CONCORD, N.H. — Several days after a second US citizen was shot and killed by ICE in Minnesota, New Hampshire Governor Kelly Ayotte said she supports a “thorough investigation” into the shooting.

Ayotte stopped short of calling for a pause on federal ICE operations in Minnesota and Maine.

“Any loss of life is tragic, and I think we can all agree on that,” Ayotte said at a press event on Wednesday.

“It’s my hope that there will be a thorough investigation conducted and that there will be transparency around the results of that investigation,” she said.

Alex Pretti was shot and killed by federal immigration agents on a Minneapolis street last weekend while attending a protest. Pretti, who had no criminal record, was a registered nurse with the firearms permit required to carry a gun.

In the wake of his shooting, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem accused Pretti of domestic terrorism without citing evidence. White House chief of staff Stephen Miller called Pretti a “would-be assassin.” President Trump and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt have distanced themselves from those statements.

Ayotte did not answer a question about whether she was troubled by comments from the Trump administration about the victim of the shooting.

“People seem to be wanting to make conclusions from the sidelines, and from my perspective, whatever your view of it, it’s very important that we get all the facts and circumstances,” she said. “That’s what an investigation is for, and so I hope that is conducted.”

In Maine, Republican Senator Susan Collins called for a complete pause on ICE activity in both Minnesota and Maine in light of the second fatal shooting.

“I want a complete pause in Maine so that the operation can be much more targeted on individuals who are here criminally, who are here unlawfully and have criminal records,” said Collins.

Vermont Governor Phil Scott, also a Republican, also said that ICE activity should be paused in the aftermath of the second killing.

“The President should pause these operations, de-escalate the situation, and reset the federal government’s focus on truly criminal illegal immigrants,” he said in a statement.

“It’s not acceptable for American citizens to be killed by federal agents for exercising their God-given and constitutional rights to protest their government,” he said.

Amanda Gokee can be reached at amanda.gokee@globe.com. Follow her @amanda_gokee.

The bill’s prime sponsor, Representative Joe Alexander Jr., a Goffstown Republican who chairs the Housing Committee, said the bill is meant to serve as a deterrent.

“Illegal aliens are not welcome in the Granite State,” he said. “And by passing this bill, we will continue to make sure that there is nowhere they can live.”

He pointed to the state’s housing shortage and said people without legal status are taking apartments away from New Hampshire citizens.

The bill has five other Republican co-sponsors in the House of Representatives, in addition to two Republican co-sponsors in the Senate, indicating at least some degree of support in the other chamber.

During a hearing at the State House on Tuesday, Democratic members of the House’s Housing Committee questioned Alexander on whether the bill would survive legal challenges. They raised concerns the bill could result in discriminatory housing practices, and that it could leave minors in a mixed-status family unable to access housing.

“We’re essentially saying that there is no housing that is available to that child, who is a Granite Stater, who is an American citizen,” said Representative David Paige, a North Conway Democrat. “That’s unacceptable to me personally.”

“Is that your intent in this bill, and if not, is there a way that we can ensure that those kids can have access to safe and secure housing in our state?” he asked.

“My intent of this bill is, if you are in this country illegally, you are not welcome here, and you should not have housing,” Alexander responded.

The effort drew opposition from advocates of civil liberties and immigrant rights.

The ACLU of New Hampshire opposed the effort because of concerns around due process, the risk of discrimination, and the potential costs of expensive litigation under federal civil rights and fair housing laws.

“It will cause a litigation firestorm, and New Hampshire taxpayers will be left paying to defend a law that is hardly defendable and undermines constitutional protections, and destabilizes the housing market as well,” said Rachel Potter, a policy associate with the organization.

She warned that the bill could turn the housing market into an unconstitutional state-run immigration enforcement system.

At least one resident spoke in support of the proposal. Patrick Binder of Manchester called the proposal a good, workable deterrent.

“I think it’s a good direction for New Hampshire and for the citizens here,” he said.

Several organizations that work with immigrants also opposed the effort.

“We are a state that depends on immigration to grow and even maintain our population and workforce,” said William Gillett, director of public policy and advocacy at the International Institute of New England, an organization that supports immigrants and refugees who came through legal pathways in New Hampshire.

While this bill is aimed at illegal immigrants, Gillett said it would have a chilling effect against all immigrants, including those with a legal status. He said it would make it harder for all immigrants to enter the rental market and suppress legal and needed immigration in the state.

Dylan Hoey, director of the New Hampshire Alliance of Immigrants and Refugees, called the Class B felony language “extremely punitive and concerning.”

Hoey, who previously served as a US Foreign Service officer at the Department of State, said calculating unlawful presence is an extremely difficult task.

“In my view, HB 1709 effectively delegates federal immigration law enforcement to New Hampshire landlords,” he said, adding this would place landlords in a legally precarious position of screening people based on national origin and immigration status.

New Hampshire law authorizes imprisonment of more than a year for a Class B felony and no more than a 7-year prison term.

The bill has a long road before it has a chance at becoming law. It would need to gain approval from both the House and the Senate before landing on the governor’s desk.

Amanda Gokee can be reached at amanda.gokee@globe.com. Follow her @amanda_gokee.

A proposal in the New Hampshire Legislature to charge a $50 annual registration fee for bicyclists in order to use state-owned paths, trails and roadways is proving so unpopular that even the bill’s sponsor is backpedaling. 

“All bicycles and electric bicycles, if operated on a public way shall be registered with the division of motor vehicles,” the bill states. It says any bike riders who are not registered could face a fine of $100 per violation.

On the New Hampshire House of Representatives website, nearly 14,000 people have registered their opposition to the measure. Just 39 support it, as of Tuesday evening.

Republican Rep. Tom Walsh from Hooksett, who sponsored the bill, testified Tuesday before the House Transportation Committee.

“I don’t see the bill moving forward,” Walsh said, adding that the $50 amount was supposed to be a “placeholder” until it could be determined what a reasonable fee would be.

Walsh said he brought the “flawed” bill to committee because he wanted to start a conversation about paying for bike infrastructure as lawmakers consider toll hikes and other fee increases for car owners. He noted that ATV and snowmobile owners have to pay a fee to operate their vehicles on state trails.

“This was a genuine attempt at fair funding,” Walsh said. “I still believe that user fees are the best way to do that. If you want to use nice things, help us pay for these nice things.”  

Democratic Rep. Timothy Horgan of Durham called the bill an “extremely bad idea” and said rail trails are used heavily by pedestrians as well.

“Are we going to start handing out stickers on our walking shoes to use the rail trails?” he asked. “Where does this end?”

During public comment, Donna Cusack from Hudson called it a “horrible, horrible bill.” 

“If I have to pay a fee to ride on a rail trail, I’ll put my bike on the back of my car and drive 5 miles across the border and I’ll start driving on the Massachusetts rail trails where I don’t have to pay a fee,” she said.

Craig Rennie, the chief supervisor of the New Hampshire Bureau of Trails who did not take a position on the bill, said there are 320 miles of state-owned rail trails. He said their maintenance is funded with registration fees for snowmobiles and ATVs, as well as some federal grants and donations.

“If we had more funding for rail trail management, that would help with developing future trails,” he said.