(Second New Title) relative to applications for licenses to carry a loaded pistol or revolver and relative to the composition of the board of dental examiners.
Summary
HB 1365 would change the state-mandated application form used by local officials to issue licenses to carry a loaded pistol or revolver. The bill directs the director of state police to prepare the forms and limits them to no more information than was required on the December 2009 version of New Hampshire’s pistol/revolver application form (DSSP 85). It specifically bars the form from asking for an applicant’s occupation, current employer, employer address, or personal references.
The bill also prohibits the application from including consent or release language that would authorize disclosure of personal, employment, medical, psychiatric, or other records beyond what was expressly required on the 2009 form. It keeps the existing licensing framework in place, including the 14-day issuance timeline, the $10 resident fee, the $100 nonresident fee, and the requirement that local officials use only the state-prepared forms. The bill would take effect on January 1, 2027.
Impact
HB 1365 would amend RSA 159:6, which governs licenses to carry loaded pistols or revolvers, by narrowing what information licensing authorities may collect on application forms. In practical terms, it would remove authority for towns and cities to request employment history, personal references, and broad record-release authorizations, and it would standardize the application process around the older 2009 state form. The bill would affect local issuing officials, applicants for carry licenses, and the state police office responsible for preparing the forms.
Sentiment
The available context suggests generally favorable sentiment toward the bill’s privacy and rights-protection goals, as reflected in the bill’s stated purpose that the application process should protect the privacy and constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no direct evidence of opposition or support from debate or roll call. Based on the text alone, the bill appears framed as a modest procedural reform rather than a major policy change.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely to be how much information the state may require from concealed-carry applicants. Supporters would view the bill as preventing unnecessary disclosure of private information and limiting forms to what is expressly authorized by statute. Potential critics could argue that removing employment and reference questions, and restricting consent language for records, may reduce the information available to licensing authorities when evaluating applicants. Because no transcripts or votes are included, specific legislators or stakeholder groups taking these positions are not identified in the record provided.
Relative to expedited driveway permitting of major entrances for residential use of 20 units or greater and the time frame for approval or denial of permit applications.
Relative to background checks during motions to return firearms and ammunition and relative to invalidating out-of-state driver's licenses issued to undocumented immigrants and relative to requiring schools to engage an owner's project manager for construction of school building aid projects at the time of application.