Committee of Conference on HB 609, HB 1279, HB 194 (05/28/26)

Added: 2026-05-31

[00:06:04]Okay, I'm opening the continued con committee of conference on um House Bill 609 and present uh myself, chair um Terry Roy, Rockingham 31 and um if you would introduce yourselves please. House members, >> Representative Jennifer RH Cheshure District 17. Representative Erica Leon, Rockingham 13, Derry.

[00:06:32]>> Representative Kathleen Pockat, Hillsboro 25.

[00:06:36]>> And my Senate colleagues, please.

[00:06:37]>> Senator Daryl Abbis, District 2.

[00:06:40]>> Senator Terry Rearen, District 15.

[00:06:43]>> Senator Tim, District 2.

[00:06:45]>> Thank you. And where we left off yesterday is we were trying to find um some language that we thought would be a good compromise for both parties. I believe that language has been circulated, has it? Um, I'll turn it over to Representative Leyon to, uh, discuss where the language is at.

[00:07:04]>> Uh, thank you very much. Um, I do have some language. It was, uh, sent out in some emails this morning. Um, but I do have an OS draft and a summary here that I can hand um out to everybody. I'll just pass it along.

[00:07:17]>> And if you could um, for the public uh, go over where where we're at with that.

[00:07:21]>> Um, absolutely.

[00:07:23]>> Oh, yeah.

[00:07:24]>> Okay. Dueling drafts.

[00:07:26]>> Yes.

[00:07:27]>> Oh, wait. We have two different same same version.

[00:07:30]>> Probably not.

[00:07:31]>> No, I appreciate that.

[00:07:34]>> Yeah.

[00:07:35]>> My understanding is that we're all trying to work to a solution that protects everybody's rights and we are working towards that finalized language.

[00:07:43]We have two different drafts that we need to compare, see where the differences are. Um, I can walk through what is in the draft that I've brought forward. Hopefully, we can have somebody speak to the other draft. Whoops. Could I get one of those? I think the one that I had. Yes. Thank you. Um I And then we can look through and see what the differences are. See where we have some points of well, not even necessarily figure out the points of agreement and all of that. We'll figure out the entire package, but see where right now we're headed in the same direction. So I can walk everybody through this amendment.

[00:08:12]This one is 21107H.

[00:08:14]Um so one of the things that it does is that it just trims this list. we were adding stun guns, tasers, pepper spray devices, and other self-defense tools.

[00:08:24]And if we're making sure that there's um any sort of private right of action, having an undefined term that's not in statute, just introduces complications that we don't need when most of these tools are already defined in statute. Um so in 195 sorry 15926 in paragraphs one and two which are existing law the only changes there are that list of personal defense tools. Um then if you look at section three that is a new one that then brings uh potential it basically gives more details and clarity about what happens with political subdivisions in the state because it's already existing law that they cannot enact ordinances that are contrary um that that would regulate uh firearms ammunitions um and etc. So what this does is that it declares the general court supremacy over the regulation of these tools. uh basically saying that any because uh being a Dylan roll state anything needs to come through the h the legislature before these choices to limit people's rights happens at the local level. Um it allows for a suit for damages of violations of preeemption law. Um it also says that just because council told you that it was okay to um restrict guns in the local park if there's not statutory authority that's no defense. uh because we do try and write our laws so that the average person can understand them and read them. Um and then it leans it leans the law to allow all of the current protections for elected officials um that we already have in statute. But if it ensures that if somebody is willfully not complying with this, willfully and knowingly pushing ahead with something that they absolutely know is against state law, um that there is uh re recourse for that. Um, and then also if somebody were to were to file a lawsuit saying that no, you cannot prohibit part um guns from my local park because that's not allowed by statute. If they don't fix that until the lawsuit is filed, it says that you've you've won in that lawsuit. Uh, then moving to section four, it clarifies the role of the legislature in the oversight of state agency rules, regulations, and policies.

[00:10:36]Um, I know the idea of talking about rules when it comes to the Second Amendment has been very touchy um, out in the public and in the community, but the fact of the matter is today agencies can make rules regarding firearms and other personal defense tools. If we don't pass anything, that will be unchanged. There are many, many rules already in the body that exist um, around firearms. Most of those are specifically statutoily authorized, but not each of them.

[00:11:06]So right now there's also some that are currently exempt from the rulemaking policies. So right now if a particular department says that their drivers when they're out dealing with volatile people cannot carry a personal defense tool even when they're miles away from anybody else. If they're disarming people when they may be in a vulnerable situation, they're not they won't be able to do that without uh without getting statutory authority. um it would sort of pop the bubble on some of the exemptions for the the internal policies when they relate to firearms for state employees so that we can ensure that there is transparency and we can also make sure that anything that needs to happen is moved into statute before the effective date. Um there's a three-year sunset on those policies and rules which gives us a couple different cycles in order to say, you know, perhaps this part of the police standards that deals with an emergency response should be carved out into statute that we're going to specifically exempt that from this process because transparency would be to the harm of the people and to the harm of the state. Um, so it would allow us the time to get those particular carveouts um, filed next year once we hear from everybody about which specific parts need to be protected for safety, but it wouldn't allow things that tell you that when you're working this job, you can't carry concealed um, and you can't do this if you're not in a sensitive area.

[00:12:30]>> Can you give us an example because you've gone over a few things. So when you say state employees that are in the middle of nowhere, he's talking about potentially like plow drivers who are out at 3:00 in the morning on the road.

[00:12:40]>> Yes. And that sometimes run into volatile people.

[00:12:43]>> Yeah. I saw a video once.

[00:12:44]>> I saw a video once, too. Uh we should make sure that uh plow truck drivers can defend themselves if it does come to that.

[00:12:50]>> Yeah.

[00:12:51]>> Yes.

[00:12:51]>> No comment. Um so what what about the other part you said with regard to the exemptions? Um what do you mean by that?

[00:12:58]Give us an example of that. So, currently in the rulemaking statute, there's a whole list in RSA 4 541A21 that exempts different things from the rulemaking requirements. Um, some of those are around um corrections procedures. So, if you if there was a rule that said that corrections employees could not possess a firearm on any of the state property, including in their vehicle, then that would mean that somebody who may have uh may have been guarding somebody in jail in prison who's now out, would be disarmed on their way into the corrections department to go to work to their job.

[00:13:32]You know, these are people who who put themselves out there in order to protect public safety. and we should make sure that there's no policies that would disarm them and make them vulnerable for doing the job that we ask them to do for the state. Um, and then there's severability just to make sure that every that if there's one part that's a problem, that's section 4. And uh, the one thing that I think really is the strongest part to ensure that rules follow the law is this is section two.

[00:14:01]You know, we've been discussing the the limitation on rulemaking when it comes to firearms and other tools. There is a list already existing in the administrative procedure act RSA 541A223 which says what the agency shall not by rule do. This is where we flag if there's a fee increase that a fee that hasn't been authorized by statute. Um if there's a penalty that's not authorized by statute. This is something we see in gel car constantly. And so putting the regulation regulating the sale, purchase, ownership, use, possession, transportation, licensing, permitting or other matters relating to firearms, firearms components, ammunition, firearms supplies, stun guns, tasers, pepper spray devices or knives, unless specifically authorized by statute, would mean that that trigger already shows up if any rules are submitted that violate that. that's not left to the public to find, but that's part becomes part of the the bill review process in um in the administrative rules department. Uh but because when statute is passed, any rules that are in violation are then um invalidated, this would only apply to any rules adopted after July 1st, 2027 to allow the rules that are already in process to continue through. We'd obviously flag something if it would need to be uh renewed again in three years um subject to the earlier section of the bill. Um but it and it would also identify times that perhaps this is a good reason to have a regulation and there would be one full legislative year in order to get a legislative directive to say that in this case you may regulate X Y or Z. um if the general court who has the authority believes that it's appropriate, it would be specifically put into statute and it would be perfectly fine in rules. So hopefully that uh summary worked. I'm happy for any questions or to hear what the other draft is.

[00:15:59]>> Can I Yeah, please. Uh my Senate colleagues would weigh in.

[00:16:02]Representative Abbas, >> can I ask just two questions and and this is actually in both versions. So it just I want clarification on uh one of them is so on the Senate version it would be lines 12 to 13 on page.

[00:16:17]>> Sorry Senator could we get the Senate version? We haven't seen that one.

[00:16:22]>> You have one with my name on it and Abbas's name >> and Representative Leon and the amendment that you prepared. It's page two, lines 17 and 18.

[00:16:30]>> Coming down.

[00:16:36]>> Page page two, line 17. You said >> 17 18 of the House version.

[00:16:44]>> The Senate version is page two, lines 12 and 13.

[00:16:47]>> Okay. But it basically says if the local municipality or whatever takes some type of remedial measure and cor basically changes a policy that was in violation of this law while a petition's pending. Um it says the petitioner or plaintiff shall be considered a prevailing party. Um do you mind some explanation? I mean, it looks like normally remedial measures aren't aren't >> I can explain what happens in constitutional civil rights litigation sometimes is that a party will go all the way through the process uh and get, you know, get right up to where they're about to get a judgment from the court and then rather than lose the case, municipality changes its rules. Um, that happened sort of most famously, I can't remember the name of the case at the United States Supreme Court. It was the case that New York State brought against uh >> Well, I know and the court said, "No, we're not dropping this because you change, >> right? That was part of the concern, but New York changed its law after they had litigated it, been through the circuit courts, brief briefed it in the Supreme Court. Um, and it's to prevent that from happening. It's to make sure that if somebody goes through the trouble of finding a statute unconstitutional or rule unconstitutional, they still available to get attorneys fees.

[00:18:05]>> Yeah. there's no attorney to take the case if they know that they might be bad at the end.

[00:18:09]>> Right. Got it.

[00:18:10]>> Um and I I would also mention that it's my intention that uh when this is signed into law, I will go through and notify anybody that I can flag as in violation of it so that people don't find out when there's a lawsuit filed.

[00:18:22]>> I'm sure it will be spread very quickly to the municipal association.

[00:18:26]>> Yes. And the the other question I had and this appears in the House version on lines 19 on page two lines 9 to 11. It's also in the Senate version. It basically if it's willful and knowing you it would potentially multiply the damages. That's fine. But it says, "It shall not be a defense under this section that adopting or enforcing any charter amendment or provision ordinance or bylaw that the local government was acting in good faith or upon advice of counsel. Um, if I was just kind of thinking if they're the victim of bad legal advice, which is how that would work, is that something that >> it seems like everyone would claim that if that was an availability, they say, "Well, the lawyer said I >> I think it's mostly a belt and suspenders proposition. It's not a defense to a constitutional or an ultravarious claim that you were following somebody else's advice up uh in this case, an ordinance. It's an ordinance either would or would not be consistent with what the what the the law requires and what the constitution requires. Um advice of council is not a defense and this just clarifies that.

[00:19:36]>> The council >> the council issue only comes in when you're appealing a a bad ruling um in a criminal case. In other words, I had ineffective counsel, but that doesn't work in civil.

[00:19:46]>> Well, but it might be a mitigating factor for the will for a knowing.

[00:19:50]>> It could be. And that's why I'm asking like could could you claim like well clearly we violated this but we were operating on the advice of council was it willful or knowingly would you be able to raise it then I think I mean >> wouldn't be knowing right because you didn't knowingly do what you were told that it was okay so you did what you thought you were >> yeah some things we have to leave up to the judge and I think >> it's a mitigation defense >> matters of mitigation extenduation for the judge to consider in his in his her ruling.

[00:20:18]Next question, >> Mr. Chair.

[00:20:20]>> Yes.

[00:20:22]To represent Leyon. So, the language you put in under the administrative procedure act 541A, did you run that by Doug?

[00:20:28]>> I have a call to >> I have a call in to him and I'll ensure that that is in fact solid. That was just a recognition that while we do everything in this section, it's going to be a lot harder in order to make sure that this actually gets flagged in the system. So, one of the reasons I got reassigned to this committee is because we've kind of moved this into Jouar's purview and I'm the chair of Jouar. My concern with this whole section that you just write is that the a we would not have the authority to even approve a rule where by the way you've written this.

[00:20:57]>> So, if an agency came in and said we want to regulate tasers, we either want to allow them or not allow them or whatever. We want to allow our people to carry them or whatever they're going to do to or we want to prohibit it in our building. whatever they want to do. By the way, you've written this admin, you've you've amended the administrative procedure act says the agency shall not have a rule. Period. And it lists you can't regulate sale, purchase, ownership, use, possession at all. So, and and Jouar doesn't have the right to overwrite the law. So, the standing law would be is they have no right to make any rule whatsoever on anything, never mind bring it to Jouar.

[00:21:33]>> Well, thank you. So I thought that that was the intention of the Senate amendment um in order to have no not this one but as it was passed was to limit that in those cases and that it was limiting the ability of of JCAR to limiting the ability to have rules that violate this. So, if I can speak, I think the the the intention was to make sure that any of those internal rules is what we're talking about, which technically we don't look at now, >> um would now become JCAR based rules and would have to go to rulemaking and be voted on by JCAR.

[00:22:04]>> If I if I may, our intention is that if there are going to be rules that Jelcar cannot approve the rules unless they are in compliance with this statute.

[00:22:15]Correct. So we need language that says that if an administrative if agency brings a rule that hits on one of these protected topics, Jelcar cannot approve it if it violates the the intent of the statute.

[00:22:27]>> Well, I'm pretty sure that's what the >> or unless there's a clear delegation of the authority to bring make the rules >> under by another statute. I think that's what the Senate version does. The House version, the administrative rule section makes it so it's an absolute. They can't even write a rule.

[00:22:39]>> What section are you referring to?

[00:22:41]>> Uh section two on page three starting on line 12. of the administrative procedures act and that section you know on line on line 13 it says an agency shall not by rule and then you go down to the new section she's adding letter I create any kind of regulation >> and my understanding was that there may be a reason for an agency to provide a regulation however if they're going to do it they have to bring it to us and we have to approve it >> and it wasn't an absolute prohibition on any rules it was a it was a mandatory requirement that they show up in front of J car and prove their rule >> we We've we've had some conversations with regard to the rules and whether or not, you know, we would rather an agency put it in statute if they instead of a rule. But when we have three or four different devices or items that we are prohibiting um control over, I can think of hundreds of situations throughout the different agencies where one of these items would be problematic in a workplace. Not necessarily because we don't like guns, but because having one when you're climbing through a pipe, for example, I mean, there's just so many different So, if we were to do it that way, we would have to write a 100 statutes. Um, and good luck to the agency.

[00:23:55]>> Well, I don't think the issue is statute again.

[00:23:56]>> Well, I think that was the the Senate amendment, I think, originally was intended to recognize that the legislature can't write all those statutes and and and pass them all. It' be do nothing else, >> right? Um so but that there did need to be more discipline imposed on firearm regulation through more specific delegations of authority by the legislature to the agencies.

[00:24:17]>> How what language do we need though to make sure that um Jelcar cannot approve a rule that would be contrary to contrary to this statute that says we don't want you stripping our state employees of their rights.

[00:24:32]Isn't the mere fact that jail car taking action whether approving or not approving like by them approving the rule and let's say the rule is restrictive I mean it still went through jail so I think as it's applied it it would resolve that >> well no if Jelkar approved a rule that said truck drivers can't carry firearms that doesn't that's not in keeping with the spirit of the of the statute >> but but even under the underlying the original bill the legislature would have been able to approve such a rule if that baso chose to do so. It's the same process. It could still be done. It's just whe you and I may not like that whether it's done through jail or by the legislative process, but it's still being done, >> right? But if we don't put something in there, then this whole thing is an exercise in futility because we're back at square one because the agencies are writing rules right now that say you can't carry a firearm here or you can't carry a knife here. If I can make may again the problem is that the current rules that they're writing have no oversight in JC car >> and the reason being is they're internal rules. Generally the rules that come in front of JC car are what we call external rules are the rules that face the citizen. So how a citizen interacts with an agency not employment rules. We don't see those. What we're intending to do here is say from now on if you're going to write employment rules about these topics they must come toward legislative oversight.

[00:25:54]>> Okay?

[00:25:54]>> Right? So, it's not an absolute prohibition, but it's now right now we have no say in what they do for rules.

[00:26:00]The idea be my understanding and Rick correct me if I'm wrong on this, but my understanding was we want legislative oversight if they're going to if they're going to to your point, there may be a reason agency says if you're calling in a hole, don't carry your gun. Right. And there's a legitimate reason not to do that and they want to write a rule to say that where and but that rule should come before jail card.

[00:26:19]>> And if you are going to carry a gun, it might have to be a retention, >> whatever. So, so this so this is a very different sorry this is a very different understanding than what I had of this when I read what we have as 4B in both the House and Senate amendments that says no rules, regulations or policies shall be adopted except under express authority delegated by the general court pursuant to the statute dot dot dot shall identify the statute expressly authorizing rulemaking related to the sale purchase. To me, that says that jail can't approve something that is not statutoily approved. We can't just say, you know what, I think not carrying a gun in a tunnel is a great idea. Let's go ahead and approve it. The reason why there is a glide path and a ramp to this adoption is to identify any of these and say, you know, in these categories, there can be an employment rule when you know that there needs to be a retention holster when you are upside down or you're crawling through something small.

[00:27:18]I recognize that this brings more work on it, but I think that the rights of state employees are are worth us going through this process. And if the intention of this is to allow Jelcard to rubber rubber stamp something that would not follow the rest of this, I I'm not >> Well, that's why that's something I disagree. That's why I'm talking about language that that um ensures Jelc car doesn't just say that sounds reasonable without first bumping up against the statute that says the presumption is that state employees enjoy the same rights as every other citizen. Now the burden should be on the administrative agency why they have to overcome that and only then could jail approve such a rule. I don't think it's reasonable though to say we need a statute for every single potential situation where an employer in the state has to say okay you're an electrician no no um tasers please why you're in this position you can have it later it it gets so complex we would spend years just trying to pass all the legislation so I think that this is the very nature of why you have rules um but to your point I think that there needs to be a clear hardline line. You cannot approve a rule if it's contrary to the intent of the statute, which is that state employees shall be presumed to have the same rights as every private citizen. Does that does that make sense?

[00:28:40]>> That is my intention. Um it's it's not my intention though to allow some um back door and I'm not saying that you're asking for backdoor rulemaking, but I'm also talking to the concerns that I've heard. I don't want it to be able to just go by jail car and have them say, you know what, I think that makes a lot of sense. Let's just go ahead and proceed with this. The reason there's a three-year ramp is that if we do end up running into some of these situations, this is something we can address. Jelcar generally puts forward some legislation to address what has come up in the rulemaking process in order to make the necessary changes in order to be able to affect the goals that we put forth. Um, >> Mr. Chair, can we take a a fivem minute recess?

[00:29:19]>> Do you have do you have any breakpoint unless I say he didn't say yes? If I didn't say it, it doesn't matter. Um, do you have anything you want to say to before we before we take that so that we can take that with us?

[00:29:31]>> I do. The the the thing that I I think addresses the concern that's being raised is in the Senate version page two starting on line 26, which says the agency may not rely upon implied authority and shall identify the statute expressly authorizing rulemaking related to the sale purchase ownership. So it that is I think a heightened um reading being imposed on Jelcar in this field.

[00:29:58]>> So they can't approve it unless this unless the agency can point to what statute says they can actually do that.

[00:30:04]>> Exactly.

[00:30:05]>> Yeah. Absolutely.

[00:30:07]So, one of the one of the concerns that that I realize is is kind of a null and void is when you hear somebody say, "Oh my gosh, somebody's going to put a firing range, you know, right next to the town hall." And that can't happen because it's already prohibited for all these other reasons. So, when people are saying that, you know, that's going to happen if this happens. No, no, it's not because it can't happen. So what I'm hearing if if I'm hearing this all correctly from the different sides is if there is going to be a rule that is going to be adopted, they're not given the authority to just make a rule because they want to. The rule has to fall within >> the rule that's already saying kind of as you just can't put a a firing range there because you want to because the because this has changed. Is that >> that's basically correct. Yes.

[00:30:59]>> Okay. Thank you.

[00:31:00]>> All right. So you guys want five minutes?

[00:31:02]>> Yeah, five minutes.

[00:31:03]>> Yeah. Actually, make it 10.

[00:31:06]>> Okay.

[00:31:06]>> It's going to be a minute.

[00:31:07]>> We have to go to a different floor.

[00:31:09]>> Okay.

[00:31:09]>> We on break.

[00:31:11]>> We're just going to go next.

[00:31:13]>> Okay. What section is that again?

[00:55:00]on House Bill 609. Um the parties have met and I think that we are at a position where we have a a an agreement in principle. We're working from um the latest amendment given to us by Senator Lang um which is 20 excuse me 216S Sierra. And we are what we're going to do is I'm going to turn it over to Representative Leyon who's been working um tirelessly to to make sure we have good language and she's going to go through a few suggestions and concerns.

[00:55:32]But we after having met last and um becoming cognizant of the fact that no rule can be made that is not pointed to an enabling statute gives us um that takes away a lot of concern we had about um just agencies writing whatever they want and jail car rubber stamping it. So with that I'm going to ask Representative Leyon to please go through um line by line on 21106 what what our concerns may be.

[00:56:00]>> Uh thank you. I will go through that. I um actually sorry let's thank you um I will go through that there may be one or two that I just bring up in real time to see if it changed from the earlier draft that we had worked from um >> not that one >> okay uh so the first is around removing other self-defense tools uh if that's something that the Senate wants to keep.

[00:56:18]I was just worried that that just is a fuzzy term and if we're looking at a private right of action I was looking to more narrowly define it.

[00:56:26]So, my only point with that is it I mean it's not a dealbreaker, but the underlying bill had other self-defense tools in it that the House originally passed. So, that language was already in there um in in the Senate. We we left it in.

[00:56:44]>> So, we we talked about it and we're happy to put it put it back in. If that's what the that was the position of the House, then that's where we're going to go.

[00:56:50]>> We can do that. The prime sponsor was fine with removing it, but if we want to continue with it on, that's fine with me as well. I I don't really think that it's a large vulnerability. I just figure when we're doing it, you know me, I like details.

[00:57:02]>> Well, again, it's it's a flaw.

[00:57:03]>> I'm going to go back to the that's what the House position was. So, that's what we like. Okay. Next.

[00:57:07]>> And then the next is on um in section three. So, that starts on line 22 of the of the Lang amendment. Um, quite frankly, when I read through this list and it's just the 3A 4A, knowing which one that I'm in is challenging. Um, that's why in the one that I put in, I propose the introductory paragraph for for section three for paragraph 3. um saying to the extent consistent with federal law, it it restates a lot of it, but relative to um this is relative to political subdivisions, although I guess I didn't say political subdivisions, but it's just clear that we're setting these terms and under those terms, uh what limitations exist? Uh so the question is if an introductory paragraph is something that's acceptable or not, >> could we do that? Put an introductory paragraph to state the legislative intent of that paragraph, that section.

[00:57:57]So if we insert that paragraph section one to the that starts with to the ex uh extent consistent with federal law and ends with therefore the following provision shall apply on a that whole paragraph. We inserted above your Roman 3A. Would that work?

[00:58:12]>> Well the the problem with that language is it ex it says the general court exudes exclusive authority and jurisdiction over the regulation of the sale. It doesn't say that the general court can delegate that authority to Jelcar or anybody else. So that was the provision in the original House passed bill that made it appear that the intent was to have the legislature do everything that the Senate was moving away from.

[00:58:37]>> Could it just say and may and only the general court may delegate such authority?

[00:58:43]>> Something along those lines.

[00:58:46]>> I may have an alternate introductory paragraph. Um, I'll get the specific language, but the following provisions shall apply to political subdivisions and and those that are that are relative in that paragraph three just so that people know which section to go to giving them a road map.

[00:59:02]>> In other words, that section only applies to the political subdivisions and not employers of the state, I think is what we're trying to Mr. Chair, if I may.

[00:59:08]>> Yeah, go ahead. So again, I think Representative Abvis here has the point that I think the language you're talking to is already in the start of section one of the bill to the extent consistent in federal law. The state of New Hampshire shall have authority and jurisdiction over the sale purchase blah blah blah. That language is already there. So we're just going to repeat it.

[00:59:25]>> Um it actually adds the word exclusive.

[00:59:27]So we could strike that exclusive authority um if that works. So that it would read to extent consistent with federal law. The general court asserts authority and jurisdiction over the um regulation and sale. Although that exclusive >> Where does it show exclusive in the Lang amendment?

[00:59:43]>> Um it's not. This is the introductory paragraph that is not in the Lang amendment.

[00:59:46]>> No. So we're talking about the Lang amendment on paragraph one. It has the language you're looking for already there.

[00:59:52]>> Correct. Except the one in paragraph one doesn't have exclusive. Um sorry, the one in paragraph one does not have exclusive. just as you said that was in um in paragraph three in the introductory. If if we don't want to put an introductory paragraph to have a road map, that's fine. I just thought that that was easier for people to read. Um I'm willing to drop the addition of that introductory paragraph. I I and I agree with you, but if if we're we're saying the exact same thing just two paragraphs above, I think it's pretty clear. Um and yeah, I think it's pretty clear and the subject matter of paragraph section 3A talks about um it being a a public entity or quasi mean I think it explains subdivisions.

[01:00:35]>> So if we're okay with dropping that >> then I can drop the introductory paragraph. Then moving to 3A. Um the lang version says no person, public official, public employee, political subdivision or any other public or quasi public entity show. Um I was concerned about the person and then having public official or public employee without stating that it's in their official capacity. What we're looking to do is restrict state actions, not restrict the actions of individuals or those who are public officials or public employees in their personal capacity. So, I don't know if I'm overthinking things as far as that, but I I I my I wanted to see if it was more clear to say no public official or public employee in their official capacity.

[01:01:16]>> Do you do you think we need to add that?

[01:01:18]>> I don't think you need to add that official capacity doesn't change much really. Well, so if >> especially given this the the step the the three provisions of RSA 31, I think it's 104 to 106 that go govern defense and indemnification of public officials for acts they take.

[01:01:36]>> Well, no. I think what we're we're saying is okay, so I'm a public employee or official. I also own a business. My business is no firearms in the in the in the business. Could someone go to this and say, well, you can't do that because you're a public employee or public official?

[01:01:52]I think that's a stretch of the reading, but well, I just uh we're just throwing it out there.

[01:01:56]>> It's certainly not not anybody's intention, I don't think, to do that obviously. Right.

[01:01:59]>> Right. But do you think it's a vulnerability?

[01:02:01]>> Um >> worth adding just the words in their official capacity >> and to remove person because I don't know if that's more I guess we'll have that part separate from the official capacity.

[01:02:11]>> When we start using the language official capacity, I think we open a lot of other doors that that's for a much larger conversation. You talk about federal 1983 claim type stuff.

[01:02:21]>> Oh, but when you when you sue a public official in their official capacity, it's effectively a suit against the government entity.

[01:02:30]>> Yeah.

[01:02:30]>> And that is that's the way it's treated >> and they fall under that umbrella protection.

[01:02:35]>> There's immunities that apply, right?

[01:02:37]>> So, it's better to not say that because then you can sue.

[01:02:40]>> It's different to not say that. You got to decide what's better.

[01:02:43]>> Well, it depends who's representing who, right?

[01:02:44]>> Well, and to clarify the legislative intent. The intent with this is that it's when the public official or public employee are doing it generally and what they do about regulating public entities and public things that they have responsibility over. It's not talking about if I as a public official have a business and I for some reason decide to restrict firearms since that's not my style, but if I were to, it would not be a um that this the legislative intent is not to prohibit that. Correct.

[01:03:11]>> Right. Yes.

[01:03:12]>> Okay. So, I guess we're good on the legislative intent there. Question is on person.

[01:03:16]>> I had the same thought about the the use of the word person. It could create the impression that this just applies to everybody >> who who might in their private capacity >> exercise their property rights however they wanted to relative to guns on their property.

[01:03:28]>> Should we strike person?

[01:03:30]>> I think you could.

[01:03:31]>> Okay. Let's strike person. So we'll strike.

[01:03:32]>> So it just says no public official from that.

[01:03:35]>> Public employee. And I think the words public before each one of those things it clarifies that it means what they're doing. Okay. Next. Okay.

[01:03:46]Uh, the next section is on D, so 3D. Um, it's probably belt and suspenders, but just because as people are reading through, they're probably not going to search and see that it's RSA 311 104 and RSA 999D that do provide for the process about whether or not the municipality whether or not they're protected or if it is pierced by the willful intent or the negligence. As far as those statutes, I thought it was more protective to specify those statutes, although I recognize that except as required by applicable law also fits, >> it's broader. It it may scoop in other circumstances not covered by those statutes.

[01:04:23]>> And we may write another statute that then we'd have to go back and adjust this. So, I think leaving it broad is probably better.

[01:04:28]>> Okay, that works. You know, I getting I'm getting into the details, but that doesn't mean my detail is always right.

[01:04:34]>> We appreciate your attention to detail.

[01:04:36]>> Okay, next.

[01:04:36]>> The next is in 4B. um in 4B right now the way that it is as I was going through as I was looking through the process reading through this when it says that the this is about adopting the policies that refer to firearms or rules or regulations that refer to firearms through the rulem process. Uh currently 541A exempts a list of list list of different functions from rulem and it also exempts internal policies from rulem. Um my reading of the intent of this has been all along that those policies come in. That is the exemption in 541A col1. Um that's 15 if I know my Roman numerals correct. Um and since if we're intending to include policies in this uh we would want to not withstand the exemption for those policies in this case. Um and then the long list of those who are exempted from rulemaking which is the 541A21.

[01:05:34]Uh that was also one that otherwise we'd have some of these agents we'd have some areas of law that don't come under this protective one where we're protecting people's rights and there there'd be >> it's counterintuitive >> one class and another class >> keep these in here otherwise how how can how can we expect them to write rules if that we say they're exempt from writing rules >> which section are we talking about >> this is in 4B so this is this would be in line 22 >> line yes and it would be insert Starting at line 24 um where the period is to add a comma notwithstanding exemptions from rulemaking in RSA 541A115 and RSA 541A21.

[01:06:16]Um if I know that we're working from one, but that language is written on lines 29 and 30 um of page two >> of the of the other >> of the other of the one we're not considering, but at least it gives us some written text.

[01:06:28]>> Yeah. Yeah.

[01:06:32]>> Does that make sense to you? on amendment. I've got it.

[01:06:36]>> It it it makes sense because otherwise it it makes this statute almost ineffective for those agencies because they're exempted.

[01:06:45]So what we're saying is they're not exempted just for this other rule making whatever they are still, but to the for this statute they're not. Does that make sense?

[01:06:54]>> Yes. Okay.

[01:06:55]>> I think it does.

[01:06:55]>> So we're we're okay with that.

[01:06:59]>> I I haven't read those. The RSA's just reference. I know. I know what to turn.

[01:07:02]>> Um, Senator Abbish, you have a very good council. I would suggest that you >> Well, we're relying on the advice of council. I didn't know that what I learned from this.

[01:07:10]>> Okay, >> Erica, next.

[01:07:13]>> Um, >> hopefully >> and then the rest was just around placement. Those those were the concerns. I think the one thing that I do want to do if we're not going to include the change to the administrative procedures act is ensure here today that we're stating that the legislative intent is that we are not going to allow JCAR to sign off on a vi on something that is does not follow this statute specifically that it does not follow um separ which one is that 4B um to ensure that we will not be granting exemptions to paragraph 4B through the Jelcar process, but instead we will through the process of Jelcar requesting changes to the statute move anything that needs to be cleaned up through that process where we understand that JCAR has looked at this. We believe that this change should be made. We bring it to the general court. Usually that has an easier path forward than other laws and other statutes where it's not building off of a foundation. Um, but I just want to have an assurance that there's not going to be, you know, if I can disfavorably call it, an end run around the intention of this.

[01:08:21]>> Um, I I would I would say that um if we all agree and have a yes vote here, um, for the record that the legislative intent of this is that state employees um, have no less rights than other citizens have under their right to self-p protection under the New Hampshire and United States Constitution. And I'll repeat that from the well and once the governor, God willing, signs it, I'll repeat it again and I would ask my Senate colleagues if that is their understanding as well.

[01:08:53]>> So again, Mr. Chair, I'm going to detail it here to the extent >> to the extent it's you know, again, I I think there to your point you you had even raised there are reasonable restrictions that might be necessary in to the course of employment that that need to come. But what we're saying here is that we recognize that. But if an agency wants that, they have to come before the legislature and ask for that uh what that what that might look like and have statuto authority to do it.

[01:09:20]We're not saying they can't do it. We're just saying they need statuto authority to to do it.

[01:09:24]>> I think what my statement was and remains is that is our starting point.

[01:09:28]And if if if those rights need to be infringed in any way, it's incumbent upon the agency, it's their burden to show the legislature why they should be able to do that. And so again, as part of Jouar, it's not uncommon that we'll turn to lawyers and say, "Add that to our spreadsheet of list of laws we need to adopt and change and and every year they bring it. They at the end of the year they give it to us and then we review those and we find sponsors for those bills that needed legislative change that was discovered through the alcar process. So I anticipate that would this would fall underneath that process."

[01:09:59]>> Yes.

[01:10:00]>> Agreed.

[01:10:01]>> Anyone else? Anything else?

[01:10:03]We I think we have an agreement, >> but we we're not adding the paragraph by >> what >> we're not adding the section.

[01:10:13]>> Uh no, I believe we've had the assurances that I needed that um JCAR would not be themselves approving anything as a function of the general court and that it needs to go through the statutory authority. That was a belt and suspenders to ensure that was the process. But, uh, given the asurances made today, I I don't think that we need to add that section to the Administrative Procedures Act at this point, then maybe a cleanup if this isn't, um, actually affected the way that we're intending to today.

[01:10:37]>> Okay. May I suggest then that we, um, take a vote on what we've agreed to. And if we need to come back for some reason, I'm not going to close the the session.

[01:10:47]Um, if we need to come back at some point today to revisit something, we can. But let's vote that everything we've just talked about is is what we agree to. So, um, Mr. Chair, if I may, may real quick just to summarize, make sure everyone's clear.

[01:11:00]>> Sure. Go ahead. So, so again, we're going to strike the word person on page one, Roman 3, uh, Roman 3, letter A.

[01:11:07]We're going to strike the second word there, person. So, it says no public official.

[01:11:10]>> Go back up. We're also adding >> No, that's already in the Senate version. We don't need that because we're adopting the Senate version. Um, and then we're going to add in um on page two, I believe it is line 24, we're going to add in that phrase does not withstand any exemptions from rule making in RSA 541-1 Roman 15 and RSA 541-21 for the list to the at the end of that.

[01:11:39]>> That's correct. And I believe that was all the changes, >> but that's what we'll be voting on and the committee report would reflect those two changes.

[01:11:49]>> That is correct.

[01:11:51]>> That is correct.

[01:11:52]>> All right. So, I'm gonna I'm going to call the role. Um, Representative Pette, your name.

[01:11:57]>> Yes.

[01:11:58]>> Representative Leon.

[01:12:00]>> Hold on. I was just checking to see. Um, sorry. I I had one other one that I had not recognized in here. I was just looking back to say I'm serious. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. At the top of page two and B, it was any person or an organization whose membership is agrieved by a violation of paragraph 3 in this section may bring action for damages. So, one of the things that trends that we've been seeing in litigation is that there will be a plaintiff. Um, there's a suit because their rights were violated. And some of the some of the courts are saying that yes, we're granting this injunction for you, but not for anybody who is part of that lawsuit. By doing that and allowing any organization whose membership is agreed by a violation, we're we're dealing with less of an issue around that collect around um how the judiciary is is deciding about who the injunction or how who the ruling applies to.

[01:12:49]>> Are you talking about an as applied type of situation? What is >> Sorry, microphone's off. The the question is whether uh a a group an interest group that has an organization formed can have standing to litigate themselves or what the NRA environmental groups voting rights groups do it all the time.

[01:13:08]>> Um whether you want to try to confer standing on organizations like that is a judgment call for you all to make.

[01:13:16]>> I can you that could also um cause uh lawsuits by anti second amendment groups too. I'd rather not add that um open door and just >> okay >> um if if the NRA wants to represent someone they can act as of counsel I think and then they have standing through their through a litigant right they just need a litigant >> there's look there's pluses and minuses but yeah for either side but yes >> yeah so let's just >> thank you for considering that >> yeah okay was that it >> that was it >> okay so now that we didn't change anything the vote is to you or nay >> yay >> and representative roads >> yes >> I vote yes senators >> yes >> yes >> yes >> thank you. Okay, we have an agreement and we will be on break and um >> Well, I I think I think you guys want a minute or are we good?

[01:14:03]>> I will I will >> Okay, so I'm closing uh Wait a minute.

[01:14:07]Any objection to consent?

[01:14:08]>> None for me.

[01:14:09]>> Okay, it will go on consent and I hereby close the committee conference.

[01:14:14]>> I thought you were doing a break just in case or we're good. Go ahead.

[01:14:17]>> Perfect.

[02:10:01]conference and this is um what was this?

[02:10:07]>> 1279.

[02:10:08]>> 1279.

[02:10:09]>> I'm in the wrong seat.

[02:10:10]>> Doesn't matter. Stay where you are. Um so unfortunately we could not come to an agreement with regard to the um restraint provision. So the the House um would have to not concur with that.

[02:10:26]However, we are willing to accept the change the Senate made with regard to the use of force of a against a third party on your premises. Um if that's something you can agree to. um and we're willing to do so.

[02:10:42]>> So, you will not agree to the whatever was added to the underlying bill, but the underlying bill as passed by the Senate, the House will seed to the Senate on that.

[02:10:53]>> And if you could please explain that position for the public uh what that that underlying bill that the Senate passed is, >> although it's lost in my pile of papers, essentially the law is written is it's involves the use of deadly force. Uh if you're on your Oh, thank you. if you're on your property or in your home, you can use deadly force when if someone's using force against you while committing a felony, but it's only if it's against the actor, which the person using the deadly force.

[02:11:26]You cannot use that deadly force to defend a third person. And I' I've always looked at that as, well, if someone was committing doing that to me, fine. But my children or my wife or whatever, tough luck. They would have to then you my wife would have to use the deadly force and my children would have to use it. It just makes to me like it's the castle doctrine. Like you're in your castle and you I think it should extend >> to all your subjects.

[02:11:52]It they >> I love you got that. whoever whoever whoever wants to come to my house with an invitation.

[02:12:00]>> And to that to the extent I mean it's not everything the house wanted because we do have concerns with regard to the defense when you're in a vehicle. We've seen um people being yanked out of their cars around the country. And currently you can use lethal force if the person has a deadly weapon. But if someone larger than you just grabs you and throws you to the crowd, you cannot defend yourself. Having said that, I agree and the House will agree that when you are at your home and someone kicks in the door and they don't have a weapon, they've committed the the the underlying felony of um breaking into your home, you should be able to use deadly force against them, not just if they're attacking you, but to defend your family or whoever else may be in the home. So, it's a small step in the right direction and and we agree to that.

[02:12:49]So the motion is so they're going to seed to the Senate position on the underlying bill but not not any of the uh hospital language or restraint language >> and and that is with great regret. Um that's something we need to look at and I'm willing to work on that. Um >> something >> yeah well yeah I I feel like study committees I'm not a big fan of them.

[02:13:14]Um, this may be one that's necessary and I'd be happy if we wanted to turn this into a study committee right now that we could work on. Um, so we had some agreed upon language by September. We would be happy to do that.

[02:13:29]>> I'm not sure if that's it's kind of a deviation from it, but I think you and I both learned a lot about this. I know my colleague >> Yeah, I don't need a study committee. I can I can study things very well on my own and uh I will do so and be happy to work on it. Did you want to say >> we know who to call for information to?

[02:13:46]>> Yeah.

[02:13:46]>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I was just going to say some of the some of the things that were brought up was there's there's a lot of confusion on the way the the current law reads andor enacted.

[02:13:57]Um and I just thought maybe if all people to stay a study committee plea please don't ever repeat this. I may deny it. Um this may be the the situation where that was obviously sarcasm because I know it's recorded. Um this sounds that is very very reasonably a situation where it would be necessary.

[02:14:14]We we learned that you know between this age and this age is a law. Um you know where doctors are are being called in from um hours you know the amount of time that that it's even allowed to happen for restraint. I I was given a a whole school in you know in five minutes time. So I think this this is an example of it would be great. And I know um my colleague Representative Kofal uh feels strongly about that as well. If we could make that happen.

[02:14:42]>> Yeah. I I just want to say I I I think what we need more than study is education. And unfortunately or fortunately, we have a 400 member House of Representatives. And it's not only the people on the committee, but it's the people who cast votes um on behalf of their constituents need to be educated as well. So, it's my understanding that during the public hearing, um, the federal law portion of this wasn't even really addressed and that might have eased a lot of concerns at that point or brought forward other suggestions. So, but at this late hour, um, I can't educate 400 people and and so we're going to, like I said, unfortunately, we have to pass on that.

[02:15:19]>> They will be back.

[02:15:20]>> We will be back. So, uh, just to read for the record before we vote, the we're going to seed to the Senate position on the underlying firearms, uh, protection, deadly force protection in the home, and the rest is cut. Is that correct? That's that's the motion.

[02:15:36]>> Okay. Can I have a vote, please?

[02:15:37]Representative Kofal, hear your name.

[02:15:40]>> Yes. Representative Rhodess.

[02:15:42]>> Yes.

[02:15:42]>> I vote yes. Do we have a fourth? Are you here? Are you on this committee? Okay.

[02:15:46]>> He is now.

[02:15:47]>> Yeah. Deputy Speaker Smith.

[02:15:48]>> Yes.

[02:15:49]>> Um, Senate members. Yes.

[02:15:51]>> Yes.

[02:15:52]>> Yes.

[02:15:53]>> Okay. With that, I will close the committee of conference and yes, I would like that. Thank you. You you have you have good you have good ideas.

[02:16:02]Uh any objection to consent?

[02:16:05]>> Seeing none, it will go on consent and I close the um committee conference and I now open up um the committee conference on uh House Bill 194 that we broke from yesterday without a final resolution. Um during the preceding 24 hours, it's come to my attention that we're not going to be able to reach any kind of an agreement on that.

[02:16:27]>> Well, Representative uh excuse me, Senator Abbis is um so in regards to 504, I understand that policy passed in your chamber.

[02:16:45]It's uh it has to do with the basically if it doesn't if we don't pass it, we're gonna have to repay $20 million give or take back the federal government. So I think it's it's an important consideration. I mean I think it was unanimous out of the House committee. So the issue with the policy I think the only difference between the language and 504 there was one paragraph and I think it was an amendment by Representative Leyon that we willing to agree to. So >> well um the $20 million is a lot of money to pay back to the federal government.

[02:17:20]>> I'll I'll give you this. Uh let's take a five minute break and I mean five minutes um and we'll come back and see if there's any any any possibility.

[02:17:28]>> And there's no Senate rule that prevents us from handling this. What would it require in the Senate side? Nothing other than just a vote.

[02:17:35]>> We just have to vote to accept it.

[02:17:37]>> Okay. All right. Five minutes.

[02:25:40]committee conference on 194 and um after discussion and um >> much let me finish >> the underlying bill still >> um and after discussion with you and u many other members we are unable to come to an agreement on this bill whatso However, and the Senate uh excuse me, the House does not aced. And I >> did you agree to the underlying House bill or is it just the 50?

[02:26:06]>> We um we are agreeing to none of it. Um unfortunately, >> even the House bill.

[02:26:11]>> Even the written >> as written. And at this point, I am adjourning.

[02:26:18]>> We need some