Committee Summary for Senate Judiciary (02/03/2026)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
SB554 00:12:03.120 - 12:10:50 PM	Public Hearing	repealing the limitation of liability for certain design features of firearms.	Altschiller, Debra(D)[CT]2025
SB467 00:50:27.920 - 12:49:14 PM	Public Hearing	relative to the penalty for certain fentanyl-related offenses and establishing a mandatory minimum sentence for the crime of distribution of a controlled drug with death resulting.	Gannon, Bill(R)[B-]2025
SB626 2024-?h (amendment mentioned) 01:41:17.199 - 1:40:04 PM	Public Hearing	restricting right-to-know requests to persons domiciled or maintaining a permanent residence in New Hampshire and requiring proof of domicile or residency to file right-to-know requests.	Gannon, Bill(R)[B-]2025
SB626 2024-?h 01:52:42.800 - 1:51:29 PM	Public Hearing	restricting right-to-know requests to persons domiciled or maintaining a permanent residence in New Hampshire and requiring proof of domicile or residency to file right-to-know requests.	Gannon, Bill(R)[B-]2025
HB510 02:01:30.080 - 2:00:17 PM	Public Hearing	relative to establishing certain due process rights for students, student organizations, and faculty members facing disciplinary actions by state institutions of higher learning.	Lynn, Bob(R)[B]2025
SB512 2024-0268s 02:26:42.240 - 2:25:29 PM	Public Hearing	relative to fees to annul criminal records related to charges that do not result in conviction.	Murphy, Keith(R)[A]2025

SB554: Deborah Uler, Senator District 24 (Exeter, Greenland, Hampton, Hampton Falls, North Hampton, Rye, Stratham) Support00:12:03.120 - 12:10:50 PM; Senator Uler testified in strong support of SB554, which corrects a mistake in last year's SB551 by repealing RSA 507-D:6. She highlighted how federal and state laws create barriers to justice for victims of defective firearms, using the Sig Sauer P320 as an example of a gun that discharges without trigger pull, affecting over 500,000 units without a recall. She compared this to recalls in other industries like laundry detergent and vehicles, noting gun violence as the leading cause of death for children. Uler argued that the law shields irresponsible manufacturers, unfairly penalizes safe ones, and urged equal accountability for all industries to protect New Hampshire consumers.
SB554: Representative Timothy Han, Strafford County District 10 (Durham) Support00:28:42.720 - 12:27:29 PM; Representative Han supported SB554, noting it repeals RSA 507-D:6 from HB551, backed by firearms manufacturers like Sig Sauer, who threatened relocation. He dismissed the threat as empty due to their investments in New Hampshire. Han emphasized the right to redress for harm from unsafe designs, calling the law unnecessary since federal protections (PLCAA) and prior state law (RSA 508:21) already limit liability. He cited P320 unintentional discharges, including law enforcement incidents, and argued the new law adds no value while lawsuits continue in other courts.
SB554: Aubrey Freriedman, Bridgewater Oppose00:34:00.000 - 12:32:47 PM; Freriedman opposed SB554, calling it a 'lawyer's dream' that encourages litigation. He noted lawyers are still filing suits for legitimate defects under RSA 507-D:6, which clearly allows claims for manufacturing defects or warranty breaches. He argued the law is fair, protects manufacturers from frivolous suits, and promotes responsible gun ownership, stating the current system works well without changes.
SB554: Kathleen Slover, Portsmouth Support00:37:22.240 - 12:36:09 PM; Slover supported SB554 to repeal limited liability, arguing manufacturers must be held responsible for products like the Sig Sauer P320, which unintentionally discharges, similar to Ford's Pinto fuel tank liability. She cited incidents involving military and law enforcement, emphasizing that the law strips gun owners' rights to sue for current and future issues. Slover highlighted New Jersey's lawsuit seeking recall and better advertising, noted Sig Sauer's cost concerns for safety features, and warned of risks to law enforcement and municipalities, urging legislators to protect consumers over manufacturers.
SB554: Nancy Brown, Hopkinton Support00:44:11.440 - 12:42:58 PM; Brown supported SB554, arguing that missing or faulty safety features under RSA 507-D:6 could cost lives. She questioned limiting liability for any manufacturer causing harm, comparing it to not shielding companies like Saint-Gobain for contaminating New Hampshire's water supply, and urged correcting last year's mistake.
SB554: Senator Gan, introducing SB467 Information Only00:47:00.319 - 12:45:47 PM; Senator Gan introduced SB467, which establishes mandatory minimum sentences for fentanyl possession: 3.5 years for 20+ grams and 7 years for 50+ grams. He explained provisions for reduced sentences for first-time offenders without violence, who cooperate with law enforcement and enter treatment. Gan balanced punishment and rehabilitation to incentivize dealers to assist police against larger operations, particularly from border areas like Lawrence, Massachusetts, aiming for bipartisan support.
SB467: Lieutenant Talum, Manchester Police Department, on behalf of New England Association of Chiefs of Police Support00:50:27.920 - 12:49:14 PM; Lieutenant Talum testified in support of SB467, explaining the enforcement challenges with fentanyl distribution and the massive profit motives driving street-level sales. He highlighted how a gram of fentanyl sells for about $80 in Manchester, while bulk purchases like a 10g 'stick' cost $150-200, and a kilo around $8,000, allowing dealers to make significant profits by breaking down larger quantities. He emphasized the bill's aggregation language on page two, line 24, which allows law enforcement to combine multiple small buys (e.g., 2-5 grams) over a 90-day window to reach thresholds of 30-60 grams, imposing severe consequences on street-level dealers and organizations that were previously treated as low-level offenses. Talum noted that the bill targets Massachusetts-based networks operating in New Hampshire, such as those from Dorchester, Lawrence, and Boston, which package and distribute fentanyl at high profits. He stated that SB467 would make New Hampshire have the toughest fentanyl law in New England, deterring these groups without targeting users, as it includes a 'safety valve' for cooperation, treatment, and non-violent histories to avoid mandatory minimums. During questioning, he clarified that typical street-level user purchases are 1-3.5 grams, while 20-50 gram amounts primarily indicate dealers, though some users pool money for bulk buys, and the safety valve applies to them. He addressed concerns about police input on sentencing, explaining their role is limited to recommending 'substantial assistance' based on debriefs or cooperation, with final decisions by prosecutors and courts. Talum affirmed the bill's utility for both urban and rural areas, including along the I-93 corridor.
SB467: Major Bill Brighton, New Hampshire State Police Support01:10:14.239 - 1:09:01 PM; Major Brighton, overseeing the Investigative Services Bureau including the Narcotics Investigations Unit, testified in support of SB467, favoring its mandatory minimums for targeting drug dealers while providing pathways for users caught with threshold amounts to reduce sentences through cooperation or treatment. He emphasized that fentanyl and opioids severely impact rural and urban communities statewide, not just cities, with the State Police covering the entire state and observing widespread damage. Brighton viewed the bill as a deterrent and tool for law enforcement to combat distribution networks, complementing other initiatives to rid communities of these drugs. In response to questions, he agreed that mandatory sentences encourage informants and cooperation, aiding in building stronger cases against higher-level organizations. He believed the 20- and 50-gram thresholds would make low-level dealers reconsider their actions, as these amounts signify dealing rather than personal use, though rare cases of addicted users might be affected. Addressing deterrence, he noted that while current laws (e.g., over 5 grams) exist, the bill's higher thresholds better distinguish users from dealers, allowing judicial discretion for addiction cases without claiming it would fully solve the fentanyl problem, but serve as an effective enforcement tool.
SB467: Jake Barry, Senior Vice President, New Futures Oppose01:17:17.679 - 1:16:04 PM; Jake Barry from New Futures, a nonpartisan nonprofit focused on substance misuse and addiction for nearly 30 years, opposed SB467, arguing that New Hampshire's overdose rates are declining due to effective systems like expanded treatment, harm reduction, and drug courts, which have graduated nearly 1,000 people. He cited data showing 254 fatal overdoses in 2025 (projected or estimated), down from higher numbers two years prior and half of 2017 levels, the lowest since 2013, with similar drops in non-fatal overdoses, attributing this to broader continuum of care rather than harsher penalties. Barry warned that 20-gram thresholds could ensnare low-level dealers or those supporting personal/social use, pulling them deeper into the criminal justice system without access to needed treatment, costing taxpayers about $54,000 per year per inmate (e.g., $189,000 for 3.5 years). He argued mandatory minimums would undermine drug courts and judicial discretion, increasing incarceration without addressing root causes. During questions, he acknowledged multiple factors in declining rates nationwide but highlighted New Hampshire's faster decline (from 3rd highest to around 20th by 2022), crediting treatment access and Narcan over punitive measures. Barry clarified the bill targets possession with intent to distribute/sale, not simple possession, but contended the user-seller line is blurry, as many with substance use disorder sell to support habits, and criminal penalties fail to treat the chronic brain condition, diverting resources from prevention and recovery while new sellers would emerge.
SB467: Rachel Potter, Policy Associate, ACLU of New Hampshire Oppose01:24:38.880 - 1:23:25 PM; Rachel Potter testified against SB467, arguing that mandatory minimum sentences for fentanyl offenses fail to deter crime, as research shows punishment severity has little effect compared to treatment and prevention. She highlighted New Hampshire's recent drop in fentanyl overdose deaths due to investments in public health strategies, not punitive measures. Potter explained that mandatory minimums shift power to prosecutors, distorting plea bargaining and reducing judicial discretion, leading to less transparency and individualized justice. She noted that these sentences hinder rehabilitation by interrupting treatment and destabilizing lives, often affecting low-level users rather than high-level dealers. Additionally, she pointed out the high fiscal cost of incarceration, urging investment in treatment, recovery, and harm reduction instead, and recommended finding the bill inexpedient to legislate.
SB467: Enina Hansen, Person in Recovery from Alcoholism Oppose01:30:00.719 - 1:28:47 PM; Enina Hansen shared her personal story of recovery and loss, opposing SB467 specifically for its mandatory minimums. She recounted how her partner Phil, arrested for a heroin buy 10 years ago, received leniency from a judge despite his history, allowing him to dedicate his life to addiction recovery. Phil founded a recovery center in Laconia, opened sober houses, spoke nationally, and served in the New Hampshire House, impacting thousands. However, he relapsed in 2021 and died from a fentanyl overdose. Hansen supports criminal consequences for fentanyl possession resulting in death but argued that mandatory minimums would have prevented Phil's contributions by sending him directly to prison without a judicial chance. She emphasized that people recover and urged voting against the bill to avoid overlooking repeat offenders who can reform.
SB467: Jessica Carter, Executive Director, Revive Recovery Resource Center Oppose01:34:37.520 - 1:33:24 PM; Jessica Carter strongly opposed SB467FN, stating it would not reduce fentanyl in communities but increase overdose deaths by pushing vulnerable people into hiding. She explained that the bill's aggregation of small amounts over 90 days could trigger severe charges for low-level users, homeless individuals, or those sharing to survive, not traffickers. Drawing from personal experience, she noted her husband's daily small purchases would aggregate to massive amounts under the law. Carter warned that drug-induced homicide laws deter calling 911, leading to more fatalities, as people fear prosecution. She criticized the unrealistic treatment requirements, like 9-month completion and 300 hours of community service, which could lead to long sentences for those struggling. Carter argued punishment does not solve the epidemic and undermines harm reduction efforts, urging rejection of the bill in favor of treatment, housing, and proven approaches.
SB626 2024-?h (amendment mentioned): Senator Bill Ganon, Senate District 23 Support01:41:17.199 - 1:40:04 PM; Senator Bill Ganon introduced SB626, explaining it addresses burdensome Right-to-Know (RSA 91-A) requests from out-of-state actors, such as businesses and foreign entities, which cost municipalities significant time and money. He emphasized that in-state residents, including those making up to 300 requests per year, face no restrictions and can access information freely. Exceptions allow out-of-state lawyers representing New Hampshire clients, property owners with minimum contacts, and businesses with connections. The bill aims to limit frivolous requests from those without ties to the state while preserving transparency for New Hampshire citizens.
SB626 2024-?h (amendment mentioned): Sarah Bert Cohen, New Hampshire Municipal Association Support01:43:30.719 - 1:42:17 PM; Sarah Bert Cohen testified in support of SB626 as amended, clarifying that the Right-to-Know law serves New Hampshire citizens to ensure government transparency for those governed by it. She noted the term 'citizen' in RSA 91-A dates to 1967 and aligns with constitutional intent, supported by case law like McBurney v. Young limiting access to in-state requesters. The amendment defines citizens as those domiciled in New Hampshire or property owners, using accessible documents like voter registration, and extends to entities via analogous proof. It preserves access for media without domicile requirements and targets data mining by out-of-state entities with no connection, protecting municipal resources. Cohen explained it discourages misuse while allowing oversight by those who live, vote, and pay taxes here, and addresses staff time burdens even if costs are recouped.
SB626 2024-?h: Mark Hayward, New England First Amendment Coalition, Manchester Oppose01:52:42.800 - 1:51:29 PM; Mark Hayward testified against SB 626, viewing it as a trade barrier to information that hinders access for non-residents in a interconnected region. He provided hypotheticals illustrating impacts: a Massachusetts driver pulled over in Hampton needing records to check for profiling; a Maine resident buying property in NH seeking tax and zoning history; a business starter needing regulatory and workforce data; a Vermont resident inquiring about Dartmouth Skiway's lift operations. He argued the bill lets town officials decide citizenship, complicating anonymous requests, and noted only five states limit records to citizens. He urged giving recent fee-charging law a chance.
SB626 2024-?h: Sarah Burke Cohen, New Hampshire Municipal Association Support01:57:07.360 - 1:55:54 PM; Sarah Burke Cohen returned to address HB10002 on communications, noting municipalities struggle to implement it due to complexity in defining communications (e.g., email chains with attachments up to 500 pages), making fee schedules hard. On out-of-state requesters, she said businesses often have in-state partners to request documents. Responding to a question, she explained RSA 91 defines 'person' to include business entities, allowing them analogous documentation like licenses or leases to qualify as citizens under the bill.
SB626 2024-?h: Mark Hayward, New England First Amendment Coalition, Manchester Oppose02:00:22.800 - 1:59:09 PM; In a quick follow-up, Mark Hayward argued that serial requesters could hire in-state proxies like himself, a former reporter familiar with the law, so SB 626 doesn't solve the municipal association's data-mining concerns.
HB510: Bob Lynn, State Representative from Windham Support02:01:30.080 - 2:00:17 PM; Rep. Bob Lynn supported HB510, which passed the House last year but failed in the Senate due to concerns over conflicting with university collective bargaining agreements (CBAs). Amendments clarify CBAs take precedence while in effect but new ones must comply with the bill's minimum due process rights. He addressed opponents' arguments: the bill's rights (e.g., notice, impartial hearing) are uncontroversial and allow equivalent existing procedures; opponents can't claim both that protections already exist and that the bill requires massive changes. He conceded minor fixes like changing 7 to 10 days' notice to match Title IX and adding 'substantial disruption to educational mission' for preemptive actions. He emphasized no conflict with federal Title IX, which sets a floor, and the need for state law to protect against future regressive policies like Obama-era guidance prioritizing victims over accused rights.
HB510: Tyler Coward, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) Support02:32:38.399 - 2:31:25 PM; Tyler Coward from national nonprofit FIRE supported HB510 to ensure fair procedures in high-stakes disciplinary cases at public colleges, where over 200 lawsuits nationwide show universities often sidestep due process absent legal mandates. The bill sets uniform baselines: advance notice, evidence access, presumption of innocence, live hearing with impartial decision-maker, witness questioning via advisor (possibly attorney), verbatim record, and appeal. FIRE's review graded NH public universities poorly (UNH: 10/20; Plymouth State: 1/20), with inconsistencies across campuses and cases. It aligns with Title IX's floor and Supreme Court precedents like Goss v. Lopez; universities provide fewer protections off-campus or in non-Title IX cases. Fair processes benefit all parties by ensuring credible, defensible outcomes and avoiding relitigation.
HB510: Aubrey Freriedman, Bridgewater Support02:42:21.280 - 2:41:08 PM; Aubrey Freriedman supported HB510, stating the nine listed due process rights are reasonable and should apply at tax-supported state colleges and universities. She emphasized that attending such institutions shouldn't forfeit these rights and highlighted the importance of cross-examination, noting the bill (section 188-K:3 E) allows alleged victims to be questioned by an advisor, not the accused, to avoid trauma.
SB512 2024-0268s: Sharon Carson, State Senator from District 14 (Londonderry, Hudson, Auburn) Support02:26:42.240 - 2:25:29 PM; Senator Sharon Carson presented non-germane amendment 2024-0268s to SB512, clarifying RSA 561-A to align with last year's SB148 prohibiting murderers from profiting off victims. It broadens 'responsible for murder' beyond final criminal convictions to close loopholes, ensuring no judicial interpretation allows profit, motivated by cases like Harmony Montgomery's murder to prevent beneficiaries from gaining.
SB512 2024-0268s: Unidentified Speaker Support02:44:07.840 - 2:42:54 PM; The speaker supports SB512, highlighting its benefits in avoiding re-traumatization of victims through cross-examination by perpetrators. They criticize the fiscal note claiming additional staff for state colleges, community colleges, and the university system as unnecessary, arguing that these institutions are already overstaffed with administrators. They assert no extra bureaucrats or appropriations are needed and fully endorse the bill as it is.
SB512 2024-0268s: Katherine Preventure, Chancellor of University System Oppose02:45:16.399 - 2:44:03 PM; Katherine Preventure opposes HB510, noting recent discussions with the sponsor identified areas for potential amendments. She describes the bill as delving into complex issues like student conduct, academics, organizations, faculty agreements, and Title IX. She questions the specific problem in New Hampshire, asserting existing due process is sufficient, as evidenced by extensive student rights documents and faculty processes. She argues the bill imposes a one-size-fits-all approach for various misconduct types, diverting resources from real university problems, and recommends inexpedient to legislate.
SB512 2024-0268s: Chad Pimentel, General Counsel for University System Oppose02:47:50.240 - 2:46:37 PM; Chad Pimentel addresses concerns about cross-examination in HB510, noting amendments have limited it from direct accuser-victim confrontation, which could deter participation. He explains challenges in applying one-size-fits-all hearings to diverse issues like plagiarism or grant misuse, where victims may not be directly involved. He highlights potential for duplicative processes conflicting with arbitrations and appeals, making it inefficient and resource-intensive.
SB512 2024-0268s: Mark Rubenstein, Chancellor for Community College System of NH; Shannon Reed, Director of Government Affairs Oppose02:58:07.680 - 2:56:54 PM; Mark Rubenstein and Shannon Reed oppose HB510, echoing prior testimony on due process commitments and sponsor discussions. They note processes built through collective bargaining and case law, likening the bill's fit to mismatched tools (metric vs. SAE wrenches). They suggest starting from common ground rather than layering new requirements that would require extensive policy revisions, potentially creating conflicts.
SB512 2024-0268s: Pamela Kyle, New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence; Tina Levy, Executive Director of Voices Against Violence, Plymouth NH Oppose03:01:14.319 - 3:00:01 PM; Pamela Kyle and Tina Levy oppose HB510 as written, appreciating sponsor discussions but concerned it disrupts established Title IX-compliant processes for sexual misconduct. They emphasize New Hampshire's 2020 landmark legislation mirroring Title IX, ensuring balanced rights. Key worries include risks of retaliation, harassment, privacy harms, and mandating adversarial hearings that could revictimize survivors. Tina shares experiences of survivors navigating the already complex, time-consuming process, noting high withdrawal rates due to stress. She stresses Title IX's administrative focus on safety, not criminal accountability, and how added elements could exacerbate barriers.
SB512 2024-0268s: Veronica Parker (statement read by Tina Levy) Oppose03:08:38.160 - 3:07:25 PM; Veronica Parker shares her traumatic experience of incapacitated rape in 2020, reporting to Title IX and police. She describes the 6-month Title IX process as brutal and invasive, leading her to drop out, yet it validated her case and provided protection against later stalking. She highlights underreporting due to emotional and personal costs, questioning if the bill helps victims or protects rapists, and credits Title IX for her current safety.
SB512 2024-0268s: Kate Litman, Majority Policy Director for the Senate (introducing for Senator Carson) Support03:11:41.680 - 3:10:28 PM; Kate Litman introduces the non-germane amendment 2024-0268s to SB510 on behalf of Senator Carson, offering to read her earlier statement or answer questions.
SB512 2024-0268s: Benjamin King, representing the estate of Harmony Montgomery Support03:12:43.200 - 3:11:30 PM; Benjamin King supports the non-germane amendment to SB512, thanking Senator Carson. He argues the Slayer Statute needs amendment to remove ambiguity allowing convicted killers to potentially inherit, which probate judges should not resolve.
SB512 2024-0268s: Attorney (unnamed) Support03:14:03.680 - 3:12:50 PM; The speaker explains the purpose of the Slayer Statute to prevent killers from inheriting from their victims under intestate succession. They highlight a gap in the current law between two provisions: one requiring a final judgment after all appeals are exhausted, and the other applying in the absence of a criminal conviction. This creates ambiguity if there's a conviction but appeals are pending, potentially allowing the killer to inherit. The amendment defines 'final criminal conviction' to close this gap, ensuring the killer is treated as predeceased in such cases, and clarifies the provisions accordingly.
SB512 2024-0268s: Senator Abis Information Only03:17:04.640 - 3:15:51 PM; Senator Abis asks for clarification on whether under current intestate law, a beneficiary must elect to receive benefits during probate.
SB512 2024-0268s: Senator Oan Information Only03:17:04.640 - 3:15:51 PM; Senator Oan thanks the speaker and inquires if Benjamin King had input on attaching this bill to another. Later, they seek explanation on how the statute works in the absence of a final conviction, expressing understanding of the predeseasing concept.
SB512 2024-0268s: Attorney (unnamed) Support03:18:24.880 - 3:17:11 PM; In response to questions, the attorney confirms the current statute's ambiguity regarding 'conviction' without specifying finality. They note probate judges' concerns about appeals, including habeas corpus petitions potentially reaching the U.S. Supreme Court. The amendment defines 'final criminal conviction' to exclude such post-conviction relief, resolving the issue without intending to include habeas petitions in 'all rights of appeal'.
SB512 2024-0268s: Judge Lint Support03:19:34.960 - 3:18:21 PM; Judge Lint briefly affirms that the proposed amendment solves the identified problem in the Slayer Statute, with assistance from Ms. Litman and prior speakers.

Gannon, Bill(Chairman)(R)[B-]2025	Abbas, Daryl(V Chairman)(R)[B-]2025	Carson, Sharon(R)[B]2025
Altschiller, Debra(D)[CT]2025	Reardon, Tara(D)[F]2025