In Manchester, this debate is not abstract.

It is not theoretical.
It is not distant.

It is here—on our campuses, in our neighborhoods, and in the daily lives of thousands of students, faculty, and staff who learn and work in our city.

HB 1793 would prohibit public colleges and universities from setting any rules governing firearms or even non-lethal weapons on campus. That means no local policies. No safety protocols. No ability to respond to the specific needs of a campus community.

In Manchester, that matters.

Because we are home to:

• Southern New Hampshire University, with roughly 3,000 on-campus students (and tens of thousands more connected to its broader academic community),
• University of New Hampshire at Manchester, serving approximately 1,000 students, and
• Saint Anselm College, with about 2,000 undergraduate students

Together, that represents 6,000 students on campus in Manchester alone—along with hundreds of faculty and staff whose safety is entrusted to campus leadership every single day.

HB 1793 would take that responsibility out of their hands.

Thousands of Lives, One State Mandate

Think about what that means in real terms.

Students living in residence halls.
Faculty teaching in classrooms and labs.
Staff working in offices, dining halls, and student services.

Many of these campuses also host:

• Youth programs
• Dual-enrollment high school students
• Community events open to the public

These are not isolated environments. They are active, interconnected spaces where safety must be carefully managed.

Yet HB 1793 says that no matter the circumstances, no matter the risks, campuses cannot establish their own rules regarding weapons.

That is not flexibility. That is rigidity.

And it puts thousands of lives at stake.

A Risk We Already Understand Too Well

Across the country, the consequences of inaction are clear. Since Columbine, hundreds of students and educators have lost their lives in school and campus shootings, with many more injured.

These tragedies have led institutions nationwide to take safety planning seriously—to assess risk, implement policies, and adapt to evolving threats.

HB 1793 moves in the opposite direction.

It removes the ability to plan.
It removes the ability to adapt.
It removes the ability to act.

The Cost Will Be Felt Here in Manchester

The financial impact will not be theoretical either.

The University System of New Hampshire has warned that this bill could lead to:

• Higher insurance premiums
• Increased security staffing and infrastructure costs
• Greater legal exposure
• Potential declines in enrollment tied to safety concerns

The Community College System anticipates hundreds of thousands of dollars in new annual expenses.

Those costs will be passed on—to students, families, and taxpayers.

For Manchester, that means:

• Higher tuition
• Fewer resources for students
• Greater strain on institutions that are vital to our local economy

Even Jefferson Understood the Stakes

History offers perspective.

Thomas Jefferson, a champion of individual liberty and founder of the University of Virginia, supported rules prohibiting students from keeping or using weapons on campus.

He understood that educational institutions require a different standard—one that prioritizes safety, order, and learning.

HB 1793 ignores that lesson.

Manchester Deserves Better

This is not about denying rights. Those rights already exist in New Hampshire.

This is about whether we trust our local institutions to make responsible decisions for their own communities.

Manchester’s campuses are not identical. They serve different populations, operate in different settings, and face different challenges.

A one-size-fits-all mandate from Concord does not reflect that reality.

A Line We Should Not Cross

HB 1793:

• Eliminates local control
• Increases costs
• Invites litigation
• Undermines safety

And it does so in a city where the stakes are measured not in theory—but in people.

More than 6,000 students on Manchester campuses, alongside the faculty and staff who guide them every day.

If we truly value both freedom and responsibility, then we must recognize that one does not exist without the other.

Manchester’s campuses—and the people who depend on them—deserve policies grounded in reality, not ideology.

HB 1793 fails that test.

And for that reason, it should be rejected.

HB 1793 will be heard on April 14 by the Senate Judiciary Committee at 1:45 PM in Room 100, Statehouse.  Here are some action items: 

1. Contact your State Senator (most important)

• Call and email your district Senator
• Be brief and specific:
  • “I urge you to oppose HB 1793 to protect campus safety and local control.”
• Ask for a response or position
• Personal stories (student, parent, faculty) are especially powerful

2. Testify or submit written testimony

• Attend the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing (in person or remotely)
• Submit written testimony through the NH Legislature system
• Keep it:
  • 1–2 minutes spoken
  • Clear, respectful, safety-focused

3. Write Letters to the Editor / Op-eds

• Target:
  • Union Leader
  • Concord Monitor
  • Manchester Ink Link
  • InDepthNH
• Focus on:
  • Student safety
  • Institutional responsibility
  • Real campus impacts

4. Mobilize campus voices

• Encourage:
  • Students
  • Faculty
  • Campus safety officials
• Petitions, statements, or resolutions carry weight

5. Partner with organizations

• Reach out to:
  • Parent groups
  • Education associations
  • Public safety organizations
• Coordinated messaging amplifies impact

6. Use social media strategically

• Tag legislators directly
• Share short, clear messages:
  • “Keep campuses safe. Oppose HB 1793.”
• Amplify credible voices (students, educators)

7. Follow the vote

• Track committee and floor votes
• Hold legislators accountable publicly and respectfully

NH Rep. David Preece represents Manchester in the New Hampshire House of Representatives and is a longtime urban and regional planner who previously served as executive director of the Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission.