On Jan. 7, New Hampshire House Republicans introduced H.B. 1793, the “Protecting College Students Act,” for a second time. The bill, introduced a few days before the Brown University shooting, strengthens the rights of students to keep a gun with them on public university campuses. The bill is divided into two main sections: a) it prohibits public institutions from enacting any policies restricting possession, carry, storage or lawful use of firearms or non-lethal weapons on campus, with no state or institutional permit/license being required for carry on campus, and b) enables anyone “aggrieved” to sue the institution and employees responsible for the violation with the available relief of injunction, monetary damages, attorneys’ fees and minimum damages of $10,000 per action.
The bill makes a few arguments within its statement of findings, specifically:
- The New Hampshire Constitution protects the right to bear arms (Part 1, Art. 2-a) and has constitutional carry.
- Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales means that the government has no duty to protect individuals from private harm.
- Claims under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen “historical tradition test” campus restrictions fail and exceed institutional authority.
- Claims prohibitions are ineffective, disarm the “responsible,” and leave victims defenseless.
Even taking those arguments at face value, the bill’s response is extreme. Rather than addressing narrow restrictions on carry, it prohibits any regulation of possession, storage or lawful use.
Although the New Hampshire Constitution unquestionably protects the right to bear arms, this bill goes further, banning restrictions on possession, carry, storage and lawful use. So, if universities try to require locked storage in dorms, storage rules near labs or chemicals, restrictions at athletic events or performances or even rules around daycare sites — they risk a lawsuit under section 159:30 of the bill, leaving schools very little room to manage risks.
Even if you accept the argument that banning guns outright on college campuses raises constitutional concerns, that doesn’t mean all regulation is off the table. The Supreme Court has been clear that the Second Amendment has limits, including in sensitive places like schools and government buildings identified in District of Columbia v. Heller.
Further, the case the bill’s author leans on to justify this, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police, et al. also doesn’t say what the bill suggests it does. Bruen struck down discretionary permit systems for public carry, meaning that the state cannot require special justification to carry in public. However, it also reaffirmed that firearms can still be restricted in certain places, including schools. Treating campus carry as something required by Bruen misreads the decision, which explicitly recognizes that sensitive places have long been treated differently.
The bill also points to Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales to suggest the government bears no responsibility for public safety. That framing distorts what the case was actually about. Castle Rock involved a woman whose estranged husband violated a restraining order, kidnapped their children and murdered them. She then sued the police department, arguing that by failing to enforce the restraining order, the police had violated her constitutional rights. The Supreme Court held that they couldn’t be held liable for failing to enforce the restraining order, even when a statute appears mandatory. In other words, the Constitution does not guarantee police protection against private violence.
Castle Rock is a narrow qualification about constitutional liability, not a policy endorsement. It doesn’t say that the government shouldn’t protect people or that public institutions should abandon safety planning — it simply says that individuals cannot sue the government for failing to protect you from private harm.
It’s unreasonable to say that because the government can’t be sued for failing to enforce a restraining order, public institutions are somehow barred from taking steps to keep people safe. Legal immunity is not the same thing as good policy. Colleges still have legal duties under tort law, workplace safety rules (OSHA), licensing requirements, childcare regulations and contracts to protect students, staff and visitors. Citing Castle Rock doesn’t justify stripping campuses of regulatory authority — it just confuses constitutional law with public safety policy.
Beyond what’s written in the bill, Farrington has also argued publicly that students still have their complete second amendment rights on college campuses. In an interview to The Dartmouth, he said, “When you’re a college student, I don’t think that you forgo your civil liberties … At a public university such as UNH, as an arm of the state, they do not have the authority to take away your rights.”
But, the Supreme Court says you do! Several cases post Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School, the Vietnam arm band case which said students’ political speech was still protected at schools. Subsequent cases also regulated what students can and cannot do on school property based on the interests of the school, including New Jersey v. T.L.O., Bethel School District v. Fraser, Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier and Morse v. Frederick.
All of these cases show that student rights are not absolute when they conflict with the legitimate interests of educational institutions — a reality Farrington’s argument ignores.
By stripping public colleges of authority to regulate firearms on campus, the state sets a precedent that reframes institutional safety rules as constitutional violations rather than basic governance. That shift reshapes the higher-education environment in New Hampshire as a whole, creating a two-tier system in which public and private campuses operate under radically different safety standards. It also invites future efforts to extend similar restrictions to private institutions, while affecting faculty recruitment, student choice and the state’s reputation as a place where universities can responsibly manage their own campuses.
Dartmouth does not exist in isolation from New Hampshire’s policy climate — and neither does its responsibility to pay attention when that climate changes. We must stand as a university in opposition to H.B. 1793.
Opinion articles represent the views of their author(s), which are not necessarily those of The Dartmouth.
