Pearls, Symbols and Citizens

On Tuesday, Republican members of the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee of the New Hampshire House of Representatives made state, national, and international headlines. Unfortunately, it wasn’t for anything that was part of our normal committee work. Instead, it was for their questionable choice to wear strings of pearls to a public hearing on HB-687—a bill that would bring Extreme Risk Protection Orders to New Hampshire.

The pearls were provided by the Women’s Defense Coalition of N.H., a pro-gun group that was out in force to oppose the bill. Also attending the hearing in large numbers were members of the gun violence prevention group Moms Demand Action.

This was not the first time legislators have worn pearls in solidarity with the Women’s Defense Coalition. Pearls were also in view during recent testimony for other gun violence prevention bills, including hearings on universal background checks, seven day waiting periods, and banning firearms from school property.

What was different this time was the donning of pearls by ALL of the Republican members of our committee while we were in the process of conducting a public hearing in a room filled with several hundred people.

One of those people was Shannon Watts, the national leader of Moms Demand Action. What she saw was a line-up of stony-faced male committee members decked out in pearls—some with miniature assault rifles pinned to their lapels. Justifiably, she felt committee members were mocking members of her group as “pearl-clutchers”. Her initial outraged tweet quickly went viral and, once again, New Hampshire got a black eye.

While I believe the pearl-wearing members of the committee were genuinely surprised by the reaction and did not intend to offend anyone, it’s hard to be sympathetic. Legislators are free to choose whether or not to wear a symbol. But they don’t get to choose how others get to interpret the symbols they choose to wear. While people who know the meaning of the symbol may understand your motives, others are free to speculate and interpret your motives in ways you may not have intended.

That’s why I think it’s time for ALL New Hampshire legislators to consider hitting the “pause” button when it comes to donning symbols when conducting public hearings, holding executive sessions, and voting on bills.

For members of the public, testifying for or against any bill is stressful enough. Legislators shouldn’t contribute to their anxiety by wearing pins, scarves, buttons, pearls, or other objects that say “I don’t care what you think. My mind is made up.”

We can do better.

As for the hearing itself, we heard over 5 hours of public testimony. The Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) bill would allow a family member, intimate partner, or police officer to petition the court to temporarily take firearms away from a person who poses an imminent danger to themselves or to others.

While many testified to both the need for the bill as well as for the need to respect the rights of gun owners, the speaker who made the strongest impression on me was one of the first and one of quietest.

Her voice cracking with emotion, Dr. Margaret Tilton from Exeter told the story of her son, George; of being awakened one night by police telling her a roommate had reported he was suicidal and had just purchased a firearm; and of police convincing him to surrender his weapon and go to the ER for a psychiatric admission. This was his third voluntary psychiatric admission for severe depression.

After he was released, because her son had committed no crime, he was free to walk into a gun shop and purchase another weapon legally. Which is exactly what he did.

“The day after Thanksgiving in 2017, less than 3 weeks after he purchased the second handgun, George fired it for the first time. It was his first and only suicide attempt and the last thing he did in his life.”

This is exactly the kind of tragedy the ERPO bill is designed to address. Had ERPO been in place, he would not have been able to purchase the second weapon because, as the respondent of a protective order, he would have failed the firearms background check.

Dr. Tilton told us that her son’s death demonstrates the need for this bill in order to prevent similar tragedies from happening to other families.

“Like all survivors of suicide loss, my family and I will carry this grief for the rest of our lives. There can be no meaning in George’s senseless unless we create that meaning. All of us, George’s family, friends, roommates, and law enforcement tried to do the best we could for him with the means available to us. We know there are better tools out there. I ask you to give us access to them.”

The Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee will vote on HB687 in executive session on March 13. It will be interesting to see if any members of our committee will be wearing pearls.