Brady Owens

Dear Members of the Committee, I strongly oppose HB 1642-FN, which creates "extreme risk protection orders" allowing the confiscation of firearms without criminal charges, due process violations, or a finding of guilt. This so-called red flag law permits ex parte orders—often issued on one-sided allegations without the accused present—leading to warrantless or low-threshold seizures of constitutionally protected property. Such mechanisms risk abuse, false accusations, and prolonged deprivation of rights with inadequate recourse, all while bypassing traditional criminal safeguards. The U.S. Supreme Court addressed similar overreach in Caniglia v. Strom (2021), a Rhode Island case involving warrantless gun seizures during a wellness check. In a unanimous 9-0 decision, the Court ruled that police cannot seize firearms from the home without a warrant under broad "community caretaking" claims, reinforcing Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable seizures. While Caniglia focused on warrantless actions, its principles underscore the dangers of emergency disarmament schemes lacking robust due process—principles that apply to red flag laws enabling quick confiscations. Further, under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), firearm restrictions must align with historical tradition. There is no Founding-era analogue for disarming individuals based on unproven future risk via civil orders without charges or conviction. New Hampshire's Constitution (Part I, Article 2-a) declares the right to keep and bear arms natural, essential, and unalienable for defense of self, family, property, and the state. HB 1642-FN directly threatens this by enabling government seizure without adequate protections. I urge you to vote against HB 1642-FN to preserve due process, prevent abuse, and defend constitutional liberties that this legislature has repeatedly rejected in past sessions. Sincerely, Brady Owens