relative to the offense of criminal threatening.
HB 1108 revises New Hampshire’s criminal threatening statute to create a clearer defense for a person who displays a firearm or other lawful means of self-defense in response to conduct that a reasonable person could perceive as likely to cause serious bodily injury, death, property damage, theft, unlawful intrusion, or refusal to leave after a lawful trespass notice. Under the bill, that person would not be deemed to have committed criminal threatening if the display was intended to deter the conduct. The bill also states that nothing in the section should be read to limit otherwise lawful open carry of firearms.
The measure is framed as a clarification of when defensive conduct crosses the line into criminal threatening, and it would amend RSA 631:4, IV. It is set to take effect January 1, 2027. The fiscal note indicates no direct revenue impact, but possible indeterminable costs to the judicial and correctional systems if the change affects prosecutions, incarceration, probation, or parole outcomes.
HB 1108 would amend New Hampshire criminal law by repealing and reenacting RSA 631:4, IV to add an explicit statutory exception for certain defensive displays of firearms or other lawful self-defense tools. The change would affect how prosecutors, courts, and law enforcement evaluate criminal threatening charges when a person claims they acted to deter a perceived threat to safety, property, or lawful occupancy. It could also influence related criminal justice costs, though the fiscal note says those impacts are indeterminable.
The available voting history suggests the bill was controversial and generated mixed sentiment. On March 11, 2026, the House first voted to table the bill, then voted against indefinite postponement, and finally passed it on a vote of 193-143, indicating substantial support but also significant opposition. The lack of committee transcript material limits insight into detailed debate, but the close-to-divided votes suggest the bill was viewed as a meaningful policy change rather than a routine clarification.
The main point of contention is whether the bill appropriately protects self-defense rights or instead broadens the circumstances under which a person may display a firearm without criminal liability. Supporters are likely to view the measure as a needed safeguard for people responding to threats, trespass, or unlawful intrusion, while opponents may worry it could encourage escalation, complicate enforcement of criminal threatening laws, or create ambiguity in situations involving firearms. The inclusion of property damage, theft, and refusal to leave after trespass notice broadens the defense beyond immediate physical threats, which may also have been a source of debate.