New Hampshire’s Republican senators reportedly rejected an effort to require psychiatric records to be included in background checks for firearm purchases.
Lawmakers on Thursday blocked a final attempt to advance the bill, arguing it would violate Second Amendment protections on the right to keep and bear arms. according to New Hampshire Bulletin. invoice The bill would have included mental health records, such as psychiatric admissions, in background checks and would have allowed for “firearms confiscation procedures following certain mental health court proceedings.” (Related: Department of Justice announces new rules that will dramatically expand background checks for gun purchases)
According to the media, Republican state Sen. Daniel Innis said the bill could allow the state to seize firearms not only owned by people hospitalized for mental illness, but also those owned by anyone living with them.
Republican state Sen. Sharon Carson reportedly criticized the bill’s sponsors for not discussing the issue with gun rights groups while drafting the bill. “It’s important that we hear from them, but they’re not included in this process at all,” she argued, according to the New Hampshire Bulletin. “So if we’re going to move forward with this bill, I hope that we hear from people who actually own guns.”
The bill’s co-sponsor, Republican state Rep. Terry Roy, who reportedly had never supported gun control legislation before this bill was introduced, introduced House Bill 1711 with Democratic Rep. David Muse in response to the shooting of a hospital security guard in November.
⚡️ New Hampshire lawmakers are planning to address gaps in the state’s gun laws following a shooting at a psychiatric hospital, in which a former patient shot and killed a guard. Lawmakers aim to fix the problem by… https://t.co/lpikyTjyv8 pic.twitter.com/RuvfpclcSI
— RiskMap (@RiskMapOfficial) December 6, 2023
“I am 2and “I am a supporter of the constitutional amendment,” he told the New Hampshire Bulletin in a text after the Senate vote, “but that doesn’t mean I can’t take into consideration very limited constitutional life-saving concerns. The two are not mutually exclusive.”
If the bill had passed, it would not have applied to people who were subject to mandatory emergency admission applications, but only to people who were admitted to non-emergency hospitals, the New Hampshire Bulletin reported. report February. According to the report, this means they have had a court hearing where a judge has determined they are a danger to themselves or others.
