Advocates for safe gun laws in the Granite State gave several hours of public testimony Wednesday, regarding a package of firearms-related bills moving through House committees.
Many of those who testified are supporting bills to close background-check loopholes, create a waiting period between the purchase and delivery of a gun, and keep guns out of schools.
Rep. Loren Selig, D-Durham, said it comes down to common sense.
"The number of bills that we have that are actually supported by 90% of gun owners is high," Selig pointed out. "Legislators need to listen to people other than just the NRA about how to make decisions."
Selig and others are also pushing for lawmakers to pass the bipartisan extreme-risk protection order, which temporarily restricts access to guns for individuals at risk of harming themselves or others. Suicide makes up 88% of gun deaths in New Hampshire compared with 57% nationally.
Republican Gov. Chris Sununu signed a law in 2017 eliminating the need to apply for a permit to carry a concealed firearm in New Hampshire.
Since then, Sununu has vetoed most gun-related bills, arguing they would violate the state's "culture of responsible gun ownership and individual freedom."
Zandra Rice Hawkins, director of GunSense NH, a project of Granite State Progress and a member of the NH Gun Violence Prevention Coalition, said very basic laws would improve public safety.
"Advocates were out here today because we believe that enough is enough," Rice Hawkins emphasized. "We should be able to walk down our streets, go to our schools, without having to worry about gun violence."
Rice Hawkins said as the five-year anniversary of the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, approaches, lawmakers can help prevent a similar tragedy from happening in New Hampshire.
Disclosure: The Granite State Progress Education Fund and Granite State Progress contributes to our fund for reporting on Budget Policy and Priorities, Gun Violence Prevention, Health Issues, and Women's Issues. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
Connecticut is one state not affected by a recent Supreme Court ruling.
In Garland v. Cargill, the Court overturned a federal bump-stock ban the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives implemented after a 2017 mass shooting. Authorities found most of the shooter's weapons had a bump stock, which enables someone to fire multiple rounds at a rapid pace.
Melissa Kane, board chair and interim executive director of the group Connecticut Against Gun Violence, said federal action must follow the ruling.
"Legislation to ban bump stocks has already been introduced in the U.S. House and Senate," Kane pointed out. "Congress has the power to change the law and ban bump stocks now to keep these kinds of weapons off of our streets and out of our communities but it has to happen."
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has signaled he'll call for a vote on legislation banning bump stocks. The big challenge Kane sees for implementing such a ban is political gridlock. Senate Democrats support Schumer's proposal but GOP senators said they will block the legislation.
Polls from just before the ban was implemented show most Americans support it and attorneys general from numerous states say a federal bump-stock ban is necessary. Although federal gun safety bills often face an uphill battle, some states have not had the same issue.
Kane argued Connecticut can be a model for other states and the federal government.
"Connecticut's is ironclad and I'd like other states to look at the wording of our legislation and know that if your state doesn't have a ban on bump stocks, you can ban bump stocks," Kane contended. "That's important for people to see. They will be able to uphold those in case there are cases that come against them."
Fifteen states and the District of Columbia have bump-stock bans which remain in effect since the ruling covers the ATF rule, not the constitutionality of state bans.
get more stories like this via email
If two Michigan lawmakers have their way, there will be fewer locations in the state where people are allowed to carry firearms.
State Sen. Dayna Polehanki, D-Livonia, and state Sen. Rosemary Bayer, D-Beverly Hills, have introduced bills that would expand gun-free zones within the State Capitol complex.
Both have advocated for stricter gun laws in Michigan.
Senate Bills 857 and 858 would make it illegal to carry a firearm in the State Capitol building, the Binsfeld Senate Office Building, and the Anderson House Office Building - with an exception for legislators.
Ryan Bates, executive director of the group End Gun Violence Michigan, said he believes these proposals are much needed.
"We cannot have a functioning democracy at the barrel of a gun," said Bates. "So, it's incredibly important that we protect our legislators and protect our democracy from people who want to do it harm by bringing guns into the places where our laws are made."
If the gun-free zone bills become law, violators could face up to 90 days in jail, and or be fined.
During the highly publicized Oxford High School shooter trial, Polehanki took to social media to warn parents that if their child discharges a firearm and causes harm to themselves or others, the parent is going to jail.
Longtime firearms instructor and gun-rights advocate Rick Ector said he's all for responsible gun ownership - but not gun-free zones.
He argued that having law-abiding citizens carrying firearms in more places would inherently make these areas safer.
"People who have a concealed pistol license, who are primarily the people we're talking about," said Ector, "they are statistically more law-abiding than the law enforcement community, and they've gone through all the required, statutorily specified training."
Both bills have been assigned to the Senate Committee on Civil Rights, Judiciary and Public Safety.
get more stories like this via email
Two years ago today, a teenager killed 19 students and two teachers at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde. The families of those shot and killed have agreed to a $2 million settlement with the city, which equals the entire amount of the town's insurance policy.
Attorneys for the group say they worked with city officials for more than a year after leaders reached out and asked what could be done to ease the families' pain.
Javier Cazares, who lost his daughter in the shooting, said justice and accountability are his main concerns.
"It's been an unbearable two years," he said. "We all know who took our children's lives, but there was an obvious failure out there on May 24. The whole world saw that. We've been let down so many times. The time has come to do the right thing."
The mass shooting garnered international attention and questions after 376 law-enforcement officers waited 77 minutes before going into the classroom to stop the shooter. Family members are disappointed that no disciplinary action has been taken against any of the officers involved, although Uvalde Police Chief Daniel Rodriguez resigned amid questions over how the incident was handled.
In addition to the $2 million settlement, the city of Uvalde has agreed to "restorative justice" policy changes that include establishing an annual day of remembrance on May 24, mental-health services for all families in the community, and addressing public safety risks and the burden of gun violence on police officers.
Although families have settled with the city, said attorney Josh Koskoff, they are filing additional lawsuits including one against the state of Texas, "which has done nothing but burden this town before the shooting by not giving them the resources they need, preventing these families from getting the information they need, and then blaming the city, as if they didn't have how many police officers there? 98? As if they didn't know how to shoot somebody."
get more stories like this via email