Thank you, Mr. Speaker.…
Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Representative Meuse.
Rep. David Meuse (D - Rock 37)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we have seen this movie before. In 2018, this body rejected a similar bill to allow guns on New Hampshire state college campuses by a 231 to 110 vote. That response came a week after a gunman opened fire at a shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, that left 17 teachers and students dead, and a nation and many people in this legislature in shock. The bill before us today also comes to us on the heels of a tragedy, this time a classroom shooting at Brown University in Providence that took the lives of two students and wounded nine others. What this bill seeks to do is to ban all colleges, universities, and institutes of higher education that receive any amount of funding from the state from restricting the possession or the carrying of firearms on campus. The bill would also allow any person who is aggrieved by a violation of the ban to sue for monetary damages, attorney fees and court costs. Something that we need to understand is that under this bill, it's not just students, faculty and staff who would be able to carry a gun on campus. Random visitors to campus would also be able to carry firearms. According to the U.S. Secret Service, roughly half of school shooters in the U.S. are students. The remainder have no affiliation with the school or their relationship is unknown. In other words, they are visitors. So less than three months after a middle-aged visitor walked into a classroom at Brown University with a gun in his hand and murder in his heart, we have a bill in front of us that would not only invite random visitors onto our own college campuses to tote firearms, we're also telling them that if campus security tries to enforce a restriction, they can file a lawsuit that will ultimately be paid off by taxpayers. The fact is that this bill is so broadly written, that should be reason enough to reject it, but there's more. During the public hearing, we heard the sponsor and a handful of students who support the bill testify that prohibiting guns on campus is unconstitutional. They also told us that firearms restrictions discriminate against young people who, they reminded us, are old enough to vote, old enough to marry, and old enough to serve in the military. As for the argument that the bill is unconstitutional, we do have the Second Amendment. But we also have laws on our books that ban felons and people subject to protective orders from buying guns. We have another state law on the books that prohibits firearms in courtrooms. While Article 2A of our New Hampshire Bill of Rights, and it shall not be infringed wording, gets most of the attention in a debate like this, Article 3 instructs those of us in government that we have an obligation to balance individual rights with our duty to ensure the protection of others. With this bill, we would be shirking that duty. As for the argument that campus restrictions on firearms amount to discrimination against young people, it's critical to realize that these restrictions apply to everyone on campus regardless of age. In short, they have absolutely nothing to do with who you are and everything to do with where you are. In the Heller Decision, the Supreme Court acknowledged, even as it was expanding gun rights, that there remains a need for reasonable regulations to prohibit the carrying of firearms in sensitive places, such as schools and government buildings. Four years ago, in the Bruen Decision, the court clarified that the right to carry a firearm exists outside the home, but it also reaffirmed that firearms can still be restricted in certain places. Schools remain one of those places, and not a single court ruling has said otherwise. During the public hearing, university security staff testified that in an active shooter response, the need to factor in armed faculty, students, staff, and visitors who might be brandishing or even shooting their weapons adds risk and complexity to any police response. We were also told that it increases the likelihood that a person openly carrying a firearm could be mistaken for a shooter as law enforcement tries to bring a violent incident to an end. As former House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Chairman, David Welch, said when he spoke against a similar bill in 2018, law enforcement coming into a place like a school with half a dozen or a dozen people with guns drawn is not a good scenario. But if this bill passes, it will be a scenario that every higher educational institution in New Hampshire that accepts state money, will have no choice but to prepare for. For our states, public colleges, and universities, this means hiring additional security staff, creating new training programs, and paying costs for general liability insurance that will substantially increase all at taxpayer expense. Meanwhile, research suggests that allowing guns on campus does nothing to increase safety, but what it will do is increase the risk of incidents involving firearms, including accidents, suicides and homicides. Mr. Speaker, I urge you to vote red so another motion may be made.
Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Representative Burton.
Rep. Wayne Burton (D - Straf 10)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Like you, thanks to the ubiquity of cell phone cameras, I watched in horror the killing in Minneapolis of Renee Good on January 7th and Alex Pretti on January 24th. My PTSD kicking in from my experiences in Vietnam five decades ago, when among my responsibilities was writing the letters home to the men in my unit who had been killed. And it was not the heavy combat we were in in the Mekong Delta, where I was an adjutant company commander with the 9th Infantry Division. It was what I knew about the letters, that many of the 18-year-olds we put in body bags were killed by accidental discharge. They were killed by friendly fire. And these were trained soldiers who died because they were in an area where guns were sometimes misused. Those thoughts I was thinking about, that wouldn't I hate it if the president of the University of New Hampshire had to write a letter home to a family of a student who may have been killed because of mishandled weapons on campus. And the letter would read, "we regret to inform you that your daughter died from a mishandled weapon in Stoke Hall." My reaction would be, how the hell did a pistol get into Stoke Hall at the University of New Hampshire? That's what could happen if we pass this bill into law. Those thoughts returned when I debated the sponsor of House Bill 1793 on WMUR a few weeks ago, when he emphatically asserted that arming students like him and his friends would make our public universities, state colleges, and community colleges safer than they are now guarded by trained law enforcement officers. My answer to that is, in the Seacoast, we have a bridge for sale, I'd be happy to sell it to you, it's coming down, because it makes no sense to me. Those trained officers at UNH and Durham are one of the few dual police stations in the country that are both accredited by CALEA, which is the premier accrediting body for police departments. And I've been involved in that as a member of the town council for 11 years. It's really, really strict, and they review all of the policies and procedures, including firearms. But the negative consequences of turning our institutions into free-fire zones under the banner of campus carry have immediate consequences, even as we hope shots are never fired. The community colleges, in addition
to security officers, might be forced to pay higher insurance premiums and install and maintain safe storage areas for those who wish to store a weapon while using fitness facilities or work in labs. Several of the community colleges have either embedded high schools or daycares on campus, which may have to be shuttered due to conflicting laws and rules related to these places. Free-fire zones have negative consequences, even as we hope shots are never fired. The consequences of this bill for the three residential campuses would be the same; increased cost and less security for students, faculty, staff and visitors in recreation areas, classrooms and any on-campus activities, such as sporting events and cultural events. Thirty-one states, almost two-thirds of the states, ban carrying concealed weapons or give their institutions their choice as to whether to ban them or not. Eleven states permit the carrying of concealed weapons, but often add other requirements. In Texas, for example, the gun owner must have a license to carry, but only in a gun-free zone. In Arkansas, only enhanced concealed carry permit holders may carry concealed weapons. Open carry is forbidden in Arkansas, as is storage in university-owned dormitories and residence halls. And by the way, right now the university's policy is to store the weapons of the students until they need them in 24-hour access. In fact, New Hampshire would become only the third state, with Utah and West Virginia, to have such a liberal firearms law if House Bill 1793 passes. Like Keene and Plymouth, the town of Durham, where I serve on the town council for the last 11 years, is a compact area. Our new 600-student middle school sits right behind fraternity row on Madbury Road. Many kids walk by them and through the campus, coming and going to school. I live a quarter of a mile from T. Hall, in earshot of social events on the campus. I don't want to hear gunshots. The town council in Durham unanimously passed a resolution. I won't read the whole thing, but one paragraph. Quote, "the forced elimination of campus weapons policies at UNH would represent a significant and unnecessary intrusion by the state into the ability of local public safety officials and university leaders to tailor security measures to their particular needs, fiscal layout and risk environment of the Durham campus." At the hearing, as the hearing of HB 1793 concluded a few weeks ago, the chair shrugged and looked at those of us who opposed the bill, saying words to the effect that he felt the pain of those testifying against it, but the second amendment is absolute. No, it's not. The main Article 2 itself has a natural right of obtaining happiness. There's no mention of weapons. Amendment 2A, an add-on to cover the militiamen storing weapons in their homes in colonial periods times, includes the right to bear arms. In other words, our right to be free from violence is of equal power or more than the cited in the amendment. A few years ago during my third term here in this house, when I was asked to be the lead speaker against the same NRA-inspired bill, something very special happened. Some of you may remember it because you were here. I used to sit over there because at that time we all sat together. I thought that was a little healthier, by the way, but I used to sit in the second row over there. When I was asked to be the lead speaker, former Representative David A. Welch, then the highly respected chair of the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee, intercepted me as I walked to the podium to speak. He asked me if he could do my speech. Having heard my testimony during the bill's hearing, he knew I was in opposition. So I stepped aside and he strode to that podium. He had no long speech to give opposing the bill. But what he did say swung the vote from OTP to ITL. I'll never forget his powerful words. Quote, "I've learned my granddaughter will attend UNH this fall and I want her to be safe." The bill lost by a wide margin. Please reject House Bill 1793 so all of our children will be safe. Thank you.
Speaker PackardChair recognizes Representative Farrington.
Rep. Samuel Farrington (R - Straf 8)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In 1982, a supermajority of Granite Staters approved Article 2A of our state constitution. That reads that all persons, all persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property, and the state. A few decades later, in 2017, New Hampshire became a constitutional carry state, meaning that you do not need a silly permission slip in order to exercise your right to bear arms. We in New Hampshire have made it clear, self-defense is not a privilege; it is a natural right. And natural rights are not given by government, they are granted by God alone. And so what God gives, and so what God gives, we cannot take away. But right now at every single public university in our state, unelected administrators are stripping college students, professors and visitors of their natural rights. This bill prevents publicly funded universities from contradicting state law. Now if we've learned anything from the tragedy at Brown, it should be that gun-free zones only create soft targets, where victims are left defenseless and hopeless, without the ability to put up a fight against the bad guy. More than 90% of all mass shootings happen in these so-called gun-free zones. What happened at Brown could happen at UNH, and we need to take action right now. In committee, we heard from more than a dozen college students in support of this bill, one of which was a senior at UNH, and he wants the ability to carry a firearm, because right now the university is doing absolutely nothing to protect his safety. Buildings are left wide open so anybody can walk in at any time, and the university won't even guarantee a police presence inside of those buildings. We heard from a female student at Keene State College, and she wants the bill to be passed because she's worried about walking home by herself after her night-time classes. So this is a real issue. More than 400 New Hampshire college students have signed a petition in support of this bill. Now when we hear from the opposition, we hear that college students are too drunk, that they're too immature, and that they're too young to carry a firearm. My question is, how can we allow them to vote then? And how can they go fight in a foreign war? The university has lobbied hard against this bill. Why? Because it takes away their power. But in their own words, of their own Chief of Police, Steven Lee, college students are too drunk to carry a firearm. What happened a week later? Steven Lee was arrested for drunk driving. You cannot make this up, and that is their best argument against campus carry. The fact of the matter is that college students are adults, deserving of an equal protection of the law as it already stands here in New Hampshire. I hope that you will join me in passing campus carry, because gun rights are human rights. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Rep. Len Turcotte (R - Straf 4)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would you believe that Liberty University, one of the more conservative colleges in the country, in Lynchburg, Virginia, not only allows their students to carry, but encourages them to carry?
Rep. Samuel Farrington (R - Straf 8)That makes reasonable sense, given that that is in Virginia, and Virginia Tech University, just a few decades ago, had a mass shooting. A professor died in that shooting because he was standing between the shooter and his students. He was a trained firearm instructor, and he was prevented from carrying a firearm. These policies hurt people.
Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the majority committee report of what it passed in 1793. Representative Meuse has requested a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. It will be a roll call vote. Members, take your seats. The motion before us is Ought to Pass on HB 1793. This is a roll call vote. Chair recognizes Representative Harriott-Gathright for a Parliamentary Inquiry.
Rep. Linda Harriott-Gathright (D - Hills 10)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I know that our higher education campuses are a heightened source of games and competition and a sensitive place for students, and if I know that our courts consistently prohibit the carrying of firearms in schools and in some government buildings, and furthermore, if I know that public safety is in jeopardy, particularly if there's an active shooter on campus, because number one, our law enforcement have no idea who the perpetrator is. So lastly, because multiple persons are playing firearms or displaying firearms, it doesn't help the situation at all for law enforcement. And lastly, I'd like to remind you that our young people, and this is statistically, lack...
Speaker PackardI'll remind the representative that this is a parliamentary inquiry.
Rep. Linda Harriott-Gathright (D - Hills 10)Okay. If I know, all right, if I know that our young people lack reasoning until approximately the age of 27, I ask you to protect our children on campus by voting no.
Speaker PackardChair recognizes Representative Rhodes for a Parliamentary Inquiry.
Rep. Jennifer Rhodes (R - Ches 17)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if I know by passing this law, it will do nothing to make it less illegal to commit a mass murder or to terrorize people, and Mr. Speaker, if I know the states that have passed campus carry have done so without any increase or risk of violence, and Mr. Speaker, if I know it is unacceptable to tell legal-aged, willing, and enabled-bodied adults they are prohibited to protect themselves if the need arises because somebody might be afraid to, would I now press the green button with the committee recommendation? The motion before us, majority committee report Ought to Pass on House Bill 1793. This is a roll call vote. If you're in favor, you'll press the green button. If you're opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. If all members present had an opportunity to vote, the House will attend to the state of the vote. 188 voting yea, 165 voting nay, the committee report is adopted.