HB700

I oppose protecting victims of stalking by weakening the courts ability to remove deadly weapons from stalkers.

We should be continuing to work towards protecting survivors of crimes; assault, stalking, ect. This bill only makes it harder to do that.

I oppose this bill the way it is written unless this language also includes the respondent: “The court shall require the person filing the petition to be informed and to sign acknowledging his or her understanding that any material false statement made in the petition may be prosecuted for perjury pursuant to RSA 641:1. “ This is a bizarre bill to introduce in the first place because in the signature section of those forms it already states this, as well as during the notarization process we are required to swear the information is correct. But then the accused is allowed to lie on their form and they don’t have to be worried about penalties of perjury? Why? What is the purpose of this? This already exists, and it’s bizarre they wanted it to only apply to the person filling out the request for the order and not the accused responding to the request.

Yes thank you Republicans for keeping victims safe!!!!! Most of these people are women so I guess you don’t care about women’s safety!!!!! Disgusting!!!!! Say no to this bill!!!

We need to protect victims of stalking and domestic violence as much as possible. Questioning the credibility of those filing orders of protection is exactly why victims never step forward. Additionally, the courts should be able to remove or limit the possession of deadly weapons from stalkers or those accused of violence. We need to protect vulnerable granite staters and do better.

Why would anyone want to make it easier for stalkers to terrorize and kill their victims? If courts are granting a protective order, then there is evidence that that person is a threat. I wholeheartedly oppose this bill. As a mother who has had to protect her daughter from a stalker, NO laws should be making things easier for these criminals. Because that is exactly what they are.

Victims and their safety should be the focus! Keep the weapons out of the hands of dangerous stalkers!! Why on earth would this state want to empower stalkers???

I oppose this bill as it places unnecessary barriers for individuals seeking civil restraining orders, particularly by requiring petitioners to acknowledge perjury risks. This provision may deter victims of harassment, stalking, or abuse from seeking the protection they need, especially in non-domestic situations where they may fear retaliation. Additionally, the bill’s limitation on firearm surrender in non-domestic cases could put petitioners at greater risk by leaving dangerous individuals armed, even when safety concerns are present. Legal processes should prioritize the safety and well-being of victims without discouraging them from seeking justice.

Protect victims

We need to protect our citizens from abuse and death.

This is ABSURD, and dangerous. The sponsors of this bill should be ashamed of themselves—we should be protecting and ensuring safety for victims, not empowering stalkers.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on this bill. I am here to voice my opposition to the proposed changes regarding protective orders in New Hampshire. While I respect the intent to ensure fairness and accountability in legal processes, this bill undermines the safety and protection of victims. It adds unnecessary barriers for those seeking protection from stalking or harassment and weakens safeguards against individuals who may pose a serious threat to others. First, requiring victims to attest that they understand the consequences of perjury in their petition creates an unnecessary layer of doubt about their credibility. Victims of stalking and harassment already face significant emotional and legal challenges when seeking protection. Imposing this requirement signals mistrust and risks deterring vulnerable individuals from seeking help out of fear of being accused of dishonesty. Victims should be believed and supported, not met with undue skepticism that could endanger their lives. Second, allowing petitioners in non-domestic violence situations to waive the removal of firearms or deadly weapons from restrained individuals is profoundly dangerous. Stalking and harassment, regardless of their context, are often precursors to violence. A firearm in the hands of someone accused of stalking or threatening behavior significantly escalates the risk of harm to the victim. Waiting until the trial to determine the threat posed by the accused could have devastating consequences. By default, firearms and deadly weapons should be removed from any individual named in a protective order until the court can fully assess the situation. This precautionary measure prioritizes the safety of victims, which should always come first. As a responsible gun owner myself, I understand the importance of the Second Amendment. However, I also recognize the need for common-sense measures to keep firearms out of the hands of individuals who potentially or definitely pose a threat to others. This bill compromises that safety. It prioritizes the rights of the accused over the well-being of victims, leaving them exposed to preventable harm. I urge you to reject this bill and instead focus on legislation that strengthens protections for victims of stalking and harassment. Victims should not have to navigate unnecessary doubt or face greater risks to their safety when they are most vulnerable. Thank you for your time and consideration.

I vehemently oppose this bill! If yoi vote for this bill, you are voting to endanger thousands of domestic violence victims every year. Don't facilitate injuries and death to victims

Please oppose this bill. Don’t let someone stalking someone or someone threatening the life of someone keep access to their deadly weapons. This is a common sense law! Please represent your voters and Oppose HB 700.

Isn’t asking for help from domestic violence hard enough? Do we need to make it harder for victims? Don’t be cruel.

This would be incredibly dangerous to stalking victims and their families. At the end of the day, protective orders are just a piece of paper. Retaliation can occur after a protective order is put in place and that is why it is crucial that dangerous weapons be taken away to ensure safety for the victim.

The State should be prioritizing victims rights and keeping them and their families safe.

While not all stalkers carry weapons, in a significant number of cases, stalkers have used weapons to threaten or harm their victims. Particularly when stalking is related to intimate partner violence, studies show that access to a firearm can significantly increase the risk of a stalker escalating to physical violence and using a firearm against their victim. Research indicates that a high percentage of domestic homicides are preceded by stalking behavior. Therefore I am registering my opposition to this bill.

I oppose this bill, because it endangers victims of stalking.

I strongly oppose HB 700 as it will strip away crucial protections needed for stalking victims. We must prioritize policies that PROTECT the public, not make it easier for stalkers to hurt and potentially kill their victims.

I oppose HB700

Under no circumstance, should dangerous stalkers be allowed to possess/carry weapons. This greatly endangers the public, specifically victims of stalking. It is your job to protect the public, in this case primarily women, from those who seek to harass or, in some cases, terrorize them.

This bill will put NH residents who are already in a dangerous position at further risk of being harmed.

You would have to be anti human to support this bullshit.