Update: Gun-Free School Zones and Protection for Vulnerable Adults
After a long day of contentious public hearings on Tuesday, the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee voted by identical 12-8 margins on Wednesday to approve bills enforcing gun-free school zones and other protecting vulnerable adults. A third bill, approved 18-2, raises the fines for violations by off-road recreational vehicles and snowmobiles. All three bills now head to the full House for a vote before moving on to the Senate.
Establishing Gun-Free School Zones in NH Schools
When I spoke with parents in my district after an ammunition clip was found on the grounds of Little Harbour School last November, I found that many were surprised to learn that New Hampshire is one of only three states that doesn’t enforce the federal Gun-Free Zones Act.
HB-564 would correct this situation by prohibiting unauthorized people from carrying guns onto school property. It would allow state and local police to arrest violators and charge them with a Class A Misdemeanor. As amended, the bill clarifies the definition of “school property” to include buildings, grounds, school buses, and vans. While the vote was predictably divided along party lines (see the WMUR news story) , the Democratic majority (of which I was a part) strongly felt that firearms have no place in schools or anywhere else on school property, except when carried by trained personnel specifically authorized by school administration.
During Tuesday’s public hearing, several teachers and school administrators testified about the terror both students and teachers feel during lockdowns. They also told us that students and teachers are in no position to recognize the difference between a ‘good guy’ with a gun or a ‘bad guy’ with a gun. On the other side, some gun owners testified that they would feel “unprotected” if they were not able to carry their guns on school property. Others raised constitutional objections, proclaiming the ability to carry a gun anywhere they like—including into a school—to be a “natural right”. However, both the New Hampshire Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court have held that the “right to keep and bear arms” is not absolute. In Heller vs. U.S., while the U.S. Supreme Court held that while the Second Amendment “protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia”, it also said that “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.”
With 24 school shootings taking place in 2018 with 35 people killed and 79 injured , it’s critical to take sensible steps to lower the risk of an incident happening in New Hampshire. HB-564 is a positive step in the right direction.
Protecting Vulnerable Adults
HB-696 would expand protections in New Hampshire law for vulnerable seniors and handicapped adults. If approved by the full House and the Senate—and signed by the governor—it would establish a new type of protective order in New Hampshire law that would protect some of the most easily victimized people in our society from physical abuse and/or financial exploitation. While our current laws allow criminal prosecution of physical or financial abuse after the fact, HB-696 would give vulnerable adults, their guardians, or attorneys the ability to petition the court to immediately prohibit a defendant from accessing the home, financial accounts, and other property of a person they may be victimizing. In cases where the defendant possesses firearms and presents a clear physical danger to a vulnerable adult, the court could also require the defendant to surrender his or her firearms.
Unfortunately, the possibility that a defendant might be temporarily deprived of his or her firearms led to an attempt by pro-gun groups, along with several members of my committee, to essentially gaslight the bill. Framing it as a “gun confiscation” bill, they generally ignored the much-needed protections it offers and attempted to position it first and foremost as an anti-gun bill.
The good news is this strategy didn’t work. This time. However, the fight is far from over with a full House vote, the Senate vote, and a trip across the desk of the governor all needed before it can become law.
What needs to be understood about this bill is that HB-696 is based on existing New Hampshire laws that allow similar protective orders for victims of domestic violence. These laws as well as the specific language governing when and how firearms might be surrendered as part of a protective order have been upheld repeatedly in New Hampshire courts.
Perhaps the saddest thing about this is that a law that would protect people no longer able to protect themselves was targeted for defeat for a reason that had nothing to do with protecting public safety. It was targeted because pro-gun groups and their supporters in the legislature wanted to use it as a proxy fight for what will likely be an attempt in the next session to weaken New Hampshire’s domestic violence protection laws by prohibiting judges from ordering defendants subject to a protective order to surrender their firearms.
While it would have been nice to have found common ground on this issue, there are times when people simply need to agree to disagree. This was one of those times.