HB 159/SB 144: A Dangerous Cure that Erodes Due Process and Gun Rights

by NH Firearms Coalition on February 17, 2025

Protect Due Process, Protect Our Rights

House Bill 159 (HB 159) and the Senate version SB 144, dubbed “Bradley’s Law,” is presented as a well-intentioned fix to keep guns away from the violently mentally ill. Its sponsor, Chairman Terry Roy, claims it’s a necessary step to close a loophole exposed by the tragic murder of retired Police Chief Bradley Haas. But gun owners should be alarmed: beneath its benign title, HB 159 authorizes gun confiscation without crime, uses confidential mental health data in troubling ways, and chips away at fundamental due process protections. This bill goes far beyond background checks – it sets a dangerous precedent that threatens Second Amendment freedoms in New Hampshire. In this post, we’ll dismantle Chairman Roy’s claims point by point and show why HB 159 is bad medicine for both due process and gun rights.

Eroding Due Process: No Guaranteed Hearings or Counsel

A core concern is HB 159’s impact on due process. Current New Hampshire law (RSA 126-AA:2, VI) forbids the state from reporting anyone to the federal gun background check system (NICS) as mentally adjudicated unless a court hearing is held with the person present and represented by an attorney ( New Hampshire Revised Statutes Section 126-AA:2 (2023) – New Hampshire Granite Advantage Health Care Program Established. :: 2023 New Hampshire Revised Statutes :: U.S. Codes and Statutes :: U.S. Law :: Justia). This safeguard exists to ensure no one loses their rights without a fair process. HB 159 repeals that protection (Bill Text: NH HB159 | 2025 | Regular Session | Introduced | LegiScan). In its place, the bill adds only a vague line that a person “may be appointed an attorney” for hearings (Bill Text: NH HB159 | 2025 | Regular Session | Introduced | LegiScan). “May” is a far cry from a guarantee. Chairman Roy asserts the bill provides due process, but removing the explicit requirement for counsel and a hearing is a huge step backward.

Under HB 159, a person could be dragged into a legal process that strips away their gun rights without the clear assurance of legal representation. Yes, involuntary commitment hearings under RSA 135-C (New Hampshire’s mental health law) generally provide an attorney and a judge’s review – but those guarantees were explicitly written into law for any NICS reporting. By repealing RSA 126-AA:2, VI’s language, HB 159 weakens the statutory due process standard that gun owners fought for in 2016. We should not be comfortable trusting “the system” to do right by us when the law no longer explicitly requires it. After all, New Hampshire’s own courts have found mental health patients’ rights were violated when due process timelines weren’t honored ( Court: Mental Health Patient’s Rights Violated In Emergency Room Boarding Case | InDepthNH.org ). If our state agencies already struggled to uphold due process in mental health cases, why give them more power to disarm citizens without ironclad legal safeguards? Removing someone’s Second Amendment rights must be done with the utmost care – HB 159 fails that test.

Overbroad Mental Health Reporting Threatens Gun Owners

Chairman Roy portrays HB 159 as a narrow measure aimed only at truly dangerous individuals. But the scope of mental health reporting in this bill is alarmingly broad. Section 159-G:2 of HB 159 would authorize reporting to NICS anyone who has been adjudicated not guilty by reason of insanity, found incompetent to stand trial and dangerous, or involuntarily committed to a mental health facility under RSA 135-C (Bill Text: NH HB159 | 2025 | Regular Session | Introduced | LegiScan). That goes well beyond violent criminals – it ropes in ordinary people who have not committed any crime but had a moderate or severe mental health crisis. For example, a veteran suffering severe depression who is involuntarily committed to treatment (perhaps for suicidal thoughts) would be reported and banned from owning firearms, even though he never harmed anyone. Under RSA 135-C:34-54, a person can be committed if a court finds they pose a “danger to themselves or others.” Crucially, “danger to themselves” means many non-violent individuals (those at risk of self-harm) get swept into this category. HB 159 treats them the same as someone who committed a violent felony – an extremely broad net.

This broad scope can negatively impact gun owners in several ways. First, it creates a chilling label: once you’ve been committed, you’re a “prohibited person” under federal law (18 U.S.C. §922(g)(4)) and lose your gun rights indefinitely pending a difficult restoration process. Chairman Roy might argue the bill has a relief process to restore rights, but consider how onerous that is. The person must petition the court and prove by clear and convincing evidence that they are no longer dangerous, in a special hearing at least six months (or even years) after the incident (Bill Text: NH HB159 | 2025 | Regular Session | Introduced | LegiScan) (Bill Text: NH HB159 | 2025 | Regular Session | Introduced | LegiScan). That’s a high bar, and it puts the burden on the individual to prove their sanity to get back a right they lost despite committing no crime. In effect, HB 159 says seeking treatment or having a mental health episode can cost you your Second Amendment rights for a long time. Gun owners who value their rights will understandably think twice before ever speaking openly to a doctor or counselor about mental struggles – a dangerous consequence we’ll discuss more below.

Furthermore, HB 159’s reporting requirements rely on sharing confidential medical information with law enforcement and federal databases. The bill mandates the court or Department of Safety send personal identifiers (name, birth date, social security number) to NICS for those flagged (Bill Text: NH HB159 | 2025 | Regular Session | Introduced | LegiScan). Supporters insist they’re only sharing minimal data, not full medical records (Bill Text: NH HB159 | 2025 | Regular Session | Introduced | LegiScan). But as Dr. David Strang warned lawmakers, allowing the government to possess any private medical info for law enforcement purposes “should put shivers down your spine” (Valley News – ‘Bradley’s Law’ seeks to strengthen mental health background checks for NH gun buyers). He’s right – once this door is opened, it sets a precedent. Today it’s commitment records; tomorrow it could be other health data or expanded criteria. We have to ask: Do we trust government bureaucracies to guard and limit this data use? History teaches us that once data is in government hands, it’s prone to abuse or mission creep.

Confidential Data and Government Overreach

Gun rights advocates recognize HB 159 for what it is: part of a larger government overreach into our private lives and constitutional rights. Yes, mental illness is a serious issue – but handing over lists of New Hampshire citizens who sought psychiatric care to the federal government is not the solution. Even with clauses in the bill stating that NICS reports won’t be public records and will only be used for gun background checks (Bill Text: NH HB159 | 2025 | Regular Session | Introduced | LegiScan), the erosion of privacy is real. We’re being asked to trust that this data sharing will remain limited. But once a new database of formerly hospitalized individuals exists, it could be misused by officials or even expanded by future legislation. It’s a slippery slope – and supporters of HB 159 know it. In fact, the same activists who have pushed “red flag” gun confiscation laws for years are lining up behind this bill (ALL HANDS ON DECK – Critical Gun Confiscation Hearing – Women’s Defense League of New Hampshire). Why? Because HB 159 lays the groundwork for further expansion. It creates a mechanism for the state to decide who is unfit to own firearms, based on subjective mental health judgments. Today it’s those involuntarily committed; tomorrow it could be those who simply talked to a therapist or took certain medications. Once we accept the principle that the government can strip your rights due to a health condition, the criteria can always widen. New Hampshire would be handing anti-gun bureaucrats a powerful tool – one that could easily be turned against law-abiding gun owners in the future. Even Representative Terry Roy’s Democratic allies have admitted this bill could be “easily turned into a generic red flag law” down the road (GUN CONFISCATION).

Moreover, many of us question whether government agencies are even competent to make these life-altering mental health determinations. The past few years have shown that “governmental agencies aren’t the best people to be making decisions about anyone’s mental health or physical health” (GUN CONFISCATION). Our state’s mental health system is already overburdened and has denied due process to patients in emergency situations before ( Court: Mental Health Patient’s Rights Violated In Emergency Room Boarding Case | InDepthNH.org ). Do we really want to give those same agencies the power to decide who loses their firearms? Gun owners should be especially skeptical, because we’ve seen this pattern before – what starts as a limited measure can expand rapidly under the guise of “public safety.” HB 159’s overreach sets a precedent that being accused of mental instability by the state is enough to eliminate your Second Amendment rights. That is a dangerous path, and one wholly incompatible with the idea that our rights are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Chilling Effect on Mental Health Treatment

An ironic and troubling side effect of HB 159 is how it could discourage people from seeking the very mental health help they may need. Gun owners will face a terrible dilemma: if you struggle with depression, PTSD, or another issue, do you dare seek professional treatment knowing it might lead to a court-ordered commitment and the loss of your firearms? The bill’s supporters downplay this, but even mental health advocates are concerned. Joe Hannon, vice president of Gun Owners of New Hampshire, testified that HB 159 “can actually prohibit people from wanting to come forward if they’re worried about what’s going to happen to me” (Valley News – ‘Bradley’s Law’ seeks to strengthen mental health background checks for NH gun buyers). This isn’t hypothetical – many gun owners, especially veterans, already fear being labeled and losing their rights if they talk about suicidal thoughts or see a psychiatrist. HB 159 would validate those fears. It effectively says: “If you seek help and things get serious enough that someone commits you, your guns will be taken and your name put in a federal database.” How many individuals will quietly suffer rather than risk that outcome?

This chilling effect is not only bad for gun owners – it’s bad for public safety and health. The National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) points out that 87% of gun deaths in New Hampshire are suicides (Valley News – ‘Bradley’s Law’ seeks to strengthen mental health background checks for NH gun buyers). We want people who are struggling to reach out for help before they become a danger to themselves or others. But HB 159 creates a strong disincentive to do so. It essentially tells gun owners that admitting you have a problem could mean relinquishing your Constitutional rights. This could lead to fewer people getting treatment until it’s too late, potentially increasing the risk of tragedies that early intervention might have prevented. Even NAMI NH offers only “cautious” support of the bill and notes it wouldn’t affect those who opt for voluntary treatment over involuntary commitment (Valley News – ‘Bradley’s Law’ seeks to strengthen mental health background checks for NH gun buyers) – in other words, savvy or well-advised individuals might avoid the bill’s net by quickly switching to voluntary status. Unfortunately, it’s the average gun owner who doesn’t know the system who would get caught in this trap. We should not create laws that drive a wedge between mental health professionals and gun owners. The unintended consequence of HB 159 could be less treatment and more danger, the exact opposite of its stated intent.

Misleading Title: The Truth Behind the Bradley Haas Case

HB 159’s formal title sounds straightforward – reporting mental health data for background checks – but it masks the reality that this is fundamentally a gun confiscation bill. Even the Analysis of the bill text admits it provides for “confiscation of firearms” after certain court proceedings (Bill Text: NH HB159 | 2025 | Regular Session | Introduced | LegiScan). Chairman Roy and supporters prefer to focus on the bill’s nickname “Bradley’s Law” and the heartbreaking story of Chief Bradley Haas’s murder. We absolutely mourn Officer Haas, but we must separate emotion from fact when making law. The truth is that the Bradley Haas case exposes failures that HB 159 doesn’t truly fix – in fact, the bill’s approach is somewhat misleading.

Consider what actually happened: In 2021, a mentally ill man named John Madore walked into New Hampshire Hospital in Concord and fatally shot Chief Haas, an unarmed security officer (ALL HANDS ON DECK – Critical Gun Confiscation Hearing – Women’s Defense League of New Hampshire). Madore had been a patient at that psychiatric hospital in 2016. He was able to buy a handgun years later by lying on the federal form about his mental health history (Valley News – ‘Bradley’s Law’ seeks to strengthen mental health background checks for NH gun buyers), since New Hampshire wasn’t reporting involuntary commitments to NICS at the time. This is undeniably tragic. But ask yourself: why was Officer Haas unarmed? At the time, security guards at the state psychiatric hospital were prohibited from carrying firearms (ALL HANDS ON DECK – Critical Gun Confiscation Hearing – Women’s Defense League of New Hampshire). A retired police chief was left defenseless on duty. In fact, the only reason more people weren’t killed that day is because an armed state trooper happened to be on site and stopped the attacker (GUN CONFISCATION). That’s the first lesson: we should secure our facilities and allow self-defense, rather than expect that banning guns will stop killers. If Haas himself had been allowed to carry, the outcome might have been very different.

The second lesson from the Haas case is about the mental health system. Madore was clearly a violently mentally ill individual – so why was he out on the street in the first place? Opponents of HB 159 rightly ask: if someone is “so violently mentally ill that there is fear they will commit acts of violence against innocent people, why the hell are they being let out to commit those acts?” (ALL HANDS ON DECK – Critical Gun Confiscation Hearing – Women’s Defense League of New Hampshire). New Hampshire’s focus should be on fixing any gaps in our involuntary commitment and treatment system itself. If someone is genuinely a danger, they should be kept in a secure treatment facility until they are stable – not simply disarmed and sent on their way. Instead of addressing that core failure, HB 159 points the finger at lawful gun owners. Women’s Defense League spokesperson Kimberly Morin blasted HB 159 as “an emotional knee-jerk reaction to the horrible murder” that wrongly “points the finger at gun owners” when the blame should be on the psychiatrists and officials who failed to contain a violently ill person (Valley News – ‘Bradley’s Law’ seeks to strengthen mental health background checks for NH gun buyers). She’s exactly right. The bill’s title and branding around Officer Haas’s death tugs at emotions, but it misdirects us from the real issue: the state let a dangerous man loose and forbade its own guard from being armed. You don’t fix that by infringing on the rights of every other gun owner who might someday need counseling.

Let’s also expose a misconception: supporters imply HB 159 simply “adds mental health records to background checks like other states do” as if it’s no big deal. Yes, many states report involuntary commitments to NICS (Valley News – ‘Bradley’s Law’ seeks to strengthen mental health background checks for NH gun buyers), but New Hampshire deliberately had not participated because our lawmakers valued due process and privacy (hence the old RSA 126-AA:2, VI law). Those protections were not just red tape – they reflected Granite Staters’ cautious approach to balancing safety and rights. By labeling HB 159 a “background check” measure, its backers downplay the fact that it empowers courts to order firearm surrender (confiscation) from citizens who have not committed crimes. The bill’s mechanisms go well beyond a database update. It creates new processes for police to confiscate guns, something you wouldn’t glean from its friendly title. We must call HB 159 what it really is: a state gun control expansion using mental health as the hook. It might be sold under a heroic name, but New Hampshire residents should not be fooled about its contents and consequences.

Gun Confiscation Without Crime: A Dangerous Precedent

Perhaps the most frightening aspect of HB 159 is the precedent it sets: For the first time in New Hampshire, it explicitly empowers the government to seize firearms from individuals who have not been charged with – let alone convicted of – any crime. This is akin to a state-level “extreme risk” law (or red flag law) but targeted at those with mental health adjudications. Chairman Roy might argue that those being committed or judged insane are effectively “too dangerous” to have guns, and federal law already forbids them from possessing firearms. But there is a huge difference between a federal prohibition that relies on an honor system or background check, and a state-sanctioned confiscation process that actively takes someone’s property. HB 159 crosses that line. It directs judges to ask about firearm ownership at commitment hearings and gives courts power to order law enforcement to confiscate weapons within 48 hours (Bill Text: NH HB159 | 2025 | Regular Session | Introduced | LegiScan) (Bill Text: NH HB159 | 2025 | Regular Session | Introduced | LegiScan). Let’s be clear: these individuals are not criminals – they are patients. They are citizens who, in many cases, have done nothing except experience a mental health crisis. Treating them the same as felons by stripping their rights and property is a radical step.

Our justice system is built on the idea that penalties (like losing one’s rights or property) come after someone breaks the law and is afforded due process. HB 159 flips that script using the lens of “mental health.” It says the state can preemptively take your guns because you might be dangerous in the future. That concept should disturb everyone. Even if you personally have never had mental health issues, think of the principle: the state can declare a category of people (those with certain mental health histories) as unfit and take their guns even though they did nothing illegal. It’s not hard to imagine expansions of this principle – what about people accused of substance abuse, or those on certain medications, or who make a troubling comment online? It always starts with a seemingly narrow group. Once we accept gun confiscation without a crime, the door is open to ever-broader justifications. Today it’s the mentally ill; tomorrow it could be anyone labeled an “extremist” or deemed “dangerous” by a bureaucrat. New Hampshire has rightly rejected Red Flag laws in the past for this very reason – they violate due process and punish people before any wrongdoing (ALL HANDS ON DECK – Critical Gun Confiscation Hearing – Women’s Defense League of New Hampshire). HB 159 threatens to usher in the same concept through the back door.

Even within its narrow scope, the bill has problems. For instance, if a committed individual does own firearms, HB 159 would force them to either surrender those guns to law enforcement or transfer them to someone else approved by the court (Bill Text: NH HB159 | 2025 | Regular Session | Introduced | LegiScan). But notably, the bill forbids transferring guns to anyone who lives with the committed person (Bill Text: NH HB159 | 2025 | Regular Session | Introduced | LegiScan). That means a husband committed for depression couldn’t even legally give his firearms to his wife (if they share a home) for safekeeping – they’d have to be taken away entirely or moved out of the household. Innocent family members are thus impacted, essentially losing access to jointly owned property or having to scramble to store firearms with a friend or FFL. This is how far the tentacles of gun confiscation can reach. Law-abiding spouses or other household members are indirectly punished, and an entire household is effectively disarmed because one member had a health issue. Again, this person hasn’t committed a crime – yet the government can enter their home and remove property. That is unprecedented in our state and should give everyone pause.

Slippery Slope: Guns Today, Knives Tomorrow?

During the committee hearing on HB 159, opponents highlighted the bill’s inconsistent logic: if the goal is truly to protect the public from a dangerous individual, why does the bill only focus on guns? A violently unstable person could just as easily use a knife, a car, or even a makeshift weapon to harm others. As Kimberly Morin pointed out, “Why aren’t cars, knives, pressure cookers or other objects also being confiscated?” (ALL HANDS ON DECK – Critical Gun Confiscation Hearing – Women’s Defense League of New Hampshire). It’s a pointed question that HB 159’s proponents couldn’t answer. The reality is, the bill singles out firearms because it’s driven by a gun control agenda, not a holistic public safety plan. The fact that someone suggested (perhaps sarcastically) expanding it to knives and other items underscores how dangerous the logic of HB 159 is. If we accept that the government can confiscate guns from a person deemed “dangerous,” it’s not a big leap for a future legislature to say, “Well, firearms are not the only hazard; we should also ban them from owning knives, or require their family to lock up all kitchen utensils, etc.” Sound far-fetched? Perhaps, but so did forced confiscation of firearms from non-criminals just a few years ago. Now it’s on the table.

In fact, HB 159 already hints at extending its reach. The bill allows (and in some cases, virtually mandates) that all firearms accessible to the committed person be removed from their possession and even their residence (Bill Text: NH HB159 | 2025 | Regular Session | Introduced | LegiScan). That means not just guns owned by the person, but potentially any guns in the house that they could “access,” regardless of ownership. So if a son is involuntarily committed, the father’s firearms stored in the same home become a problem to be solved – likely by removing them from the premises so the son can’t access them. We’re now talking about disarming other people by extension. That’s how a right evaporates: one step at a time. Gun owners should ask themselves where this ends. Today it’s turning in your brother’s firearms; tomorrow do we confiscate your carving knives if he comes home from the hospital still troubled? The slippery slope is real when the state starts playing guardian for all of society.

New Hampshire’s motto is “Live Free or Die,” and part of living free is rejecting government overreach at the first sign. HB 159 may be sold as a narrow measure about mental health, but it represents the camel’s nose under the tent for far broader disarmament in the future. Even if you agree with the premise of restricting gun access for certain individuals, the lack of limiting principle here is worrisome. If the state truly believes someone is so dangerous they can’t be trusted with any weapon, then that person should not be on the street, period. The answer is to improve our treatment and commitment system – not to incrementally strip rights from them and everyone around them.

Conclusion: Fix the Real Problems, Don’t Punish the Innocent

Chairman Terry Roy and supporters of HB 159 might have their hearts in the right place, wanting to prevent another tragedy like the killing of Officer Haas. But good intentions do not make good law. HB 159 is misguided and overreaching. It attacks the symptom (a gun) rather than the disease (failures in mental health intervention and security policy). In doing so, it sacrifices the due process and privacy of every New Hampshire gun owner. It paints with a broad brush, labeling those in mental health crisis as second-class citizens who can be deprived of fundamental rights on the government’s say-so. It risks driving vulnerable people into the shadows, away from treatment, out of fear that seeking help will cost them their freedoms. And it sets a precedent for pre-crime gun confiscation that our state has soundly rejected in the past.

We can and should address mental health and violence – but we must not do it at the expense of our Constitutional rights. The answer to the Bradley Haas case is to ensure dangerously ill individuals get the treatment and secure supervision they need (and to allow our protectors to be armed), not to create a new dragnet that ensnares peaceful gun owners. New Hampshire’s existing laws already prohibited what John Madore did; he broke the law when he lied on the gun purchase form. Enforcing laws and improving communication with proper due process is one thing – HB 159’s blanket approach is something entirely different. It would make us more like the other states that readily infringe gun rights in the name of safety. That’s not the New Hampshire way.

Gun rights advocates must stand firm against HB 159. Our legislature should kill this bill and instead pursue reforms that respect rights while truly targeting dangerous individuals. We should be investing in mental health facilities, ensuring no one who is a genuine threat is released too early, and allowing responsible armed defense in sensitive places. Those steps would honor Chief Haas’s memory far better than rushing through a flawed law that treats every gun owner as guilty by association with mental illness. Let’s protect the Second Amendment and demand solutions that don’t trample due process. HB 159 is not the answer – it’s a direct threat to the liberties of all Granite Staters. We must oppose it now, before it opens the door to even greater infringements. Our rights and our safety depend on it.

Sources:

Previous post: