Moving Forward After Parkland and the March for Our Lives
As we move past the one year anniversary of the March for Our Lives, it’s encouraging to know that the outrage felt by so many people had a genuine impact on gun laws in states across the country.
When I was standing on Pennsylvania Avenue last March listening to the Parkland shooting survivors demanding change, like many, I wondered if their passionate advocacy would once again fall on deaf ears, as had similar pleas for gun violence prevention after tragedies in Newtown, Aurora, Orlando, and too many other places to mention.
But even though Congress once again resisted any meaningful changes, leaders at the state level were listening. In 2018, 67 gun safety measures were signed into law in 27 states, including 14 states with Republican governors. But there’s still much work to be done—especially in states like New Hampshire.
“F” is for Failure
New Hampshire’s gun laws are among the weakest in the country and recently scored an “F” from the Giffords Law Center. Among other things:
We don’t require a license to carry a hidden, loaded gun in public;
We don’t require a background check for firearms sold or exchanged by unlicensed individuals in private sales taking place at gun shows, over the internet, or in classified ads;
We don’t require that mental health information be reported for use in firearm purchaser background checks;
We don’t require firearm owners or purchasers to license or register their guns;
We don’t let local governments regulate firearms or ammunition in any way; and
Although students are banned from bringing firearms onto school grounds, we are one of only three states that has no law prohibiting possession of firearms in a school zone by non-students.
“E” is for Elections Matter
But all the news isn’t bad. In the 2018 elections, the people of New Hampshire elected people to the legislature committed to making progress on gun violence prevention vs. wringing their hands.
So far, so good. On March 19, the New Hampshire House of Representatives approved two common sense gun violence prevention measures:
HB-109 was approved 203-148. It would require universal background checks for most firearms sales. It would close the “private sale exemption” that allows firearms to be advertised and sold between private parties. It would require sellers to work with a licensed firearms dealer to complete a background check on a purchaser before the weapon can be transferred. I will be
HB-514 passed 199-147. It would impose a 7-day waiting period between the purchase and delivery of most firearms. During the public hearing, we heard testimony from families of suicide and murder victims saying that a bill like this might have saved the lives of their loved ones.
Both bills have a long way to go before they become law. The Senate must approve them and the governor, who has a 90%+ rating from the NRA (but who has been known to bend to strong public pressure) must agree not to veto them.
Bills in Commitee This Week
This Tuesday there will be two more opportunities to move critical pieces of the puzzle forward.
At 11:00 a.m. in Room 204 of the Legislative Office Building in Concord, the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee will conduct a public hearing on HB-564–a bill that would enforce the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act here in New Hampshire. While there are exclusions for law enforcement officers and people picking up and dropping off passengers, others would be prohibited from carrying a firearm onto school grounds. The bill has already cleared the House Education Committee and received a strong, if partisan, 194-154 vote from the full House on its first pass through the legislature. The next day at 11:00 a.m. in the same room, the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee will make its recommendation and vote the bill in executive session.
Also on Tuesday, the Committee will also be holding a public hearing and voting on HB-696. This bill would establish a new type of emergency protective order for vulnerable adults who are being physically or financially abused by another party. While protecting our seniors would seem to be something we could all agree on, the bill has run into fierce opposition from pro-gun groups. This is because it includes a provision that would require a defendant to surrender his or her firearms if a judge believes the defendant poses a threat to the safety of the senior. This is similar to the protection offered under the state’s existing Domestic Violence Emergency Protective Order, which also can require a defendent to temporarily surrender his or her weapons.
What to Expect
Don’t expect anything about passing sensible gun violence prevention legislation to be easy. We will hear testimony that New Hampshire’s relatively low incidence of gun violence (with the exception of suicide) is a result of more freedom for gun owners rather than less. We will hear people tempt fate by declaring that there has never been mass school shooting in New Hampshire. We will hear from people who passionately believe in a fundamentalist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that renders as unconstitutional any sort of responsible restraints on firearms and gun owners. Finally, we will hear from people who have convinced themselves that children can only be protected if gun owners, like themselves, are allowed to stroll through schools and onto school grounds carrying firearms and scaring our kids and teachers half to death.
The question, at this point, is how many legislators will take these arguments seriously enough to vote against these bills. My guess is that both votes will be very close.
“F” is Also for Fighting Back
Pro-gun advocates in New Hampshire are well-funded and extremely well-organized. They show up at public hearings. They track how legislators vote and, when the time comes, they oppose the ones who don’t vote with them. Most believe the 2nd Amendment confers an absolute right to purchase, possess, and carry anything that fires a bullet wherever they choose to bring it—including schools, arenas, public buildings, and your favorite local coffee shop. They are not moved by the toll of gun violence unless it somehow personally affects them. Although groups like the New Hampshire Firearms Coalition, Gun Owners of New Hampshire, Pro-Gun New Hampshire, and the Women’s Defense League sometimes disagree over tactics and are prone to falling victim to their lesser angels, together they present a powerful force intent on defeating any legislation that they believe threatens their absolutist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. On March 13, they convinced enough members the Criminal Justice committee to vote against a “red flag” (extreme risk protection order) so that the committee was forced to retain it for more work and reintroduction in the 2020 session.
But despite the low points and the slow progress, something to keep in mind is that there are extremely powerful arguments on the side of gun violence prevention advocates too. Since Parkland, 1200 American kids have been killed by guns. 100 Americans are killed every day by guns. Nearly 20,000 Americans commit suicide by gun every year.
For those desensitized by the sheer carnage, there is also constitutional law to consider. The same 5-4 Supreme Court decision that recognized the right of individual citizens to own firearms (Heller vs. U.S.) also had this to say:
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the amendment or state analogues. The court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
The bottom line is that since the March for Our Lives, citizens who believe that with rights come responsibilities have started to recognize that they are far from powerless.
They have come to realize that too have power and they are using it to demand their elected representatives put people—and public safety—first.
We hear you and we are on the case.
