When one grandmother wrote that she was “grateful that there were no screams in this email,” it was a sign of genuine alarm about where national policy is headed. HB 1793, the so-called “campus carry” bill, would fundamentally change the way UNH and the communities in which it operates manage risk and public safety.
From the perspective of the Durham Town Council, HB 1793 is not a modest adjustment to gun policy. On a compact residential campus, this significantly and unnecessarily increases risk. The bill would eliminate the ability of the University of New Hampshire and other public campuses such as Kean University, Plymouth University and the University of New Hampshire at Manchester to ban guns and other weapons. For us, this is not an abstract argument about rights. How to keep people safe on a busy campus in a small New Hampshire town is a practical question.
The University of New Hampshire (UNH) is a compact residential campus in the town of Durham with approximately 16,000 students, faculty, and staff members on and off campus each day. It features close quarters, large events, and the same mental health and substance use challenges as campuses nationwide. Picture the end of a sold-out University of New Hampshire Wildcats hockey game as thousands of people stream from Whittemore Center to campus and into nearby streets, restaurants and parking lots. In this environment, even a heated dispute can be difficult to handle. Introducing more guns into these same spaces increases the likelihood that a bad night will turn into a lasting tragedy.
In this case, an increase in the number of guns changes the risk profile in ways that are both predictable and disturbing. Ready access to firearms can increase the risk of suicide and other injuries and complicate the split-second decisions law enforcement officers must make when trying to differentiate between perpetrators and armed bystanders.
Over the years, UNH, the Town of Durham and area public safety agencies have worked together to establish a coherent safety framework. A key element of the Framework is the University of New Hampshire’s ability to develop and enforce weapons regulations appropriate to its campus environment. Under current policy, firearms are prohibited on campus, but the Police Department provides 24/7 secure storage for hunting and sporting weapons. This approach is highly effective, balancing safety concerns with respect for legal gun ownership.
HB 1793 would replace this tailored, local approach with a one-size-fits-all “campus carry” mandate. Recent high-profile school shootings elsewhere have highlighted the need for layered prevention strategies, rather than adding weapons to crowded school environments. The bill also goes against long-standing state policy in RSA 187-A, which envisions the university system operating with a high degree of autonomy and autonomy. If the state is poised to repeal the University of New Hampshire’s long-standing, tailored safety policy, there is nothing to prevent future legislators from second-guessing other campus-level decisions about mental health services, crowd management, or emergency planning. This is not a path we should embark on lightly.
As Mrs. Bagley’s email shows, some out-of-state families are already questioning whether they would leave their children at the University of New Hampshire if campus carry becomes law. For all of these reasons, the Durham Town Council formally opposes HB 1793. The committee believes those closest to campus life — UNH leadership, local law enforcement, host communities such as Durham, Keene, Plymouth and Manchester, and mental health professionals — are best equipped to assess risks and adopt policies that keep students safe. HB 1793 would eliminate local discretion and, in our judgment, make campuses like the University of New Hampshire less safe, not safer.
As the bill heads to the New Hampshire Senate, we hope senators will take these practical, nonpartisan concerns seriously. At a minimum, any change of this scale should significantly improve safety, enhance governance, or reduce costs. HB 1793 does none of these things. The Senate should refuse to advance a bill that increases risks, weakens local discretion and fails to provide measurable public benefits.
Todd Selig
Todd Selig is Durham’s longtime administrator.
This article originally appeared in the Portsmouth Herald: Why ‘campus carry’ is wrong for New Hampshire, N.H. Answer: Selig
