On February 5, 2026, the New Hampshire House of Representatives passed HB 1793, a bill that would prohibit public colleges and universities in the state from banning the possession or carrying of firearms on campus. The vote was 188–165. This is a genuine win — and every brick laid here matters for what comes next down the chessboard.
A Beacon of Hope in the Bluest Corner of the Country
New Hampshire does not get enough credit. Surrounded on all sides by states that have spent decades eroding individual rights — Massachusetts, Vermont, Maine, Rhode Island, Connecticut — New Hampshire has charted a different course. The state added Part I, Article 2-a to its own constitution back in 1982, when a supermajority of Granite Staters voted to enshrine the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property, and the state. Then in 2017, New Hampshire became a constitutional carry state. No permission slip required.
HB 1793 is the logical next step: if New Hampshire law already allows adults to carry without a permit, why should setting foot on a state-funded campus strip that right away? State Representative Samuel G. Farrington — a University of New Hampshire senior, a Gen Z Republican, and the bill’s lead advocate — put it plainly on the House floor:
“Self-defense is not a privilege. It is a natural right. And natural rights are not given by government. They’re granted by God alone. And so what God gives, we cannot take away.”
Hard to argue with that framing. The bill passed. Now it heads to the New Hampshire Senate.
The In Loco Parentis Argument Is Dead
Let me get to the constitutional analysis, because this is where it gets interesting.
When people argue for campus gun bans, the only historically grounded hook they can reach for is the founding-era practice of in loco parentis — Latin for “in the place of a parent.” At the time the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, universities treated students as children. Alexander Hamilton enrolled at King’s College (today’s Columbia University) around age 16. Schools regulated their students’ conduct the way a parent would: no liquor, no duels, no firearms. That was the understanding.
But here is the critical point: in loco parentis collapsed in the 1960s, and it has not come back. The relationship between a university and its students today is an arm’s-length contractual arrangement — tuition, degrees, maybe a dorm lease. Universities do not stand in the shoes of parents. Students come and go as they please. They vote, they sign contracts, they serve in the military. Nobody — and I mean nobody — treats a 21-year-old junior as a legal dependent of the registrar’s office.
So under the Bruen framework, the historical justification for disarming students evaporates. That single limiting principle drawn from 1791 was in loco parentis, and it simply does not apply to modern university-student relationships. Faculty, staff, and members of the public visiting campus? There was never any founding-era tradition of disarming them at all. The historical record is clear: college campuses were not gun-free zones at the founding.
Heller Covers the Dorm Room, Too
There is an additional layer here that does not get enough attention. Students who live on campus are living in their homes. The Supreme Court said in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep a functional, loaded firearm in the home ready for self-defense. A dormitory room or campus apartment is a student’s home. The same constitutional protection applies.
Public universities that prohibit students from keeping a firearm in their dorm are not just defying state law — they are running headlong into Heller. That fight is coming whether they want it or not.
The Police Chief Problem
HB 1793’s opponents argued that college students are too drunk and too immature to carry firearms. Their star witness on this point was Steven Lee, Chief of Police for the University of New Hampshire Police Department, who testified in committee that students were too intoxicated to be trusted with guns.
One week after that testimony, Lee was arrested in Portsmouth for drunk driving — his SUV swerving on Market Street. He later pleaded guilty and resigned. You truly cannot make this up. That was their strongest argument against campus carry.
The First Circuit Looms
I want to be clear-eyed about what comes next. New Hampshire falls within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which is, without question, the worst federal appellate court in America on Second Amendment issues. There is no realistic three-judge panel combination from that court that would rule favorably for the Second Amendment. If HB 1793 passes into law and is challenged, the First Circuit will be the battleground — and the odds there are not good.
That is exactly why legislative wins like this one matter so much. Every state that puts campus carry into law, every victory that normalizes the exercise of Second Amendment rights by young adults, shifts the Overton window. It builds the record. It creates the legal landscape that eventually reaches the Supreme Court.
Young people need firearms for self-defense more than almost anyone. They are the lowest earners, working the worst shifts, living in the least secure housing. They are out late and often alone. The great equalizer exists for them as much as for anyone. New Hampshire just took a real step toward recognizing that.
This article is based on analysis by Professor Mark W. Smith, constitutional attorney and Host of the Four Boxes Diner 2nd Amendment channel. Watch the original video here. This does not constitute legal advice.