Gov. Chris Sununu issued a number of vetoes in 2019 – 57, famously. Only one of them was accompanied by a two-page letter of explanation.
That would be House Bill 696, an effort to establish a procedure for protective orders for vulnerable adults. The bill would have given recourse to older Granite Staters hit by financial crimes, allowing them, for instance, to immediately block fund transfers to the suspect’s account.
The proposal had strong support from legal aid advocates. But it also included a provision allowing the confiscation of “any deadly weapon” involved in that abuse. Bolstered by firearms groups, Sununu vetoed the bill, citing potential confusion with existing domestic violence protective orders and Second Amendment violations.
Now the bill is back as Senate Bill 677, this time with Sununu’s support.
But firearms groups are still split over their position on it. And how that opposition ebbs and flows in the next few months could affect the bill’s future.
“This week there is a nasty anti-gun bill, SB 677, ‘Eldercare Gun Confiscation,’ ” said J.R. Hoell, the secretary of the New Hampshire Firearms Coalition, in an email to supporters.
The conflict came even despite an amendment meant to address gun owners’ concerns. The new change to the bill, submitted by Republican Sen. Jeb Bradley, strips any reference to firearms or deadly weapons in the text.
Still, some see it as an instant non-starter.
“Not only is the bill bad, but the amendment does nothing to fix the issues,” Hoell argued.
To Hoell, even if the state law does not mention guns, creating a new order could allow for firearm confiscation through federal law.
That’s because of what is known as the “Lautenberg Amendment,” a 1997 addition to a federal statute that prohibits firearms possession for those issued protection orders for domestic abuse.
Even though the vulnerable adult order would not entail an outright ban of firearms, if a person applied for one and met the domestic violence criteria under the Lautenberg law, the court could remove firearms from the alleged abuser, Hoell argued.
Hoell also cited issues with due process for those on the other end of the protective order.
But other gun groups disagree with the Lautenberg interpretation.
The National Rifle Association appears satisfied, at least to the point that it isn’t opposing the bill. In a Jan. 28 email to the Senate Judiciary Committee, NRA State Director Lauren LePage said the organization believed the changes made in the new version did not trample on gun rights.
“I understand that this amendment ensures that law-abiding individuals will not be threatened with the unconstitutional removal of their personal property,” LePage wrote.
It’s a split that could pose political challenges to Sununu, who supports the vulnerable adult protection order but has also been a steadfast supporter of gun rights in office.
In 2016, Sununu gave a nod to some gun control advocates by stating his support for universal background checks in a gubernatorial debate.
But largely, the governor has stood firmly with gun rights supporters, signing in a concealed carry bill in his first few months in office and vetoing a raft of bills last year sent by Democrats.
Still, Sununu has supported the efforts to introduce a vulnerable adults protective order, which advocates say is necessary in a rapidly aging state with little immediate recourse for victims of financial crimes. New Hampshire currently has protective orders available for victims of domestic violence and stalking.
In a statement Friday, Ben Vihstadt, a spokesman for the governor, said Sununu remained committed even through any bumps in the process.
“The governor supports passing legislation to protect vulnerable adults,” he said. “Our office is currently working with lawmakers and advocates from both sides of this issue so that we can come to a consensus and get this done.”
And Bradley, the prime sponsor of the new bill, said that he has sought out legal advice from the Attorney General’s Office on whether the concerns have legal merit.
Meanwhile, for supporters of the bill the concerns are overblown.
“We’ve heard a lot about this bill violating the constitution,” said Cheryl Steinberg, the senior law project director for New Hampshire Legal Assistance. “All I can say is it’s based on an already existing (state) law … which has been in effect for 20 years; it’s constitutionally sound.”
And she said that the Lautenberg Amendment would not likely apply because the criteria are so narrow that they’d only apply to those who qualified for domestic violence orders anyway.
Meanwhile, Steinberg said, the bill would allow speedy judicial relief for seniors, people with disabilities and others, which would ordinarily be cumbersome and expensive to obtain.
The effort will move forward to an executive vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is likely to support it.
But as gun groups continue to coalesce, the governor’s support may still be a moving target.
(Ethan DeWitt can be reached at edewitt@cmonitor.com, at (603) 369-3307, or on Twitter at @edewittNH.)