By Dave Workman
Editor-in-Chief
New Hampshire Republicans reportedly “came to an agreement” last week on legislation designed to strengthen state preemption, but Democrats are claiming it will hurt public safety and also take away local control, which is exactly what preemption laws are supposed to do.
Seacoastonline is reporting that the legislation, House Bill 609, must face further wrangling before heading to Gov. Kelly Ayotte’s desk.
According to a short synopsis of HB 609, “This bill provides that the state has authority and jurisdiction over the regulation of firearms, stun guns, Tasers, pepper spray devices, knives, and other self-defense tools, to the extent consistent with federal law, and exclusive authority and jurisdiction to make laws and delegate authority to adopt rules regarding the same by state employees or on state property. This bill also provides that no rule, regulation, or policy adopted or instituted by an executive branch agency regarding the sale, purchase, ownership, use, possession, transportation, licensing, permitting or other matters relating to firearms, firearm component, ammunition firearms supplies, stun guns, Tasers, pepper spray devices, knives, or other self-defense tools, by state employees or on state property shall continue or remain in effect after July 1, 2029, unless renewed or re-adopted.”
Current law states, “I. To the extent consistent with federal law, the state of New Hampshire shall have authority and jurisdiction over the sale, purchase, ownership, use, possession, transportation, licensing, permitting, taxation, or other matter pertaining to firearms, firearms components, ammunition, firearms supplies, or knives in the state. Except as otherwise specifically provided by statute, no ordinance or regulation of a political subdivision may regulate the sale, purchase, ownership, use, possession, transportation, licensing, permitting, taxation, or other matter pertaining to firearms, firearms components, ammunition, or firearms supplies in the state. Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting a political subdivision’s right to adopt zoning ordinances for the purpose of regulating firearms or knives businesses in the same manner as other businesses or to take any action allowed under RSA 207:59.
“II. Upon the effective date of this section, all municipal ordinances and regulations not authorized under paragraph I relative to the sale, purchase, ownership, use, possession, transportation, licensing, permitting, taxation, or other matter pertaining to firearms, firearm components, ammunition, firearms supplies, or knives shall be null and void. Source. 2003, 283:2. 2011, 139:1, eff. Aug. 6, 2011.”
Lawmakers do not have much time, as noted by the New Hampshire Journal. When reporting on HB 609, the Journal reports, “As amended, the bill would expand state preemption over local firearms ordinances to nonlethal devices such as Tasers and pepper spray. It would also require that any state agency policy limiting Second Amendment rights go through the state rulemaking process, thereby giving the legislature oversight of state gun regulations. All existing rules and policies would stay on the books, requiring state agencies to clear them through rulemaking over the next three years.”
Traditionally, Democrats have not cared for preemption statutes, because they make it impossible for local municipalities to adopt, and vigorously enforce, possible conflicting and confusing local ordinances. Gun rights activists believe this to be a strategy aimed at discouraging gun ownership.
