A bipartisan group of New Hampshire lawmakers has introduced House Bill 159, known as the Chief Bradley Haas Mental Health Firearms Reporting Act, following the 2023 fatal shooting of security officer Bradley Haas by a former patient at New Hampshire Hospital. The bill aims to address a gap in the federal firearms background check system by requiring mental health-related records to be submitted to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
This issue became apparent as New Hampshire is one of only two states (along with Montana) that does not report such data, leaving the system vulnerable and ineffective. The proposal’s main sponsor, Representative Terry Roy (R), believes the bill would strengthen national efforts to keep firearms away from individuals deemed dangerous due to mental health issues.
Currently, federal law prohibits individuals adjudicated as dangerous due to mental illness from purchasing or possessing firearms. However, no federal mandate exists for states to report mental health records to NICS, which is used by gun dealers to verify eligibility. New Hampshire’s lack of participation undermines the effectiveness of the system, as 48 other states contribute relevant data.
HB 159 would authorize the NH Judicial Branch and the Department of Safety to report court rulings involving individuals involuntarily committed, deemed incompetent to stand trial, or found not guilty by reason of insanity. Courts would also be required to inquire about firearm ownership during mental health hearings and, when appropriate, order confiscation. Voluntary mental health treatment would not be subject to reporting under this bill.
The bill aims to close a loophole where individuals prohibited from purchasing firearms could still obtain them due to incomplete background checks. It would enhance the accuracy of NICS and reduce the risk of such occurrences. The submitted data would only include essential details (e.g., name, social security number, date of birth) for firearm eligibility purposes, ensuring privacy by not including medical information. Co-sponsor Representative Jennifer Mandelbaum (D), a public health researcher, stresses the importance of the bill in preventing firearm-related tragedies, particularly suicides, which account for a significant portion of New Hampshire’s firearm deaths.
Opponents of the bill argue that it could infringe on due process rights, as it may lead to the confiscation of firearms before individuals have a chance for legal recourse. However, supporters contend that individuals will have full legal rights in court, with the opportunity to have an attorney, call witnesses, and cross-examine those against them. The bill would also offer a path for individuals to regain their firearm rights if they are no longer deemed dangerous. Those involuntarily committed could petition for rights restoration within 15 days of discharge, while those adjudicated as incompetent could do so after six months.
The bill’s supporters emphasize that it aligns with Second Amendment rights by providing a way for individuals who recover from mental health conditions to restore their firearm rights. However, opponents worry it could set a precedent for limiting firearm ownership based on mental health status. Some argue that restrictions on firearm ownership for those with mental health conditions are consistent with other legal precedents, such as the prohibition on convicted felons owning firearms. If passed, the bill would require federal approval from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), and allocate funding for independent psychiatric evaluations related to firearm rights restoration.
Despite broad bipartisan support, HB 159 faces challenges in the Senate, which rejected similar legislation in 2024. Proponents are hopeful that more time, education and less political pressure will increase its chances of passing this year. Lawmakers, including Roy and Mandelbaum, are optimistic about the bill’s future, believing it has gained more understanding and support than before.
