Senate Judiciary Committee
Pete Mulvey 271-4063
HB 506-FN, relative to background checks during motions to return firearms and ammunition.
Hearing Date: May 6, 2025
Time Opened: 2:28 p.m. Time Closed: 3:06 p.m.
Members of the Committee Present: Senators Gannon, Abbas, Altschiller and Reardon and Avard.
Members of the Committee Absent : Senator McConkey
Bill Analysis: This bill provides a procedure for conducting a discretionary background check prior to the return of firearms and/or ammunition in a court proceeding.
Sponsors:
Rep. D. Mannion | Rep. Gorski | Rep. Roy |
Rep. Tenczar | Sen. McGough |
|
________________________________________________________________________________
Who supports the bill: Jon Stone, Rep. Jim Kofalt, Victor Muzzi, Holle Novelesky, and Jay Simkin.
Who opposes the bill: Audrey Bergeron, Daniel Bergeron, Sen. Debra Altschiller, Janet Lucas, Sarahlynn Williams, and Zofia Juranty.
Who is neutral on the bill: N/A
Summary of testimony:
Representative Dennis Mannion
Rockingham – District 26
- HB 506-FN is an act relative to background checks during motions to return firearms and ammunition.
- Representative Mannion stated that it can take weeks or months to return property following the expiration of a court order.
- He noted that the bill establishes an expedited procedure for the return of firearms subject to the termination of a court order.
- The key provision of the bill is the entitlement of an individual to have their firearms returned upon the termination or expiration of a court order, unless explicitly stated otherwise.
- Representative Mannion explained that for weapons to be returned, the court must file a National Institute of Criminal Background Check System request within two business days, and the Department of Safety must reply within 10 days as to whether to approve or deny the return.
- The denial process and subsequent provisions for hearings are provided in the bill as well.
- Hearings must be requested within ten business days and must be heard within ten business days of the request.
- An individual can appeal the decision to the supreme court within 30 days, and the full records and transcripts shall be provided at no cost.
- He explained that, as amended, HB 506 requires that the court notify the individual in addition to the agency holding the property to return the item listed on the original court order.
- Representative Mannion stated that many departments have different procedures.
- He noted that many would not release firearms without a court order which can be difficult to achieve.
- The bill would expedite the return of personal property.
- Sen. Gannon asked if the goal of the bill was to provide safeguards to ensure that personal property was returned in a timely manner through court orders.
- Representative Mannion stated that was correct.
- Sen. Abbas referred to lines 22-25 on the first page relative to circumstances where the Department of Safety conducts NICS checks which are inconclusive.
- Sen. Abbas asked what would happen if the Department of Safety acted on their right to proceed regardless of the order. He asked if the “may” in the language should be a “shall”.
- Rep. Mannion replied that the department was more comfortable with the term “may”.
- He noted that if there was no response back, then law enforcement could proceed.
- Sen. Reardon referred to page two, lines 18-19, and asked for other occasions where courts are required to call an individual to notify them of action rather than inform them through by mail.
- Rep. Mannion explained that the intent was to notify an individual that they must physically pick up the order at the court and go to the police, and did not know if there were other occasions where calling was used to notify.
- Sen. Altschiller asked if HB 506 would apply to individuals that have been charged with felonies and found incompetent to stand trial or individuals that have been involuntarily committed to institutions and released.
- Rep. Mannion replied that he was unsure but noted that if there was a court order in place, it would have to be vacated or expired in addition to their release for the bill to apply.
- Sen. Altschiller asked if someone were charged with felonious assault and released after being found unfit for trial, would HB 506 enable them to retrieve their firearms more quickly.
- Rep. Mannion answered that if there was not a court order, nothing prevented them from getting their property back. Rep. Mannion noted that if there was a court order, they would still have to go through the review process.
Jonathan Stone
Claremont, New Hampshire
- Mr. Stone spoke in support of HB 506-FN.
- He explained that the bill simply provided time frames in which the court must act when returning confiscated firearms.
- If an individual no longer has a valid order which states their firearms should be confiscated, they are then able to purchase a brand-new firearm.
- It went against property rights to hold onto seized firearms.
Captain Victor Muzzi
New Hampshire State Police – New Hampshire Department of Safety
- Captain Muzzi requested that the “shall” in the language be changed to a “may” to account for situations in which there are investigations that require a lengthy amount of time.
- He noted that the important aspect of HB 506 is that the NICS provision is the same whether it is for a new purchase or a return of firearms.
- Capt. Muzzi noted that the state police do not want to change their tried-and-true practices.
- He stated that the State police want to educate the court with whatever information they have on day 10, which may be that they are still waiting for pertinent information.
- Capt. Muzzi suggested that the court is not required to run a NICS check, but likely would to determine the suitability of an individual to maintain firearms.
- He stated that the State police would have no issue adhering to timelines.
- They have a lot of guns they would like to return because storage is tight.
- Capt. Muzzi explained that the police do not want the liability of prematurely releasing weapons prior to a court order.
- Sen. Reardon asked about page two, relative to the issuing of an order and wondered why it is mailed to the state police, but the petitioner is informed through a phone call.
- Capt. Muzzi believed that the intent was to make notifications by the court to the petitioner as quickly as possible.
- Sen. Reardon argued that the police would get the order by mail, but the petitioner, after receiving a call, could be under the impression that the police were already aware of the order.
- Capt. Muzzi replied that if an individual presented a recognizable document to the police, they would be able to rely upon the petitioner’s copy.
- Sen. Reardon asked if the bill’s process would only apply to guns or if it would apply to other types of property as well.
- Capt. Muzzi stated that the bill was limited to guns and noted that other forms of property can be returned through a motion filed by the prosecution.
- Sen. Altschiller asked Capt. Muzzi about line 21, and its language about denying responses. She noted that the language refers to state or federal law denying firearms from NICS data. Currently, you cannot deny someone for being incompetent, or in-patient according to Sen. Altschiller.
- Capt. Muzzi said if they accessed the information they could. The conditions stated are federally disqualifying. Firearms could be returned if the police were not privy to a commitment.
- Sen. Altschiller asked if someone was found incompetent to stand trial, institutionalized, and had their firearms taken away, would the police be compelled to return their firearms under HB 506.
- Capt. Muzzi said it was possible, but that ultimately it is a federal disqualifier, and it would depend on the information they had available to them.
- Sen. Altschiller asked if the information doesn’t show up in NICS how would they know.
- Capt. Muzzi explained that the courts could submit the data.
- Sen. Avard asked if under the same scenario an individual could buy a new gun.
- Capt. Muzzi explained that it was possible if there were no extenuating circumstances. If an individual can buy a gun, they should be able to get their existing ones back.
- Sen. Avard asked if the courts could prevent a return.
- Capt. Muzzi stated that they could and reiterated that the court is not compelled to call the police or conduct a NICS check.
Representative Dennis Mannion
Rockingham – District 26
- Rep. Mannion explained that an individual released from a hospital would still need to petition the court, and a judge would have to issue an order to return the property.
- Sen. Abbas suggested striking lines 22-23 because of conflicting language with lines 21-22.
- Rep. Mannion replied that he did not have an issue with the suggestion.
- Sen. Abbas asked if the court could still deny a motion even after the Department of Safety has given the all clear.
- Rep. Mannion said that the court could do as it saw fit and wouldn’t be compelled to ask for a NICS request.
Holle Novelesky
- Ms. Novelesky explained that she asked Rep. Mannion to bring the bill forward.
- She referred to an instance where she had her weapons seized due to a false claim against her.
- She noted that the courts do not have a process for returning property in a timely manner.
- Ms. Novelesky noted that HB 506 lays out quickly, two-day time frames for background checks and decision-making process.
- Ms. Novelesky explained that she had to wait 62 days to get her weapons back, after numerous petitions.
- It was a financial burden as well as a burden on the courts.
- The intent of the bill is not to change the process, but to condense the time frame.
Jay Simkin
- Mr. Simkin stated that he opposed the bill.
- Mr. Simkin argued that courts are not criminal justice agencies and cannot issue NICS checks.
- The agency that can initiate NICS checks is the law enforcement agency in control of the firearms in question.
- He noted that when he calls the Department of Safety for a NICS check, they act as his agent.
- Mr. Simkin suggested that the court asking the Department of Safety to do a NICS check concerning the disposal of firearms may be unlawful because it is not within their jurisdiction.
- He explained that when firearms are seized, the owner does not lose ownership, just control.
- He suggested that the need for NICS checks was unclear, and that HB 506 is based on several misunderstandings.
- Ten days is not enough time for the owner to gather documentation.
PM
Date Hearing Report completed: May 9, 2025