NEW HAMPSHIRE — With the Republican primary days away, Scott Brown has been hit with an “F” from the NRA and a “D” from the New Hampshire Firearms Coalition, creating the desperate but devastating impression that he is fundamentally anti-gun. But Brown’s newly obtained, signed NHFC questionnaire reviewed by NH For America First tells a dramatically different story—and raises serious questions about the grades now being put before New Hampshire voters.
Brown acknowledges he misread Question 1, mistakenly answering “No” when asked whether he opposed further restrictions on firearms, ammunition and accessories. The rest of his questionnaire makes that mistake glaringly obvious. Brown says nobody contacted him to clarify the contradiction before the D was released publicly. Instead, voters were handed the grade.
Brown’s signed answers overwhelmingly support Second Amendment protections. He backs concealed-carry reciprocity and constitutional carry, opposes magazine and semiautomatic-firearm restrictions, opposes expanded federal retention of gun-purchaser information, supports removing suppressors and certain firearms from the NFA, opposes restrictions on private transfers and rejects numerous additional federal gun-control measures. That is not the questionnaire of someone who can reasonably be reduced to “anti-gun.”
The other issue repeatedly used against Brown comes from the aftermath of Sandy Hook, when the nation was reeling from the horrific execution of 20 children and six educators. In that emotionally charged moment, Brown publicly expressed support for considering an assault-weapons ban. But this distinction is critical: Brown never cast a Senate vote imposing such a ban. It was a public statement, not legislative action. He later rejected that position, acknowledged it was wrong and apologized for it. It should not now be rewritten as though Brown went to Washington and voted to take Americans’ firearms away. He did not.
Now, days before an election, voters are seeing an F and a D that create precisely that impression. Seemingly intentionally, these ratings are functioning as a powerful political weapon at exactly the moment they can do maximum electoral damage. If NHFC believes Brown’s signed questionnaire warrants a D, then explain it. Show how the grade was calculated, how the mistaken first answer was weighted and why nobody apparently sought clarification when the remainder of the questionnaire so clearly contradicted it.
And this election is about far more than gun-rights scorecards. Brown and John E. Sununu have already faced each other publicly, with grassroots activists and voters believing Brown came out unquestionably stronger. Yet Sununu has now declined two major final opportunities for New Hampshire voters to compare them directly, including WMUR’s Granite State Debate and the NHJournal debate. His campaign argues they have already debated and made skewed characterizations as to how they appeared together repeatedly. But when New Hampshire voters are asking for another debate days before choosing their senator, why not stand on the stage and answer them?
There are serious questions voters want answered about Sununu as well—from his history with the World Economic Forum to the Epstein correspondence containing the statement that “john sununu has good stories.” Those questions, his record and his refusal to participate in these final debates deserve every bit as much scrutiny as a statement Brown made years ago, never legislated and later apologized for.
New Hampshire voters deserve the complete record—not election-season letter grades, selective history and carefully managed optics. Put both candidates on the stage. Put the documents on the table. Answer the questions. Then let New Hampshire decide.
