repealing limiting liability for certain design features of firearms.
Summary
HB 1387 repeals RSA 507-D:6, a state law that limits liability for certain design features of firearms. In practical terms, the bill would remove a statutory protection that currently shields certain firearm manufacturers, sellers, or related parties from liability claims tied specifically to those design features. The bill takes effect immediately upon passage.
Because the bill is a repeal-only measure, it does not create a new regulatory framework or new firearm design requirements. Instead, it deletes an existing liability-limitation provision from New Hampshire law, potentially changing how civil claims involving firearm design features could be brought or defended under state law. The measure is assigned to the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee.
Impact
The bill would amend state law by repealing RSA 507-D:6, thereby eliminating a specific limitation on civil liability related to firearm design features. This could affect firearm manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and other parties that may have relied on the existing statutory protection in litigation. By removing the provision, the bill may expose those parties to broader state-law claims involving alleged harms connected to firearm design, depending on how courts interpret the remaining liability rules.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill has generated significant division. A motion to table the bill on March 5, 2026 passed 189-158, indicating substantial support for setting the bill aside but also a large minority opposed to that action. No committee transcript is available, so the record does not show detailed debate, but the vote pattern suggests the issue is politically contentious and closely split.
Contention
The main point of contention is whether New Hampshire should continue to provide a liability shield for certain firearm design features or repeal it and allow broader civil accountability. Supporters of repeal are likely focused on preserving access to legal remedies for injuries or damages, while opponents are likely concerned about increased litigation exposure for the firearms industry and the effect on lawful firearm design and commerce. The close division reflected in the table vote indicates that both public safety and industry-liability concerns are central to the debate.