• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

2021 NH SB141

Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 3, 2018
Messages
63
Likes
8
The Department of Safety leveraged a $10 million contract with Microsoft - awarded to 7 out of state companies, none NH based - to manage and store its Gun Line data.
 

AFAR/PFAR

NES Member
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
1,372
Likes
1,481
Location
Grafton & Coös County
The Department of Safety leveraged a $10 million contract with Microsoft - awarded to 7 out of state companies, none NH based - to manage and store its Gun Line data.

Not doubting that, but do you have a source you can link here to read.

****
RE SB141. I'm for killing the gun line. All it has done for me is wasted time and gas while delaying denying me exercising my 2A rights. I've bought firearms in NH, MA, NC, LA, TX, IN, and AK. The only state that caused any problems was NH and its broke ass built in waiting period gun line.

The Feds require the check. They already run that check for many states. Let them run it so NH can shift the staff and budget to something more useful.
 
Last edited:

45Badger

NES Member
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Joined
Apr 12, 2020
Messages
704
Likes
846
Location
NH
I have no dog or informed opinion in this argument. Big and simple question-

What is the cost/benefit to the state and to gun owners for maintaining a duplicate system?

I’ve lived in three states that have their own system- NH, PA and IL.

Illinois is a mess and a cluster for gun owners.

PA worked well but the crazy paranoids in gun community were always twisted about some aspect.

NH seems to have worked ok until it was overwhelmed by covid demand.

What value do gun owners get out of maintaining a state level system that parallels NICs?
 

Kevin_NH

NES Member
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
9,188
Likes
3,152
Location
WNW of MHT
TMK, only NHFC opposes the bill, and has said nothing about it since the above post last year?

I have no dog or informed opinion in this argument. Big and simple question-
What is the cost/benefit to the state and to gun owners for maintaining a duplicate system?
. . .
What value do gun owners get out of maintaining a state level system that parallels NICs?
That's the big question, and it's not clear what the answer really is.

We've been told that the state gun line only adds a level of indirection and maybe some extra checks of local court records, but ultimately they just call the check in to the same NICS queue which dealers use for long guns, meaning gun owners get nothing out of maintaining a state level system.

Here's some interesting audit data regarding the NH POC and NICS.
 
Last edited:
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 3, 2018
Messages
63
Likes
8
Not doubting that, but do you have a source you can link here to read.

****
RE SB141. I'm for killing the gun line. All it has done for me is wasted time and gas while delaying denying me exercising my 2A rights. I've bought firearms in NH, MA, NC, LA, TX, IN, and AK. The only state that caused any problems was NH and its broke ass built in waiting period gun line.

The Feds require the check. They already run that check for many states. Let them run it so NH can shift the staff and budget to something more useful.
I'll be posting the award from NH DOIT to NH DAS, the awards to the 7 different companies, and the "MOU" signed by the NH DOS and Microsoft last November. But not here. I do not provide info to people who do not use their real names. Mine, by the way, is Susan Olsen.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
15,244
Likes
13,199
These are two separate issues.

The bill addresses whether or not NH will retain control over the gun check line for handguns OR if it delegates it to the whim of the feds.

For all its warts over the years.....I'd rather that NH retain control over this process.....the alternative of deferring to the Fed where we have ZERO say is unpalatable......y'all realize that its only a matter of time before the current administration gets around to playing shenanigans with the contractors currently running the fed gun line for the FBI.......
 

teamRR

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2019
Messages
1,790
Likes
1,402
It is working very well last I checked, 5 to 10 minutes on the top end. 95% of the problem seems to be staffing, which they waited a long time to address in the last bout of problems but seem to be able to quickly solve once motivated.

We will argue in circles talking about the merits or problems, but if they just wrote a bill guaranteeing correct staffing and performance nearly everyone would likely get on board - yes still costs $$ but so do many things and that isn't the main argument for getting rid of it.

Some conservatives as well as most liberal anti gunners support having the gun line, for different reasons of course. And not sure where Sununu stands but my guess is a move to kill the gun line has strong odds of veto even if it passed.

They ought to just legislate fixing it instead of wasting time and accomplishing nothing.
 

AFAR/PFAR

NES Member
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
1,372
Likes
1,481
Location
Grafton & Coös County
I'll be posting the award from NH DOIT to NH DAS, the awards to the 7 different companies, and the "MOU" signed by the NH DOS and Microsoft last November. But not here. I do not provide info to people who do not use their real names. Mine, by the way, is Susan Olsen.

So you post a claim here and waffle when asked to provide sources. Then you only mention you will provide information [somewhere] on only one of the companies vs the seven that you originally posted about.

Talk about not knowing the medium you are posting on. This is an internet forum where people use screen names or user names. No offense, I don't care what your name is and you don't care about mine. I care about the source so I can form my own opinion. If YOU are the source, that's a different story. It doesn't sound like that is the case here.

It is working very well last I checked, 5 to 10 minutes on the top end. 95% of the problem seems to be staffing, which they waited a long time to address in the last bout of problems but seem to be able to quickly solve once motivated.

<snip>
They ought to just legislate fixing it instead of wasting time and accomplishing nothing.

It may be working well now and has worked in the past, but the fact it failed for months on end last year is too much to ignore. This wasn't the typical fed glitches where NICS may be down for a couple of hours. This was months of unmitigated failure by the state of New Hampshire and its employees. The band aid fix right now is to pull resources from other agencies to slowly keep this running.

Why bother propping up a system that NH allowed to fail? The feds already have this system in place and it is faster than 5-10 minutes. Can the state use the resources we want to throw at this redundant system elsewhere?

and no disputing the multiple circular arguments by all sides on this

What is the cost/benefit to the state and to gun owners for maintaining a duplicate system?


What value do gun owners get out of maintaining a state level system that parallels NICs?

The elephants in the room which nobody wants to answer with tangible facts.
 

Kevin_NH

NES Member
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
9,188
Likes
3,152
Location
WNW of MHT
Ultimately if the FBI said to deny, the transaction is denied:
1620838393403.png
Reading the 2015 audit (link and snippet above), maybe there is a slight difference in appeals?

These are two separate issues.
The bill addresses whether or not NH will retain control over the gun check line for handguns OR if it delegates it to the whim of the feds.

For all its warts over the years.....I'd rather that NH retain control over this process.....the alternative of deferring to the Fed where we have ZERO say is unpalatable......y'all realize that its only a matter of time before the current administration gets around to playing shenanigans with the contractors currently running the fed gun line for the FBI.......
Does NH have control over this process?

The Feds allow NH to act as a Partial POC on the condition that the gun line runs every request through NICS and abides by the answer NICS returned; so does NH have control?
From the same document as above, per the brady law:
1620838936079.png
Looks like our partial POC adds an additional layer of bureaucracy which has the power to deny/delay a purchase the federal check would have allowed, but lacks the power to override the feds response (or non-response) and allow a purchase?
 
Last edited:

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
15,244
Likes
13,199
Ultimately if the FBI said to deny, the transaction is denied:
View attachment 481990
Reading the 2015 audit (link and snippet above), maybe there is a slight difference in appeals?


Does NH have control over this process?

The Feds allow NH to act as a Partial POC on the condition that the gun line runs every request through NICS and abides by the answer NICS returned; so does NH have control?
From the same document as above, per the brady law:
View attachment 481995
Looks like our partial POC adds an additional layer of bureaucracy which has the power to deny/delay a purchase the federal check would have allowed, but lacks the power to override the feds response (or non-response) and allow a purchase?



There are at least 3 ways that NICS checks can be done as I understand it.......Design may want to chime in here to keep me on point and correct me if I missed/bolluxed any points

1. Call into the phone line, this is commonly how FFL's do a check
2. Access the DB directly (State police can do this as I understand it)
3. Use an application/electronic, this is an alternate method FFL's can use.

1 and 3 apparently rely on FBI to take some action in background
2 doesnt require/involve FBI......only state police accessing the records......this is one of the reasons to retain state processing on handguns
 

teamRR

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2019
Messages
1,790
Likes
1,402
It may be working well now and has worked in the past, but the fact it failed for months on end last year is too much to ignore. This wasn't the typical fed glitches where NICS may be down for a couple of hours. This was months of unmitigated failure by the state of New Hampshire and its employees. The band aid fix right now is to pull resources from other agencies to slowly keep this running.

Why bother propping up a system that NH allowed to fail? The feds already have this system in place and it is faster than 5-10 minutes. Can the state use the resources we want to throw at this redundant system elsewhere?

and no disputing the multiple circular arguments by all sides on this

Basically trying to kill the gun line likely fails after much wasted time, with no benefit to gun owners. You have people on both sides who will fight to keep it and a governor who likes to middle-of-the-road things like this: liberals + some conservatives asking to keep it is a recipe for veto even if it goes that far.

We should be asking them to legislate correct performance. That would likely win. A simple method would be to take the number of checks divided by the staffing level that works, now you can require a minimum staffing level.
 

teamRR

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2019
Messages
1,790
Likes
1,402
Every D voted to kill it.
Something in that fact.

What is the benefit for them to kill it? I do not know either way but curious about that part.

Benefit is the state saves $$ and the wait times during peak buying periods are reduced. The state has done a poor job reacting to panic buys and seems to let things go poorly for 6 months or more before they turn around and bandaid the problem temporarily by diverting existing staff to the gun line, who are later taken away when things quiet down.

My suggestion is therefore just staff it right, 95% of the complaints go away - really its the wait times that trigger the desire to end it.
 

teamRR

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2019
Messages
1,790
Likes
1,402
Every D voted to kill it.
Something in that fact.

What is the benefit for them to kill it? I do not know either way but curious about that part.

Oh and BTW the voting here was to kill the bill to kill the gun line. So in short - "yes" means they want to keep the gun line in this vote. You can see why I say its not going away.
 

frenchman

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
7,427
Likes
5,823
Well, Design always makes a lot of sense when he’s posting here, and he doesn’t exactly strike me as a guy who doesn’t have our best 2A interest at heart. That, and if the NRA is for something, it’s a pretty safe bet that it’s probably part Of some back room deal to sell NH gun owners down the river. Would certainly not be the first time.
 
Rating - 100%
37   0   0
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Messages
8,415
Likes
1,505
The Gun Line is a waste of Tax Dollars. Duplicating a system and adding artificial delays to a process that already takes too long.

There is no benefit to keeping it functional beyond giving out jobs to friends of politicians and earning favors.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
15,244
Likes
13,199
The Gun Line is a waste of Tax Dollars. Duplicating a system and adding artificial delays to a process that already takes too long.

There is no benefit to keeping it functional beyond giving out jobs to friends of politicians and earning favors.

To make the above assertion that keeping it provides no benefit to gun buyers means you failed to read all of the post before your own.....
 

Kevin_NH

NES Member
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
9,188
Likes
3,152
Location
WNW of MHT
. . .
3. Use an application/electronic, this is an alternate method FFL's can use.

1 and 3 apparently rely on FBI to take some action in background
2 doesnt require/involve FBI......only state police accessing the records......this is one of the reasons to retain state processing on handguns
So #3 is the NICS "E-Check" process, where an FFL submits the provided information online and gets an online response with a reference #, often within a couple of minutes.

I found one public document from 2008 with extensive details on NICS and POC, it suggests that the initial process of submitting a "gun line" federal check is substantially identical to the E-Check process used by FFLs (e.g. for long guns in NH):
research report submitted to DOJ said:
It should be noted that, in essence, a complete NICS check occurs in two steps. First, an automated check of the NICS system (i.e., the above three identified databases) is carried out for every prospective firearm purchaser. Second, if necessary, a follow-up step is carried out by NICS’s FBI staff to obtain, for example, a missing disposition. As explained below, while every state uses the NICS system, some states employ their own staff to carry out the follow-up research.

From the above document, the POC state process appears to differ from E-Check in how delays are researched and how appeals are handled. See page 25 of the PDF (document page 12).

The document used Georgia and Oregon for a deeper dive, and found cases where the state POC overrode a NICS denial:
Of the 592 transactions NICS denied (i.e., row 3), Georgia immediately proceeded 28 (4.7%) and proceeded 225 (38.0%) after research. There are at least two known situations in which this difference in outcomes would arise: (i) when the purchaser became disqualified in the interim between the POC and NICS checks and (ii) where the purchaser had been arrested for a domestic violence misdemeanor and convicted for a lesser offense (e.g., a spousal assault charge was reduced to disturbing the peace). To be thorough, it is also possible that Georgia could have researched a III record with a firearm disqualification flag, found no prohibitors, but did not update the record or remove the flag. It is NICS’s policy to deny automatically on such flags with no research. Nevertheless, it is difficult to conceive of such a large fraction of the NICS denials falling into these categories.

. . .
In row 3 of Exhibit 3-9, it is seen that of the 189 transactions NICS denied, Oregon proceeded 73 (38.6%). Again, NICS denies and Oregon proceeds in cases of an arrest for a domestic violence misdemeanor that results in a conviction for a lesser offense. It is also possible that the purchaser had been convicted of a disqualifying offense some time between the POC and NICS checks[
. . .
Second, the ND/SP outcome states that Georgia and Oregon proceed 29.4% and 22.5%, respectively, of the transactions that NICS denies. As noted earlier, the difference in outcomes could arise when the purchaser became disqualified in the interim between the POC and NICS checks or when the purchaser had been arrested for a domestic violence misdemeanor but convicted of a lesser offense (e.g., a spousal assault charge was reduced to disturbing the peace). Third, one should return to the critical question: What value do the POC, or state-only, data files add to the overall efficacy of firearm eligibility checks? Clearly, such files would only add value if they enhance the likelihood of making accurate and timely determinations regarding the eligibility of prospective firearms purchasers. However, in the simulated setting of the study, where NICS was unable to research and resolve the “unresolved” transactions (i.e., as NICS would if they had been actual non-POC state eligibility checks), such a comparison is not possible/quote]
So maybe there is a little value in a properly-functioning state gun line?
 

Len-2A Training

Instructor
Instructor
NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 98.6%
71   1   0
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
53,643
Likes
12,967
Location
99% in NH
NH seems to have worked ok until it was overwhelmed by covid demand.

What value do gun owners get out of maintaining a state level system that parallels NICs?
Untrue from personal experience.

The 3 handguns I have bought since I've been in NH all took ~1 hour to clear POC/NICS. Sig told me to go somewhere for dinner and then come back and it should be clear. This was Dec. 2019, well before we ever heard the word COVID!

In 40+ years in MA, I have gone thru ~100 NICS checks and it never took more than 5 minutes.
These are two separate issues.

The bill addresses whether or not NH will retain control over the gun check line for handguns OR if it delegates it to the whim of the feds.

For all its warts over the years.....I'd rather that NH retain control over this process.....the alternative of deferring to the Fed where we have ZERO say is unpalatable......y'all realize that its only a matter of time before the current administration gets around to playing shenanigans with the contractors currently running the fed gun line for the FBI.......
If info I've read and that below is correct, you are wrong. It is currently a dual system. First POC clears you and then forwards your info to NICS for final clearance. In non-POC states, it all goes thru NICS directly and you are GTG. So NH you have 2 stop-points instead of one! Not a benefit.
Ultimately if the FBI said to deny, the transaction is denied:
View attachment 481990
Reading the 2015 audit (link and snippet above), maybe there is a slight difference in appeals?

Does NH have control over this process?

The Feds allow NH to act as a Partial POC on the condition that the gun line runs every request through NICS and abides by the answer NICS returned; so does NH have control?
From the same document as above, per the brady law:
View attachment 481995
Looks like our partial POC adds an additional layer of bureaucracy which has the power to deny/delay a purchase the federal check would have allowed, but lacks the power to override the feds response (or non-response) and allow a purchase?
The bold part here is the important part in Kevin_NH's post quoted above.
 
Last edited:

Kevin_NH

NES Member
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
9,188
Likes
3,152
Location
WNW of MHT
Untrue from personal experience.

The 3 handguns I have bought since I've been in NH all took ~1 hour to clear POC/NICS. Sig told me to go somewhere for dinner and then come back and it should be clear. This was Dec. 2019, well before we ever heard the word COVID!

In 40+ years in MA, I have gone thru ~100 NICS checks and it never took more than 5 minutes.

If info I've read and that below is correct, you are wrong. It is currently a dual system. First POC clears you and then forwards your info to NICS for final clearance. In non-POC states, it all goes thru NICS directly and you are GTG. So NH you have 2 stop-points instead of one! Not a benefit.

The bold part here is the important part in Kevin_NH's post quoted above.
See my followup above "...of the 189 transactions NICS denied, Oregon proceeded 73 (38.6%). Again, NICS denies and Oregon proceeds in cases of an arrest for a domestic violence misdemeanor that results in a conviction for a lesser offense. It is also possible that the purchaser had been convicted of a disqualifying offense some time between the POC and NICS checks..." from a 2008 study
 

design

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
1,525
Likes
1,181
Wow, There is an enormous amount of misinformation being posted:
1. the NHGL is the POC for handguns and the federal NICS system is for long guns.
2. There is an issue with the NHGL and all of the gun owners agree on that. The gun line sucks and takes too long to process NICS checks. In the last 4 months it has gotten much better, but it is still not 'fixed'. The bar that I am using for 'fixed' is as good or better for both response time and for accuracy as the current federal system.
3. There is a bill in (SB141) that proposes to shift some responsibility to the county sheriffs (misc small things) and would eliminate the state as a POC in JULY of 2022 for handguns. Yes, 14 months from now, this fix, if passed into law and not vetoed might help the gun buyers and dealers. (BTW, if you are going to fire someone, you do not tell them 14 months in advance that you are going to do it... Duh)
4. Rumor is that Sununu would veto and those pushing this bill cannot count votes to save their lives. 15-6 (need I say more). If the Governor vetos the bill, this is DOA and all of the time and energy expended on this fight was wasted. A better use of resources, besides working on good bills, is to force the DOS to do their job.

The various groups see this differently.
In support:
NSSF National Shooting Sporting Foundation. This is the industry organization for the gun dealers/sales/etc. Join NSSF • NSSF
NRA:
GOA:

In opposition to SB141 as drafted: (Fix the system and change the laws to make sure that this does not happen again)
NAGA
NHFC

No expressed opinion:
GONH

Some think just sending to the feds is without issue. That is not completely true. There are some unintended consequences. We have no control over that bureaucracy and they could create a delay just like the state gun line did. There are issues if you are denied in getting the proper information to resolve the issue. You need to provide a SS# and fingerprints on any appeal.
There are names that are on the state list that are not in NICS. NH might be forced to send more more names to NICS that we currently do not... (the list goes on)
The system does not make the decision if you are a proceed/delay/deny, that is a human operator somewhere. (Do we want those beholden to Biden for their jobs to be the ones making this decision or do we want to have this done with local resources?)

The cost for this is not 'free' to give it to the feds. There is real labor, it just comes out of our federal tax money and is shared with the other states.

Besides a repeal of the Brady act, the next best option is something that has been suggested but never been tried. 'Dealers choice'.
NH statutes read: 159-D:1 Sale of Firearms; Criminal History Record and Protective Order Check.
The department of safety may become the point of contact for the federal government for the purposes of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

Why not allow the dealers to deal with the group (NICS NHGL) they prefer for both long guns and handguns. Funding for the NHGL will be tied to the number of checks that they perform. :)

Bottom line is this bill has caused an unnecessary civil war amongst the 2a groups at a time where good legislation could be passed.

We should be focused on passing SB154, HB334, HB307, HB197 plus many others to actually help protect our rights.
 

teamRR

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2019
Messages
1,790
Likes
1,402
So #3 is the NICS "E-Check" process, where an FFL submits the provided information online and gets an online response with a reference #, often within a couple of minutes.

I found one public document from 2008 with extensive details on NICS and POC, it suggests that the initial process of submitting a "gun line" federal check is substantially identical to the E-Check process used by FFLs (e.g. for long guns in NH):


From the above document, the POC state process appears to differ from E-Check in how delays are researched and how appeals are handled. See page 25 of the PDF (document page 12).

The document used Georgia and Oregon for a deeper dive, and found cases where the state POC overrode a NICS denial:
So maybe there is a little value in a properly-functioning state gun line?

Every time I bring this up someone gets bent but in NH there are definitely instances of people who pass a NH POC check and are denied by the feds. The FFL I go to also said some people get Delay via the feds and no issues via NH POC - he had asked how I wanted my "pistol" lower run through as it could go either way.

My suspicion is its people with petty crime or annulled convictions from NH where the state POC gets it immediately and the feds can get hung up. NH is a little special in that area, people can get in a whole lot of trouble, serve lots of time, yet eventually be cleared administratively (as it should be).
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
234
Likes
238
Location
New Hampshire
Well I trust GOA more than any of the groups listed and Alan Rice of GOA brought this issue up over a year ago.

NICS: Delaying and Denying Your Right to Keep and Bear Arms

I met him recently and he told me that this is an age old problem with the gun line, it is slow, delay prone and then when the complaints get loud enough they start to behave better and then as time goes by they start slowing down again and dealers start to complain. The gun line needs to go away. Rice told me it is a federal mandate and the FBI will perform the check for free and NH is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on it. No thanks, my last handgun (march 2021) took 4 days. My last rifle, January 2021 took 5 minutes. For whatever reason, the state has never been able to do a good job. Enough already. Rice also told me that JR Hoell is involved in all sorts of non gun issues so guns might not be his number one priority. Not sure if that is true though...

And here is the latest GOA alert, call and email your reps, lets force a change. No one should have to wait for agun.
NH: We MUST end the gun sales waiting period… | GOA
 
Top Bottom