New Hampshire is an interesting state. On one hand, they really seem to live into that whole “Live Free or Die” thing, or at least they did. They’ve been a bit more blue in their politics of late, but not so much that a Republican doesn’t have a chance.

Currently, Attorney General Kelly Ayotte is running. A Republican seeking to replace a Republican governor, there’s a very real possibility of her winning, too, though polling has her in a virtual dead heat with her opponent.

In this day and age, gun control is going to be a topic, and New Hampshire is historically pretty good on guns.

However, Ayotte does say there’s one gun law that she’d sign as governor.

Kelly Ayotte said that while she remains a firm supporter of the Second Amendment in New Hampshire, she said during her “Conversation with the Candidate” event that there is an area she is “concerned about” regarding gun laws in the state.

Ayotte said there are some cases in which a person’s mental health records prevent them from lawfully holding a firearm because a court previously found them to be a danger to themselves or others. She said those records aren’t in the background check system, adding “I think we should fix that.”

She added that while she hopes to address the issue with the Legislature, she said she would aim to do it in a way that respects people’s rights and doesn’t dissuade people from seeking mental health help if they need it. She said due-process protections would need to be included in the fix to ensure people who are prohibited from having a firearm can get that right back through due process.

In theory, that should already be the norm, but it’s not for some reason. Not in New Hampshire, at least, which was driven home last year after a shooting at a hospital in the state. The shooter shouldn’t have been able to buy a firearm in the first place, having been declared by the courts to be “mentally defective,” as the law reads.

So it seems New Hampshire failed to make sure those records were included in NICS and Ayotte would sign a bill seeing to it that they are.

It’s not the worst gun law to sign. After all, these people are mentally disturbed to such a degree that they’re really not even responsible for themselves. However, I’m left wondering why they’re out running around on our streets if they’re that far gone.

I’ve written a lot about how we need to destigmatize mental illness, and these people are mentally ill, but let’s remember that there’s a far cry from a case of depression to being too pathologically unhinged to be considered capable of making decisions for yourself. It’s the latter that represent an issue and they need to be somewhere they can be treated and/or just taken care of for the rest of their days without hurting anyone.

I don’t like that people have problems like that, but I don’t see that simply removing guns from such people suddenly makes them safer to be around society in general.

I get where Ayotte is coming from, I just don’t think simply disarming people like this from access to one type of weapon is enough to keep people safe.