few are open to the concept but object to how it was introduced.
- Structured training can reduce accidents and reach kids without access at homeSupport7 of 246 reviewed
Supporters argue formal firearms safety instruction can reduce accidental injuries and unsafe curiosity around guns, and benefits students whose families cannot otherwise teach them, particularly in a rural, high-gun-ownership state.
“Living in a rural state with a high percentage of firearms ownership, knowing basic firearms safety is a virtue that has the potential to save a life.”
— Jack Pollner, GREENFIELD · #522204 — read full submission →
“Studies have shown this lowers child curiosity and increases respect for firearms leading to less accidents.”
— Richard Mohrmann, Nashua · #522038 — read full submission →
- Amendment is a non-germane, rushed riderOppose55 of 246 reviewed
Submitters argue the firearms-training mandate has nothing to do with the bill's DUI subject matter and was tacked on at the last minute without a proper hearing, denying parents and the public time to weigh in; many say it deserves its own standalone bill.
“The addition to this bill of the non-germane amendment to require firearms training in public schools is a reprehensible trick of back-door politics, meant to sneak-in legislation that should be given it's own, separate bill”
— Kevin Baringer, Newmarket · #521259 — read full submission →
“Clearly this last minute "amendment" is another devious manipulation of the legislating process in order to bring forward something the vast majority are NOT asking for.”
— Lois Cote, Manchester, NH · #520992 — read full submission →
“This is a separate and distinct issue that should not be tainted by being associated with an unrelated, and yet important, public safety initiative such as how aggravated driving while intoxicated is managed.”
— Stephanie Krasinski, Concord · #521731 — read full submission →
- Firearm safety is an adult/parental responsibility, not schools'Oppose50 of 246 reviewed
Submitters argue that responsibility for firearm safety and deciding when to introduce children to firearms belongs to gun-owning adults and parents, not the state or public schools, and that the amendment shifts that burden onto children and educators instead.
“Responsibility for safe and secure gun ownership is an adult/parent/caregiver responsibility. This amendment requires nothing of adults when it comes to gun safety.”
— Joanne Davis, Concord · #521201 — read full submission →
“Parents—not the state—should decide if and how their children are introduced to firearms.”
— Megan Adams, Atkinson · #521984 — read full submission →
“if the NH government is mandating safety training, why not mandate it for the gun owners, and anyone firing their weapons?”
— Robert Perry Engle, Stratham · #521145 — read full submission →
- Unfunded mandate straining already underfunded schoolsOppose45 of 246 reviewed
Submitters describe the mandate as an unfunded burden on public schools that are already underfunded and understaffed, arguing it would divert money and instructional time from core subjects, and note it would not apply to private, religious, or EFA-funded students.
“Our state ranks among the lowest in the nation for education funding, and our school funding system has repeatedly been ruled unconstitutional by the courts. Rather than addressing this chronic underinvestment, this bill adds yet another unfunded mandate”
— Alisha Davis, Hancock · #521848 — read full submission →
“In what world does it make sense that we should be training our children in public school on gun safety instead of making sure that their bellies are full.”
— Danielle Russell, Sandown · #522039 — read full submission →
“There is apparently no concern about children attending private schools or being homeschooled receiving this training.”
— Susan Elberger, Nashua · #521938 — read full submission →
- NRA/gun-lobby influence over school curriculumOppose18 of 246 reviewed
Submitters object that the mandated curriculum is developed or supplied by the NRA and similar gun-industry-linked groups, viewing this as an inappropriate lobbying foothold in public education rather than neutral safety instruction.
“The fact that it’s an “NRA” curriculum is unacceptable. How about passing firearm safety training and storage laws for those who WANT to own guns as a start before forcing it upon 5 year olds in Kindergarten?”
— Laurie Smith, Exeter · #521977 — read full submission →
“This amendment reads as firearms safety education, when it appears to be a way for gun lobbyists and NRA to gain access to our children, starting as young as age 5.”
— Jessica Munroe, Nashua · #522086 — read full submission →
- Developmentally inappropriate and risks normalizing gunsOppose20 of 246 reviewed
Submitters argue young children lack the cognitive or emotional maturity for firearms instruction, that mandatory training could desensitize students to violence or trigger fear given existing anxiety about school shootings and lockdown drills.
“the developmental appropriateness of firearms safety training for young children is questionable. Children in early grades may not have the cognitive or emotional maturity to process this subject effectively.”
— Kerry Rake, Amherst · #521226 — read full submission →
“Classical conditioning and operant conditioning comes to mind as these children would undoubtedly associate guns with school and guns with some kind of “reward” for “doing what they’re told” in school”
— Stephanie Pappaconstantinou, Londonderry · #522045 — read full submission →
“The kids can hardly handle lock down drills and fire drills and you want them to learn how to shoot guns? ABSOLUTELY NOT!”
— Maryanne Mooney, Hampton · #521234 — read full submission →
- Programs lack evidence of effectiveness, may create false confidenceOppose9 of 246 reviewed
Some submitters cite research questioning whether brief annual firearms-safety programs actually reduce injuries, arguing minimal training could instead give children a false sense of competence around guns.
“the research does NOT demonstrate these initiatives have an impact on preventing or decreasing the number of injuries or deaths by gun.”
— Heather L Wilcauskas, Sanbornville · #521204 — read full submission →
“I have been told by military personnel who I have worked with for many years that expecting a novice with one hour of training per year will not result in any form of protection and will most likely cause unintended injury.”
— Carry Spier, Nashua · #522215 — read full submission →
- Inconsistent with legislators' stated support for parental rightsOppose12 of 246 reviewed
Submitters argue it is hypocritical for legislators who champion parental rights over curriculum, books, and other topics to simultaneously override parental choice by mandating firearms instruction for all children.
““Parental rights” in schools has been toted by the Republican Party regarding books, posters, and factual history education and I find it very hypocritical that you are eager to take away parental rights from families who do not hunt, own firearms or believe in using guns.”
— Kathryn Ess, Bow · #521869 — read full submission →
“The fact that you are trying to ban children’s books but view mandatory firearm training as even remotely logical is insane and dangerous.”
— Kimberly Dinsmore, Londonderry · #522213 — read full submission →
- Added burden on overstretched teachers and staffing shortagesOppose12 of 246 reviewed
Educators and others argue teachers are already stretched thin covering mandated curricula and paying for supplies out of pocket, and that requiring them to deliver or oversee firearms training would worsen recruitment and retention problems.
“teachers are already being expected to supply their classrooms and provide items for their students that are not covered in the provided budget.”
— Sarah DeLisle, Manchester · #521890 — read full submission →
“Teachers DO NOT WANT guns in schools in any way shape or form, and while we already have a teacher shortage, this would cause even more people to leave the profession.”
— Emilee Somers, Strafford · #521218 — read full submission →
- Open to the concept, but wants a transparent standalone processNeutral4 of 246 reviewed
A few submitters say they are not opposed to firearms or gun-violence-related safety education in principle but want a fully specified curriculum developed through its own bill and public process rather than an amendment.
“This should be thought out though, with full specifics about what exactly will be taught to which grades (with the curriculum basics included in the bill), not buried in another bill.”
— Alex Powell, Nashua · #522308 — read full submission →
“What problem is the amendment wanting to solve? It is not in our best interest not to have such training? And what would be the costs for implementing this amendment?”
— Kent Hackmann, Andover · #520989 — read full submission →
Generated by claude-sonnet-5 (claude code agent) on Jul 20, 2026. Quotes are verbatim excerpts, verified against the cited submission before publication. Summaries are AI interpretation of the record, not part of it.
More firearms in schools is not the answer to ending gun violence
This is a bat shit crazy amendment! I, as the parent of my child, get to choose whether or not (and how) my child is exposed to firearms. With all the school shootings in the last decade, why on EARTH would you put firearms into the hands of children and teach them how to use them? That’s MY choice as the parent! The government doesn’t get to dictate that. Keep your damn guns out of the public schools which MY taxes fund. This is an irresponsible, dangerous and ludicrous bill. You have gone too damn far.
I am an elementary school teacher and the thought of my first graders being instructed in firearms use in a public school setting is absurd and not developmentally appropriate.
Fully restored funding for the NH State Council for the Arts.
Don't republicans have bigger fish to fry like teaching gun owners how to be more responsible with guns? This bill is picking on, and stressing out, innocent children who should be focussing on learning academic subjects. Children should not be held liable for knowing what to do around weapons with killer mass murderers who happen to in a state like NH that makes it easy for these killer fools to access their guns. Maybe you should focus on the source and spend your time working on a gun safety bill for gun owners instead.
Schools already have the option for firearms training. This mandates it. NO!!!!! This should be up to the parents!!!!!!
Guns and gun education do not belong in our schools. Keep your gun fetish away from New Hampshire’s children.
Schools are not the appropriate place for kids to learn gun safety. That is the parent’s responsibility to be done outside of school.
I support Arts Education instead of firearms education in our schools. Please fully restore the NH State Council on the Arts.
No, just no. If a parent wants his/her child to learn gun safety, then it should be taught at home. That is not a school’s responsibility. Guns are not allowed in schools.
Children are in school to learn academics in a safe environment. They should not be mandated to learn about fire arms.
As a former teacher I find teaching about firearms in school appalling. Schools struggle to find money for staff and resources to teach the mandated curriculum, and teaching about firearms in school is disgraceful. Maybe legislators should spend time drafting legislation to ban assault weapons and large ammunition magazines, and treat firearms like the deadly weapons they are and make people who own them have mandatory training and license them and carry insurance. Do your jobs, instead of teaching small children about guns. I would never do that if I were still a teacher, I would rather be suspended and I would certainly not let my own children participate in such a ridiculous program.
I think you need to teach critical thinking skills in NH schools and not guns. Obviously if lawmakers had learned to think critically in their schooling they would understand why mixing guns and children is a bad idea. If parents want to teach gun safety to their kids that is up to them but we should not be producing little warriors in our schools. Did the thought "What could possibly go wrong?" ever occur to you people?
This bill is the antithesis of the live free or die state. There is no justifiable reason that the state should compel schools to teach firearm safety. As a parent, if I want my child to learn this, then it's my responsibility to teach it or enroll them in lessons. The public has weighed in and the resounding answer is NO, this bill is not supported. If a school board wanted to offer it as an elective, then that should be discussed and voted on at a local level but it should never be mandated by state actors who seek to curry favor with powerful special interests.
As a constituent of Windham NH I oppose this bill and request our representatives to hear the voices of the people.
Elected officials need to listen to those they represent NOT to strong lobbyists.
There are many families that want no guns, or subject matter covered in the school system at all
This bill is disgusting.
This amendment violates state law. The mandate violates parental rights.
As a parent, gun safety should be taught outside of the classroom in public education. I do not want people I don’t know, educating my kids on gun safety.
It is beyond frustrating that not only are the Republicans NOT listening to the majority of the constituents, but now you are making decisions for my children that 1000% are MY decisions to make. If and when my children will learn about guns, it will be on my terms. Also - as someone who teaches civics, I can tell you there is no way this is part of my job. Moreover, I am curious as to who will pay for this? Will you build shooting ranges at schools? Will you require schools to bus everyone to a rented out facility? The logistics of this are not manageable.
I oppose this below. Please honor your constituents
This amendment is absolute government overreach and must be defeated. Firearm safety is the responsibility of families any NOT public schools. This would make teachers and students considerably LESS safe. For the sake of our children’s lives, PLEASE vote no!!!
Are you out of your ever loving minds? You oppose children learning about the history of our country. You oppose the teaching of tolerance, kindness, awareness of feelings. You remove books from the shelves of school libraries if ONE person is offended by it. You don't want children to know about their bodies. Yes that should be up to parents, but parenting is not consistent nor comprehensive, so schools should be able to inform to fill that gap. Teachers already have their hands tied and are expected to look over their shoulder at all times. Now you want to put guns into the hands of children who cannot possibly control their bodies, their anger, their feelings and the consequences. What a recipe for disaster! So what if ONE person is offended by this. Does that mean it will be restricted for EVERYONE....like the library books? Do your jobs and control the reckless use of guns. Strengthen background checks, pass red flag legislation, eliminate automatic weapons, and make gun ownership available on a common sense basis.