HB 1454-FN
relative to the possession of firearms following a court order requiring surrender of firearms and ammunition.
Official record at gencourt.state.nh.us ↗Open this bill in the searchable view → · Follow this bill by RSS
On the record
Quoted from the General Court bill status page, not worked out from the docket.
| Status | HOUSE |
|---|---|
| In the House | DIED ON THE TABLE |
| Introduced | 1/7/2026 |
| Floor date | 3/5/2026 |
| LSR number | 2883 |
| Local government impact | no |
| Committee code | H26 |
Where it stands
House: DIED ON THE TABLE
Every floor vote on this bill was a voice or division vote, so there is no record of how individual legislators voted.
The bill was set aside during the session and never taken back up, so it died when the session ended.
Sponsors
Markell, Jay(R) Rock 18, DeSimone, Debra(R) Rock 18, Lynn, Bob(R) Rock 17
Prime sponsor in bold. From the General Court sponsor file.
What happened
Every action recorded in the official docket, in order. Each line ends with the journal or calendar that recorded it; where we have the document, that citation links to it.
- January 7, 2026Introduced 01/07/2026 and referred to Criminal Justice and Public Safety
- January 14, 2026Public Hearing: 01/14/2026 01:00 pm GP 159
- February 18, 2026Executive Session: 02/18/2026 01:00 pm GP 159
- February 24, 2026Majority Committee Report: Inexpedient to Legislate 02/18/2026 (Vote 11-2; RC)
- February 24, 2026Minority Committee Report: Ought to Pass
- March 5, 2026Lay HB1454 on Table (Rep. Roy): MA DV 227-119 03/05/2026
- August 19, 2026Died on Table, Session ended 08/19/2026
Votes
Roll call tallies and individual votes from the General Court roll call files. Presiding, excused and absent are shown separately: one member presides over each House roll call and does not vote except to break a tie.
Lay HB1454 on Table (Rep. Roy)
Decided on a division vote. Only the outcome was recorded — there is no count of how any member voted.
Committee reports
Reproduced from the House Calendar in the committee’s own words.
Majority — INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE
While the majority shares the minority’s commitment to victim safety, we believe this legislation is both redundant and constitutionally problematic within the framework of New Hampshire’s existing statutes. Under current law, any individual who fails to relinquish firearms pursuant to a court order is already in contempt of court and in violation of a protective order. These are serious offenses that empower law enforcement to act immediately and allow judges to impose significant penalties. Creating a separate, additional criminal offense for the same underlying act constitutes unnecessary “statutory stacking” that complicates the criminal code without providing a practical increase in safety. Redundancy of Penalties: Some argue that all violations are currently addressed by the same penalty; however, judges already possess the discretion to escalate consequences based on the severity of the violation, including the presence of a firearm. This bill provides no new tools to law enforcement that do not already exist under current protective order enforcement protocols. This bill seeks to create a statutory presumption of dangerousness under our bail statutes. The majority finds that such a blanket presumption can inadvertently undermine the fundamental principle of “innocent until proven guilty” and may infringe upon constitutional due process rights. Bail decisions should remain based on the specific facts of an individual case and the discretion of the judiciary, rather than legislative mandates that bypass individualized assessment. New Hampshire has a long-standing tradition of protecting Second Amendment rights and ensuring that any deprivation of those rights is handled with the highest level of judicial scrutiny. By creating an additional layer of criminalization for an act already covered by existing law, this bill risks overlitigation and potential constitutional challenges that could jeopardize the very protective orders it seeks to enforce. Vote 11-2.
Minority — OUGHT TO PASS
Court-ordered firearm surrender exists to prevent imminent harm, and is meaningless without enforcement. Criminalizing the possession of firearms after a lawful surrender order ensures compliance, protects the safety of the victim, and upholds the authority of the courts. While continuing to possess deadly weapons after a protective order has been issued requiring relinquishment of those weapons would constitute a violation of a protective order, all violations are currently addressed by the same penalty. This bill would create an additional criminal offense for possession a firearm after court ordered relinquishment. It also would create a presumption of dangerousness under our bail statute that allows a judge to deny or revoke bail if a defendant is found to be in possession of deadly weapons in violation of a protective order. In a state where half of our homicides are domestic violence-related and half of those are homicides by firearms, this bill sends a strong message that our state means business when it comes to enforcing firearms relinquishment orders and protecting victims of stalking and domestic violence.
Hearings and recordings
Recordings are the General Court’s own, on YouTube. Start times are estimates unless stated otherwise, and the player opens early.
- January 14, 2026 at 13:00Criminal Justice and Public Safety public hearing recording 5:00:54–5:04:03, about 3 min (estimated)
- February 18, 2026 at 13:00Criminal Justice and Public Safety executive session recording 2:48:49–2:51:56, about 3 min (estimated)
- March 5, 2026House floor debate recording (start time not identified)
Page generated 2026-09-03 from data published by the New Hampshire General Court. Granite Record is an independent project, not affiliated with the General Court. The official record always takes precedence. Corrections: [email protected]