This is by far the most destructive piece of legislation to ever be presented in the New Hampshire State Legislature.
You can find a link to the legislation at the bottom of this page. The sponsor made some minor and insignificant changes to the legislation, you can see the comparison here. Some highlights and what they mean are listed below:
I. “Extreme risk protection order” means a temporary, ex parte, or final order issued pursuant to this chapter TO TEMPORARILY RESTRICY ACCESS TO FIREARMS BY INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE FOUND TO POSE AN IMMEDIATE OR SIGNIFICANT RISK TO THEMSELVES. [Added by Sponsor]
[It is not an order of 'protection' but an order of gun confiscation]
These are the people who can file an ERPO on a person who has NOT committed any crime:
II. “Family or household member” means:
(a) A spouse, ex-spouse, person cohabiting with another person, and a person who cohabited with another person IN THE PRECEEDING 24 MOTHS [Added by the sponsor] but who no longer shares the same residence.
[Roommate, EX-roommate, ex-boyfriend or girlfriend]
(b) A parent or other person related by consanguinity or affinity, other than a minor child who resides with the respondent.
[In laws, not actual blood relatives. Could be EX-in laws, Step in laws, step children, step relatives etc.]
IV. “Intimate partner” means a person currently or formerly involved in a romantic relationship with another, whether or not such relationship was ever sexually consummated.
[Ex-boyfriend or girlfriend or anyone who 'claims' they had an intimate relationship with the accused]
V. “Law enforcement officer” means a sheriff or deputy sheriff of any county, a state police officer, a constable or police officer of any city or town, or a conservation officer.
[Any officer can make a claim about any person]
People who CAN'T petition for an ERPO, those who are are being stalked.
1 Statement of Purpose. The general court finds that allowing family or household members or law enforcement officers to petition for a court order to temporarily restrict access to firearms by individuals who are found to pose an immediate risk to themselves or others would advance public safety. This act shall not apply in cases of domestic abuse or stalking where the petitioner is eligible to petition for relief under RSA 173-B or RSA 633:3-a.
The accused has not committed a crime but someone from the list above 'THINKS' they MIGHT harm themselves or others. It seems they are making the claim that the simple act of owning a firearm, makes someone a dangerous person. NH HAS LAWS in place already regarding people who may be harmful to themselves or others and has nothing to do with firearms:
159-E:3 Commencement of Proceedings; Hearing.
I. A petitioner may seek relief under this chapter by filing a petition, in the county or district where the petitioner or respondent resides, alleging that the respondent poses a significant risk of causing bodily injury to himself or herself or others by having a firearm or any ammunition in his or her custody or control or by purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm or any ammunition.
[At any time, any of the 'petitioner' definitions listed above can petition a court to confiscate the firearms of a person who has not committed any crime. The accused is completely UNAWARE of this petition]
II. A petition for an extreme risk protection order shall:
(a) Be accompanied by a written affidavit, signed by the petitioner under oath. The affidavit shall contain specific factual allegations regarding the factors that give rise to petitioner’s belief that respondent poses a significant risk of causing bodily injury to himself or herself or others by having a firearm or any ammunition in his or her custody or control or by purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm or any ammunition.
['Factual allegations' according to the petitioner, without ANY input from the accused, specifically in regards to firearms ONLY]
III. Any person who files a petition under this chapter containing allegations the petitioner knows to be false, or who files a petition with intent to harass the respondent, shall be subject to criminal penalties, as set forth in RSA 159-E:11.
[Class A misdemeanors are punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine up to $2,000] [Petitioners who file false accusations do not have THEIR 2nd Amendment rights taken away NOR do they have their firearms confiscated. They get DUE PROCESS]
V. No filing fee or fee for service of process shall be charged for a petition or response under this section, and the petitioner or respondent may proceed without legal counsel. A law enforcement officer shall serve process under this section. Any proceeding under this chapter shall not preclude any other available civil or criminal remedy.
[Petitioners can make accusations against law-abiding gun owners for FREE] [The accused does not get state-appointed law representation. They must pay for their own attorney using their own money to fight an ACCUSATION for a potential crime they DIDN'T COMMIT]
159-E:4 Temporary Relief.
I. A petitioner may request, and court may enter, a temporary extreme risk protection order with or without actual notice to respondent. Upon a showing by the petitioner that there is reasonable PROBABLE [Changed from reasonable to probably by sponsor] cause to believe that the respondent poses an immediate risk of causing bodily injury to himself or herself or others by having a firearm or any ammunition in his or her custody or control or by purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition, the court shall issue a temporary extreme risk protection order.
[NO NOTICE TO THE ACCUSED, who has NOT committed a crime..... NO DUE PROCESS... all based on allegations of a petitioner because the accused owns firearms]
EVIDENCE or rather, the lack of, as required by this legislation. The traditional rules of evidence are completely ignored:
IX. In any proceeding under this chapter, the court shall not be bound by the technical rules of evidence and may admit evidence which it considers relevant and material.
[No crime has been committed. A law-abiding gun owner is accused of 'potentially' committing a crime and the rules of evidence are tossed to the side, just like due process is being tossed to the side. This means that a petitioner can simply use THEIR beliefs of what they THINK the accused MIGHT do, as evidence]
(a) An act or threat of violence within the past 24 months by the respondent against himself or herself or others, whether or not such violence or threat of violence involves a firearm.
[So, 2 YEARS ago someone could have been angry about something and randomly spoke out in anger...]
(b) Evidence of the respondent having a serious mental illness or recurring mental health condition WHICH IS LIKELY TO LEAD TO THE RESPONDENT BEING A DANGER TO THEMSELVES OR OTHERS. [Added by sponsor]
[Criminalizing the mentally ill, a majority of whom are victims of crimes as opposed to being perpetrators of crimes][There is already existing law that allows for the Involuntary Admissions of someone for psychiatric observation if a person is deemed to be a harm to themselves or others]
(h) The unlawful or reckless use, display, or brandishing of a firearm by the respondent.
[The petitioner may have an inordinate fear of firearms and just seeing the accused hold a firearm or post a photo on social media could cause them to claim the accused was 'brandishing' a firearm]
(k) Corroborated evidence of the abuse of controlled substances or alcohol by the respondent.
[What constitutes abuse? Whatever the petitioner believes is abuse? Does that mean 2 beers a week? Or 1 beer a night? This is highly subjective 'evidence' that means anyone could be accused of this] [What about patients in chronic pain or those who have cancer?][You could be an alcoholic who has never broken a single law in your life but have your firearms confiscated because someone doesn't like that you're an alcoholic]
(l) Evidence of recent acquisition of firearms or ammunition by the respondent.
[The simple act of purchasing a firearm or ammunition, a protected right under both the NH and U.S. Constitutions, can be used as evidence AGAINST the accused, who has committed NO CRIME]
Think this bill is about protection? Mental health help is NOT MANDATORY
V. During the hearing, the court shall consider whether a mental health evaluation or chemical dependency evaluation is appropriate and, if such determination is made, may order such evaluations, if appropriate.
[NOTE: A Mental health evaluation is not MANDATORY. A petitioner is accusing someone of being harmful to themselves or others yet it isn't MANDATORY that they seek mental health help. This is not about HELPING anyone or PROTECTING anyone, it's about gun confiscation][IF the accused is adjudicated by the court to seek mental health treatment, whether in patient or out patient, the accused loses their 2nd Amendment rights at the federal level as well and will now be a prohibited person across the country with NO WAY to gain those rights back, even if the order is vacated because this law does not require the state to send a vacated order to NICS, only the original order itself]
VI. The court may subsequently issue a search warrant authorizing a law enforcement officer to search for and seize all firearms and ammunition in the respondent’s possession, custody or control, if there is probable cause to believe respondent has firearms or ammunition and if the court has reason to believe that such firearms or ammunition have not been relinquished by the respondent.
159-E:8 Surrender of Firearms and Ammunition.
I. Upon issuance of any extreme risk protection under this chapter, including a temporary ex parte extreme risk protection order, the court shall order the respondent to surrender to the local law enforcement agency all firearms and ammunition owned by the respondent or in his or her custody, control, or possession and any license to carry a loaded pistol or revolver issued to the respondent under RSA 159:6.
[The accused must surrender their lawfully purchased property and their lawfully held pistol/revolver license based on claims made by a petitioner having committed NO CRIME and without DUE PROCESS]
III. A law enforcement officer may, pursuant to RSA 159-E:4 and 159-E:5, seek a search warrant from a court of competent jurisdiction to search for and seize any and all firearms and ammunition owned by the respondent or in his or her possession, custody or control if the officer has probable cause to believe that said firearms or ammunition have not been surrendered.
[Even if the accused surrenders their firearms and ammunition, if an officer believes the accused may have more than what was surrendered, they can search the accused's home. It doesn't state that the officer needs evidence as to why they believe all firearms and ammunition have not been surrendered]
VI. If a person other than the respondent claims title to any firearms or ammunition surrendered or seized pursuant to this section and he or she is determined by the law enforcement agency to be the lawful owner of the firearm or ammunition, the firearm or ammunition shall be returned to him or her, if:
(a) The lawful owner agrees to store the firearm or ammunition in a manner such that the respondent does not have access to or control of the firearm or ammunition; and
[A friend, business partner or family member may LOSE THEIR RIGHTS if it is 'believed' the accused could possibly get access to THEIR firearms and ammunition]
Every single component of this legislation is destructive to the rights of law-abiding gun owners who have committed no crimes but are accused by the 'THOUGHT POLICE' that they MIGHT be *THINKING* about committing a crime or harming themselves. Law-abiding gun owners have their rights completely stripped away from them and then must suffer the consequences to prove their innocence.
Read the entire legislation at the link below: