Brady Owens

Dear Members of the Committee, I oppose HB 1454-FN, which establishes procedures for the surrender, storage, and return of firearms after protective orders but fails to adequately protect individuals' due process rights.Protective orders can result in the temporary or permanent deprivation of a fundamental constitutional right—the right to keep and bear arms—yet this bill does not sufficiently ensure robust safeguards against abuse or error. Due process requires meaningful notice, a fair opportunity to be heard, clear standards of proof, and prompt mechanisms for challenging and returning firearms once the order expires or is lifted. Without these protections, law-abiding Granite Staters risk losing their firearms based on allegations alone, with limited recourse, potentially for extended periods.In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), the Supreme Court emphasized that firearm regulations must align with the Nation’s historical tradition. There is no historical analogue for broadly disarming individuals through civil protective orders without strong due process guarantees, especially when such orders can be issued ex parte or on lower evidentiary thresholds.New Hampshire's Constitution (Part I, Article 2-a) declares the right to keep and bear arms as natural, essential, and unalienable for defense of self, family, property, and the state. HB 1454-FN undermines this by prioritizing procedural mechanisms over substantive due process protections, inviting potential misuse and infringing on constitutional liberties.I urge you to vote against HB 1454-FN or amend it to include stronger due process requirements that truly protect the rights of the accused while addressing legitimate safety concerns. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Brady Owens