(New Title) prohibiting public colleges and universities from regulating the possession or carrying of certain weapons on campus and establishing a committee to study the feasibility of allowing guns on campuses of public institutions of higher education.
HB 1793, titled the “Protecting College Students Act,” would limit the authority of public colleges and universities in New Hampshire to regulate certain weapons on campus. As amended, the bill prohibits public institutions of higher education from adopting rules or policies that restrict the possession, carry, storage, or lawful use of non-lethal weapons on campus, and it also bars those institutions from restricting firearms on campus by faculty members. The bill defines “campus” broadly to include land, buildings, facilities, and vehicles owned, leased, or controlled by a public institution, and it directs institutions to create rules and procedures to implement the new requirements.
The bill also creates a legislative study committee to examine the feasibility of allowing guns on campuses of public institutions of higher education. The committee is tasked with studying costs, safety concerns, current campus weapons policies in New Hampshire, policies in other states, testimony from other institutions, and what reasonable restrictions might be needed if campus carry is adopted more broadly in the future. The committee must report its findings and recommendations by November 1, 2026.
In practical terms, the bill would preempt public college and university policies that currently regulate weapons on campus, shifting authority away from institutional administrators and toward state law. It would likely affect the University System of New Hampshire and the Community College System of New Hampshire most directly, including their campuses, housing, childcare facilities, and other affiliated spaces. The fiscal note anticipates indeterminable but potentially significant costs tied to insurance, security staffing, training, storage, legal compliance, and possible litigation, with possible downstream effects on tuition, fees, enrollment, and employment.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill’s progress is supportive enough to advance it out of the House with an OTP vote of 188-164, suggesting substantial but not unanimous backing. The bill’s findings emphasize constitutional carry and the right to bear arms, indicating a pro-gun policy rationale. At the same time, the fiscal note shows serious institutional concern about safety, liability, and operational disruption, which likely explains why the measure remains contentious.
The main points of contention are whether campus carry would improve or undermine safety, and whether public colleges should be allowed to set their own weapons policies. Universities and community colleges warned that the bill could increase risk, insurance costs, security needs, and legal conflicts with childcare, youth programs, housing, and workplace safety obligations. Supporters appear to favor expanding gun rights on campus and limiting institutional restrictions, while opponents or concerned stakeholders focus on public safety, compliance burdens, and the financial impact on higher education institutions.
The bill would amend RSA 159 by adding a new subdivision that restricts public institutions of higher education from regulating the possession, carry, storage, or lawful use of non-lethal weapons on campus and from restricting firearms on campus by faculty. It would also require those institutions to adopt implementation rules, policies, and procedures, and it includes a severability clause. In addition, it establishes a temporary legislative study committee to examine campus carry and related safety, cost, and policy issues, with a report due in late 2026. The measure would directly affect the University System of New Hampshire, the Community College System of New Hampshire, and other public higher education institutions, potentially overriding existing campus weapons policies and creating new compliance, security, and liability considerations.
The bill appears to have a mixed but generally favorable political reception among its supporters, as shown by its 188-164 OTP vote in the House. The bill’s text frames the issue as a constitutional right and a matter of limiting government restriction, which suggests strong support from gun-rights advocates and sponsors. However, the fiscal note and agency responses reflect significant concern from higher education systems about safety, insurance, legal exposure, and operational costs, indicating that institutional stakeholders are wary of the measure. Overall, the sentiment is polarized: proponents emphasize rights and campus carry feasibility, while opponents stress risk and cost.
The central dispute is whether public colleges and universities should be barred from regulating weapons on campus, especially firearms carried by faculty and non-lethal weapons carried more broadly. University and community college officials argue the bill could create safety hazards, increase insurance premiums, require more security and training, and conflict with childcare, youth camp, housing, and workplace safety rules. Supporters, by contrast, appear to view the bill as a necessary extension of constitutional carry and a protection of individual rights on public campuses. The study committee is a compromise element, reflecting uncertainty about the broader feasibility of campus carry and the need to evaluate costs, safety impacts, and possible reasonable restrictions before any further expansion.