The committee held a lengthy hearing on House Bill 700, which proposes changes to the stalking/protective order petition forms and would add language intended to deter false petitions and to narrow automatic firearm relinquishment in certain non‑intimate‑partner stalking petitions. The bill drew sharply divided testimony from victim‑service organizations, prosecutors, victims and people who said they were harmed by what they described as weaponized petitions.

Representative Kelly Potenza (Strafford) said the bill addresses a gap that she and constituents found after a local experience in which a protective order filing led to the immediate confiscation of firearms that later escalated retaliation and a family hardship. The sponsor asked the committee to require that petitioners who make false statements be liable for perjury and to create more clarity around when firearms are seized; she also proposed language to prevent opportunistic or retaliatory filings that have collateral consequences for families.

Victim advocates and domestic‑violence organizations spoke strongly against the proposed changes. Pamela Kielig of the New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence and Shauna Foster of New Beginnings (Laconia) urged the committee to reject HB 700, saying it would put victims at risk and create new barriers for people seeking protection. They and other advocates noted that stalking and non‑intimate partner violence can be as dangerous as intimate‑partner violence; they pointed out that petition forms already include warnings about false statements and that judges need discretion to order firearm relinquishment when a court finds the case poses a risk.

Survivors and some witnesses offered starkly different testimony. Shauna Van Der Linda, whose father was killed after a neighbor intentionally ran over her family, urged lawmakers to keep all protections and to allow courts to remove firearms when the judge finds it necessary. Representative David Love and other witnesses described instances in which perceived false petitions triggered firearm seizures that imposed hardship on the accused and their families; they argued for stronger deterrents to misuse.

Assistant Merrimack County Attorney Steven Endres testified opposing the bill on procedural grounds and said existing statute and forms already contain perjury language; he cautioned that narrowing judicial discretion to order weapons relinquished could increase victims’ risk. He also explained that stalking petitions are intended for cases in which the parties are not intimate partners, and that federal law (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)) applies to certain restraining‑order scenarios tied to intimate partners, but not automatically to all stalking petitions.

The committee heard technical questions about forms used after hours, differences among protective‑order statutes and federal firearms rules, and whether changes might have unintended consequences of discouraging victims from seeking relief. The committee did not vote on HB 700 during the hearing.