Committee Summary for Senate Judiciary (04/10/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
207 00:10:01.920 - 12:08:52 PM	Public Hearing	Unclear	Likely Text to Speech Error on Bill #
HB207 00:22:07.039 - 12:20:58 PM	Public Hearing	relative to repealing the prohibition on the possession or sale of blackjacks, slung shots, and metallic knuckles except by or to minors.	Spillane, James(R)[A]2024
HB381 00:27:44.400 - 12:26:35 PM	Public Hearing	exempting firearms and firearm accessories manufactured for in-state use only from the National Firearm Act.	Belcher, Mike(R)[A]2024
HB381 2025-1481S 00:53:00.680 - 12:51:51 PM	Public Hearing	exempting firearms and firearm accessories manufactured for in-state use only from the National Firearm Act.	Belcher, Mike(R)[A]2024

207: Representative Splain Support00:10:01.920 - 12:08:52 PM; Representative Splain presented bill 207, which aims to amend the existing law on the prohibition of certain weapons for individuals under 18. He highlighted that the bill aligns with current laws on knives and other self-defense items, arguing that the ban on items like brass knuckles, blackjacks, and slungshots for those over 18 is outdated and inconsistently enforced. He provided examples of how these items are used, such as in fishing and self-defense, and noted the numerous exemptions in the current law, suggesting that the bill would bring clarity and consistency to the law.
207: Unidentified Senator Information Only00:15:29.199 - 12:14:20 PM; The senator inquired about the availability of the items mentioned in the bill on online platforms like Amazon and Etsy, pointing out that these items are sold as weapons, not just as antiques or paperweights. This raised questions about the effectiveness and enforcement of the current ban.
207: Representative Splain Support00:16:45.120 - 12:15:36 PM; In response to the senator's question, Representative Splain acknowledged the online availability of these items and reiterated his point about the ineffectiveness of the current ban. He argued that the items are often sold as paperweights but are indeed weapons, and stressed the lack of enforcement and relevance of the ban in modern contexts.
207: Unidentified Senator Information Only00:17:36.640 - 12:16:27 PM; The senator continued the discussion, clarifying the legal nuances of carrying such items under certain conditions, specifically questioning the interpretation of 'in the act of hunting and fishing' and 'while on duty' for various professions. This led to a debate on the practical implications of the law.
207: Representative Splain Support00:20:46.799 - 12:19:37 PM; Representative Splain responded to the senator's points, asserting that the activities related to hunting and fishing are broadly interpreted and that it would be unreasonable to expect individuals to disarm themselves during related activities. He emphasized the need for the bill to address these inconsistencies and improve clarity in the law.
HB207: Jeff Kelman, Bedford, Temple Beth Abraham, Ashwa Support00:22:07.039 - 12:20:58 PM; Jeff Kelman, a resident of Bedford, NH, and an active member of the Jewish community, spoke in support of HB207. He emphasized his role on the security committee at Temple Beth Abraham in Ashwa, highlighting their constant vigilance regarding legislation impacting minority communities, particularly concerning the rising dangers of anti-Semitism and potential violent actions. Kelman discussed his initial reservations about the bill, noting that it might seem unnecessary given the availability of other weapons like firearms and knives. However, after further consideration, he believed the bill could potentially reduce the purchase of more lethal weapons like guns, as people might opt for the less lethal option proposed by the bill. He also pointed out the current ease of online access to these items, which is already illegal, suggesting that enforcing this law would be an additional burden on law enforcement with minimal impact. Kelman concluded that even a marginal improvement in community safety justifies supporting the bill.
HB381: Representative Mike Belchure, Carol County District 4, Wakefield Support00:27:44.400 - 12:26:35 PM; Representative Mike Belchure from Wakefield, NH, introduced HB381, clarifying that the bill does not aim to nullify the National Firearms Act (NFA) but is designed to initiate a legal challenge against the Supreme Court decision in Wickard v. Filburn. He argued that this decision led to the expansion of federal power over states and enabled the bureaucratic administrative state. Belchure crafted the bill to challenge the interpretation of the commerce clause, asserting that it should not apply to intrastate commerce as per the original intent of the founders. He chose firearms as the subject for the legal challenge because the right to bear arms is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. The bill includes criminal penalties for exporting certain items from New Hampshire to other states to strengthen the argument that the regulation is an exercise of state power over intrastate commerce. He concluded by stating that the legislation is enabling and would not affect manufacturers who choose not to comply.
HB381: Erin Pencasing, Hollis, New Hampshire Firearms Coalition, Marramac Firearms Support00:41:58.560 - 12:40:49 PM; Erin Pencasing from Hollis, NH, and a board member of the New Hampshire Firearms Coalition, spoke in support of HB381. He noted that a similar law had been passed in Texas regarding suppressors, allowing their fabrication within the state without NFA involvement. Pencasing explained that the bill would include suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns, which already require serial numbers and engraving under NFA procedures. He emphasized that implementing the requirements of the bill would be straightforward, given existing engraving services. Pencasing, who also works part-time at Marramac Firearms dealing with NFA items, expressed his support for the bill.
HB381: Abvis Oppose00:43:33.760 - 12:42:24 PM; Abvis expressed concerns about the broad application of the bill, suggesting that it could be seen as a restriction on firearms and accessories, particularly when traveling to other states where different laws may apply. He used the example of his work at a shop in Marlow, NH, near the Massachusetts border, where he faces restrictions on selling handguns due to Massachusetts laws. He questioned the implications of the bill on interstate commerce and the rights of gun owners to transport their legally owned firearms and accessories across state lines.
HB381: Unnamed Speaker Support00:46:46.560 - 12:45:37 PM; The speaker supported the bill, explaining that it would allow the building of firearms and accessories in New Hampshire without the need for NFA approval if not intended for interstate commerce. He mentioned the improved turnaround time for NFA tax stamps and his belief that the NFA process should be eliminated nationwide. He clarified that under the proposed bill, firearms and accessories could be built for use in New Hampshire without serialization, bypassing the NFA process, but noted that this would not apply if the items were to be taken out of the state.
HB381: Unnamed Speaker Support00:47:55.599 - 12:46:46 PM; The speaker expressed support for the bill, appreciating the potential to manufacture and use firearms like silencers in New Hampshire without the NFA stamp, thereby avoiding the associated expenses and time. He confirmed understanding that the items would be marked for use in New Hampshire only and would not need serialization, but acknowledged that future changes in ATF regulations could impact this.
HB381: Milo Myate, Pittsfield, New Hampshire Support00:48:29.280 - 12:47:20 PM; Milo Myate from Pittsfield, NH, supported the bill, focusing on the benefits of suppressors as hearing protection devices. He shared his personal experience of hearing damage from shooting without suppressors and advocated for their widespread use, comparing them to car mufflers. He believed the bill could be a step forward in reducing hearing damage among New Hampshire residents. He also clarified that manufacturers could choose whether to mark their products for New Hampshire use only, which would affect how they are regulated under federal law.
HB381 2025-1481S: Senator Bill Ganon, representing the wine district of New Hampshire from Sandown to Seabrook up to Epping Support00:53:00.680 - 12:51:51 PM; Senator Ganon supports the amendment to HB381, which aims to protect gun manufacturers from litigation based on the absence of certain optional features on firearms. He mentions that Representative Bobby Cox from South Carolina, representing Sig Sauer, will provide more detailed insights into the issue. Ganon emphasizes that the amendment is crucial as it prevents the mischaracterization of firearms as defective due to the absence of features like magazine disconnects, chamber indicators, and fingerprint recognition technology, which are not universally desired, particularly by law enforcement who may find such features cumbersome in critical situations.
HB381 2025-1481S: Representative Bobby Cox, Vice President of Government Affairs at Sig Sauer, also serving as a state house representative Support00:55:12.559 - 12:54:03 PM; Bobby Cox elaborates on the amendment's necessity from Sig Sauer's perspective, highlighting the company's commitment to quality and support for law enforcement and military. He discusses the issue of lawsuits against Sig Sauer's P320 pistol, claiming it's defective for not having an optional external safety. Cox explains that the amendment aims to clarify that the absence of optional features does not make a gun defective, addressing the national phenomenon of such lawsuits. He notes that these lawsuits, primarily brought by out-of-state plaintiffs, are detrimental to Sig Sauer's mission and the New Hampshire economy. Cox argues that the amendment will prevent New Hampshire from being used as a favorable forum for these cases, thereby freeing up resources for the company to employ more local workers and invest in research and development.
HB381 2025-1481S: Senator Information Only00:58:44.640 - 12:57:35 PM; A senator raises concerns about the amendment's language, specifically regarding its application to pending and future product liability actions. They question whether it is constitutionally permissible to retroactively apply the amendment to existing lawsuits, suggesting that it should only apply to future injuries or lawsuits not yet filed. The discussion focuses on clarifying the amendment's intent to prevent out-of-state plaintiffs from bringing cases to New Hampshire, rather than affecting existing cases.
HB381 2025-1481S: Senator Information Only01:00:18.240 - 12:59:09 PM; The senator inquires why New Hampshire is the chosen forum for these lawsuits, suggesting that it might be due to favorable state laws. Bobby Cox confirms that New Hampshire's legal environment is conducive to such cases, and they aim to address this through the amendment. The discussion explores the possibility of requiring lawsuits to be filed where the plaintiff resides, rather than where the defendant is headquartered, to solve the issue.
HB381 2025-1481S: Senator Information Only01:02:12.000 - 1:01:03 PM; A senator questions whether the amendment applies only to firearms sold to law enforcement and the military or to all commercial sales. Cox clarifies that the lawsuits involve both law enforcement and private citizens, focusing on the P320 pistol. He emphasizes the safety of the firearm and attributes the lawsuits to user error or equipment issues rather than defects in the gun itself. The senator suggests differentiating safety requirements for law enforcement versus civilian sales, but Cox argues against mandating such features, highlighting the importance of individual responsibility and training.
HB381 2025-1481S: Senator Information Only01:06:31.440 - 1:05:22 PM; The senator questions whether the lawsuits are affecting Sig Sauer's ability to meet its needs, including employee hiring and research and development. Cox explains that the resources spent on legal defense could be better used for hiring more engineers and improving products for law enforcement and military. The senator also inquires about the P320's design defects and the military contract, to which Cox responds that all government contracts involve retooling and testing to ensure safety and reliability.
HB381 2025-1481S: Senator Information Only01:08:48.399 - 1:07:39 PM; The senator questions whether Sig Sauer is trying to limit cases in New Hampshire, suggesting it might be an attempt to restrict justice for plaintiffs. Cox counters that the lawsuits are not due to defective products but rather user error or equipment issues, and Sig Sauer takes safety seriously, offering free training to users. He clarifies that an upgrade offered for the P320 was not a recall but an enhancement, further emphasizing the gun's safety.
HB381 2025-1481S: Senator Information Only01:13:28.800 - 1:12:19 PM; The senator seeks clarification on whether the amendment would prevent all product liability cases, to which it is clarified that the amendment targets claims of defective design or product based on the absence of optional features. Cox reiterates that the amendment aims to prevent mischaracterization of firearms as defective due to the absence of optional features, not to block legitimate claims of actual defects.
HB381 2025-1481S: Senator Ganon Information Only01:15:42.080 - 1:14:33 PM; Senator Ganon responds to questions regarding the scope of product liability absolution for consumer products in New Hampshire, specifically focusing on the situation with firearm manufacturers. He emphasizes that his research and amendment pertain only to the current case and not to other consumer products. He discusses the safety of the product in question and argues that it should not be subjected to product liability claims for optional safety features that are not included.
HB381 2025-1481S: Senator Information Only01:18:00.239 - 1:16:51 PM; The Senator questions the potential impact on merchants selling the product if the manufacturer is absolved of liability. He argues that merchants could still be held liable under product liability claims and suggests that the amendment should include protection for merchants as well, to prevent them from being sued for selling a product with optional safety features not included.
HB381 2025-1481S: Senator Re Oppose01:19:04.719 - 1:17:55 PM; Senator Re expresses concerns about the proposed amendment, suggesting that product liability should remain the province of judges and juries who can assess each case's facts. He uses the example of fireworks to question whether similar liability absolutions should be considered for other products. He argues that the legislature should not override judicial decisions on product liability.
HB381 2025-1481S: Representative Support01:24:07.600 - 1:22:58 PM; The Representative supports the amendment, highlighting the importance of the firearm manufacturer to the local economy and community. He notes the company's expansion and safety training initiatives, expressing belief that the company is being unfairly targeted and should be supported by the state to prevent them from leaving.
HB381 2025-1481S: Senator Ganon Information Only01:25:30.159 - 1:24:21 PM; Senator Ganon clarifies that the amendment is intended to protect the firearm industry from frivolous lawsuits claiming defects due to the absence of optional safety features. He emphasizes that this protection does not extend to actual defects in the product and discusses the potential to revise the amendment to ensure clarity on this point.
HB381 2025-1481S: Senator Information Only01:30:03.440 - 1:28:54 PM; The Senator questions why the bill does not specifically name Sig Sauer, given their significant presence and employment in the district. He expresses a desire for the company to remain in New Hampshire and see the state as a welcoming community, highlighting the importance of their contributions to the local economy and global market.
HB381 2025-1481S: Jay Simkin, Federally Licensed Firearms Dealer Support01:34:47.320 - 1:33:38 PM; Jay Simkin, a federally licensed firearms dealer with over 30 years of experience in New Hampshire, expressed support for the bill, stating that its enactment would personally benefit him by saving a $10 license fee every three years, an hour of his time for notarization, and additional mailing costs. However, he suggested that the bill requires further amendment. He pointed out that the state licensing of handgun sellers, enacted in 1923, is now redundant due to federal laws established since 1968, which require detailed records and notification to local law enforcement. He provided a copy of the original 1923 law for reference. Simkin also highlighted a section of the bill that allows for handgun sales to non-residents, which he argued conflicts with federal law. He explained that under federal law, handguns cannot be directly sold to out-of-state buyers; they must be shipped to a federal firearms licensee in the buyer's state for transfer. He suggested removing the conflicting language and was open to answering questions related to his testimony or broader issues concerning firearm disposition under federal law.
HB381 2025-1481S: Unidentified Speaker Information Only01:40:42.000 - 1:39:33 PM; The speaker addressed a question regarding the handling of New Hampshire-made firearms marked as such when traveling to another state. They mentioned that there is a solution to the problem, which involves a $200 tax, indicating it is simple but not cheap. The discussion was cut short to focus solely on the current bill under discussion.

Gannon, Bill(Chairman)(R)[C+]2024	Abbas, Daryl(V Chairman)(R)[C+]2024	Altschiller, Debra(D)[CT]2024
McConkey, Mark(R)	Reardon, Tara(D)