2021 NH SB141

[AFAR/PFAR]

If NH was going to be strategic about this then it would roll long gun sales into the existing gun line and add/force improvements to the NH process.......that way they retain control when we all see on the horizon the current administration effing with NICS check staffing/responses

Consistency and only using one system would be a nice outcome. Having lived in NICS states most of my adult life, I'm more than comfortable going directly to the feds.

The three pistols I bought in NH, the most recent on Tuesday, have been ridiculous as far as waits. Anywhere from multi day to Tuesday's half hour as they played phone tag with 'Jessica'. The NH system is broken and even the band aids put in place can't keep up with the feds. I don't trust the feds any more than the next guy(don't trust the state either, but that's a separate topic), but on background checks, the feds generally have it sorted out with a robust and redundant system that isn't a government jobs program for NH folks.

but...If Sununu vetoes it with the statement that NH should look after its own, then it is incumbent on our elected representatives to unf*** the gun line. Right now, the only thing on the table is SB141 and HB334 which duplicates the language or SB141 and speeds the implementation.

 

[MAGA99]

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.

If every D voted against it, I now know where I stand.

 

[KBCraig]

They completely/totally missed the salient point that the entire argument revolves around

That the NH SP interact directly with the FBI database and see the records/make a determination.....instead of the FBI giving them a proceed/halt

If NH was going to be strategic about this then it would roll long gun sales into the existing gun line and add/force improvements to the NH process.......that way they retain control when we all see on the horizon the current administration effing with NICS check staffing/responses

For me, the most important issue is federalism.

NH does not require any background checks. The feds do. Let feds do fed things, and keep our state out of it.

Anti-commandeering is well established law. This was why the original Brady Act that required local police to conduct background checks was overturned.

Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[drgrant]

They completely/totally missed the salient point that the entire argument revolves around

That the NH SP interact directly with the FBI database and see the records/make a determination.....instead of the FBI giving them a proceed/halt

Is this true? That’s the part that has always been confusing. There are people who are basically instant proceeds on the gun line but always delayed on leep/nics, and vice versa. f***ery is afoot.

If NH was going to be strategic about this then it would roll long gun sales into the existing gun line and add/force improvements to the NH process.......that way they retain control when we all see on the horizon the current administration effing with NICS check staffing/responses

Ironically as an NH resident buyer you can self induce this in a roundabout way... buy a rifle with your handgun at the same time. The gun line check will be used to cover both. Or buy something weird like a mossberg shockwave along with your rifle.

 

[drgrant]

The only thing I really care about is mitigating to the greatest degree possible the upcoming administration messing with NICS checks

Giving 100% control to the FBI contractor line is a guaranteed way to get tangled up in what is inevitably coming

Without a clear understanding of the gun line process it is unknown wether it will make a difference or not. Does the gun line have more autonomy over its NICS determinations? Can they overrule it in some cases? Yes, no? Maybe? Entire thing is a black box to public. Even the federal one is. It’s basically lead people to only be able to know how it works by some form of deductive reasoning.

 

[42!]

Without a clear understanding of the gun line process it is unknown wether it will make a difference or not. Does the gun line have more autonomy over its NICS determinations? Can they overrule it in some cases? Yes, no? Maybe? Entire thing is a black box to public. Even the federal one is. It’s basically lead people to only be able to know how it works by some form of deductive reasoning.

They were pretty open about the process when I was asking them back in the first half of 2020, BEFORE any bill was filed to shut them down and they became defensive.
1. They run you against the fed DBs, they didn't say which fed DB or how many. If this came back deny that was it, you were denied, and you had to appeal "through the federal system".
2a. If Fed proceed, then they do their own checks and it's either deny or proceed.
2b If Fed delayed, they wait. Not 3 days, but until they get an answer. If they never do and the applicant pushes, they will re-submit.

So no matter how you look at it, they would always be in addition to the fed check. And no one there was going to put their neck on the line by overriding a Fed denied.

This idea that they submit a name and the DB returns som big list and they then look through that and make a determination is crazy. They put in the info and an algorithm returns an answer. And as a dutiful Gov wonk they process that result and go on to the next. No judgement call means no liability/responsibility, that's SOP for a Gov employee, just follow the process, no thinking.

 

[Kevin_NH]

Without a clear understanding of the gun line process it is unknown wether it will make a difference or not. Does the gun line have more autonomy over its NICS determinations? Can they overrule it in some cases? Yes, no? Maybe? Entire thing is a black box to public. Even the federal one is. It’s basically lead people to only be able to know how it works by some form of deductive reasoning.

Not sure about our gun line specifically, but in the 2008 study, (linked to earlier) about a quarter of cases where Fed would've denied, the Georgia or Oregon POC gave a proceed. The study also discuss what records a state POC sees and how the states decide what to tell the FFL.

 

[KBCraig]

Article ! Section 8 provides congress with no power to do anything outlined in the NICS process

The federal government has no constitutional authority to create any gun laws at all, yet here we are.

 

[drgrant]

Not sure about our gun line specifically, but in the 2008 study, (linked to earlier) about a quarter of cases where Fed would've denied, the Georgia or Oregon POC gave a proceed. The study also discuss what records a state POC sees and how the states decide what to tell the FFL.

I have personally seen cases where gunline checks resulted in an immediate proceed where they would be a three-day delay with regular NICS, at least empirically.. the problem is there's no way to tell the reason why and whether or not this is consistent. It would be interesting to know the stats- percentage of proceed versus delay versus deny in NH dealers between gun line checks and LEEP/NICS long gun checks.

There are also shitloads of NH residents that have reported big differences between the two types of checks. I have encountered people that always get delayed by the feds but get proceeded immediately from the gun line. Curiously there are also some in the other direction.

 

[granitestater]

I have personally seen cases where gunline checks resulted in an immediate proceed where they would be a three-day delay with regular NICS, at least empirically.. the problem is there's no way to tell the reason why and whether or not this is consistent. It would be interesting to know the stats- percentage of proceed versus delay versus deny in NH dealers between gun line checks and LEEP/NICS long gun checks.

There are also shitloads of NH residents that have reported big differences between the two types of checks. I have encountered people that always get delayed by the feds but get proceeded immediately from the gun line. Curiously there are also some in the other direction.

Don’t confuse an immediate proceed with efficiently processing the check. Last summer when sales volumes were high, dealers were reporting that the gun line wouldn’t even answer the phone. But FBI NICS was answering in minutes. Dealers also reported that when the gun line finally answered they took the information and said they would call back. The call backs were taking days or weeks. Every sale was delayed and they were not giving out transaction numbers. It was those inneficincies that caused SB 141. GOA did many alerts on the problem

 

[drgrant]

Don’t confuse an immediate proceed with efficiently processing the check. Last summer when sales volumes were high, dealers were reporting that the gun line wouldn’t even answer the phone. But FBI NICS was answering in minutes. Dealers also reported that when the gun line finally answered they took the information and said they would call back. The call backs were taking days or weeks. Every sale was delayed and they were not giving out transaction numbers. It was those inneficincies that caused SB 141. GOA did many alerts on the problem

I'm not, at all. I was speaking more towards technicalities of someone actually running a check live, under /current/ conditions.

The gun line has been a total f***ing dumpster fire / steaming pile of shit for many years up until the last few months. I remember gun show weekends where the f***ing thing was unusable. If it wasn't for those years of frustration this bill would have never come about to begin with. And last spring/summer it was a total shit show, with checks taking WEEKS or longer.

 

[Qwikdraw45]

Here's the problem with the above

You're factually incorrect

The NH State Police directly access the records in the NICS DB and make their own determination in exactly the same manner that other states do who have not delegated this to the NICS hotline

===> They don't. I know one of their employees. She runs the checks through NICS, and then checks local records to see if anything is not in the NICS database (i.e. something that occurred to recently (+/- 48 hours) to have hit their databases yet. This is where the delay comes in.

Some have said the NHGL operators look at the "actual records", but that's not true. They look at a computer screen, just like NICS operators. They might have more access to NH-originated entries in the database, but NH gun buyers haven't usually spent their entire lives in NH. Even if they have, mismatched IDs are the most common reason for delays and/or denials.

I was at Manchester Firing Line last month and saw something along these lines. A young man with a slightly different spelling of a common name was attempting to purchase a handgun. The clerk provided the GL the info. The GL clerk apparently entered the buyer's name as he/she thought the spelling was. Then they pulled up the driver's license info, and saw the name was spelled differently. I was standing there, waiting to ask the clerk about an item they had. He relayed to the buyer that there was a delay due to the names not matching. He didn't know when it would be resolved, but suggested that "within 24 hours". I expect that someone at NICS would have been smart enough to figure it out a little sooner.

The delay thing I buy- if only because of mistaken identity issues. The GL can escalate immediately to that level, whereas the feds the dumbo level 1 examiners seemingly cant or arent
allowed to figure that shit out.


Like for example in this case, NH Reps should have been able to attend a dog and pony show with NHGL personnel to see how the system actually works in contrast to the
federal one. So that, you know, someone could make an informed decision.

Not sure. Seems like the GL can't figure out an identity error, either. Would have been nice if NHSP had the reps attend the GL for real, instead of just providing testimony about how they think the vote should go.

 

[Qwikdraw45]

And Someone I know who has direct knowledge of the process has stated otherwise

The state police have access to and review the same records that you would get if you asked your sherrif for a copy of your record/history.

Qwikdraw45 said:
===> They don't. I know one of their employees. She runs the checks through NICS, and then checks local records to see if anything is not in the NICS database (i.e. something that occurred to recently (+/- 48 hours) to have hit their databases yet. This is where the delay comes in.

====> Are you saying (according to the person you know) that the records they look at are the same as NICS, or are you saying that the SP uses some kind of "local" database records? Not sure what records the sheriff would give, since I've never inquired with them.

 

[KBCraig]

So.....do you let them play T-Ball like the house/senate did and eliminate any semblance of local control?

OR do you be strategic and throw a fastball.....or possibly decide to take your ball and go home altogether like the states did with MJ laws

I'm uncertain what you're asking, so I'll just expand my answer about federal power as given by the Constitution.

Federal authority over guns: none.

Federal authority over drugs: none.

Federal authority over anything that doesn't actually travel in interstate commerce: none.

Federal authority over most things that do actually travel in interstate commerce: none.

Here's the dirty secret about the "commerce clause": it was written to ban states from restricting interstate commerce. At the time of the Revolution, the states (colonies) were several and sovereign. As governments are wont to do, some of them wanted to engage in protectionism, just like ol' Georgie had done in banning imports to the colonies that didn't serve his interests versus competing colonialists (France, Spain).

So to advance unrestricted trade for the benefit of all, they agreed to Art. I, Section 8, Clause 3; it was the 18th Century American version of the Schengen Agreement (European free trade and free travel zone).

Four score and seven years later, the several sovereign states are force-welded into a single national government. And as centralized governments are wont to do, the newly centralized power started centralizing all the power. Just 152 years after the adoption of the Constitution, the federal government decided that it can restrict a farmer from growing his own wheat on his own farm to feed his own livestock and his own family, because through some torturous logic spun from the fevered brain of of a court scared of FDR, growing your own wheat "affects interstate commerce".

Commerce clause intent: Massachusetts can't ban or tax imports from New Hampshire.

Commerce clause in effect today: the Feds have total control over everything, because it might affect some commercial transaction in another state.

 

[42!]

And Someone I know who has direct knowledge of the process has stated otherwise

The state police have access to and review the same records that you would get if you asked your sherrif for a copy of your record/history.

Actually the sheriffs don't use the data systems that are used for gun background checks, take it from someone who works on them, they don't do gun background checks directly. They would send that to the state, who I also work with, or the Feds. Police departments are far less high tech than most would believe.

And it's always you heard or someone you know, or your lawyer friend again. Have you personally ever spoken with those working the gun line? They will talk to you directly, although they are more guarded now that when I reached out to them.

 

[42!]

2021 NH SB141

And yet as Kevin has pointed out previously.....magically its been demonstrated that POC states somehow make more PERMISSIVE decisions than the FBI gun line

Clearly POC states do NOT have a simple proceed/halt that the FBI gun line does

Even Kevin said "Not sure about our gun line specifically" So he admits it's not about NH. Again, I get my information from the GL directly, he cites a 2008 report on OTHER states. I make no claim to know the procedures in those OTHER states.

But lets cherry pick some stuff from that report:
"A complete NICS check occurs in two steps. First, an automated check of the NICS system (i.e., the three above identified databases) is carried out for every prospective firearm purchaser. Second, if necessary, a follow-up step is carried out by NICS’s FBI...."
So the only time a follow up is done is when the algorithm does not provide a clear deny/proceed, kind of sound like what I was saying. This, and to check for additional state restrictions is the only time the POC really does anything more than push paper.
"It is estimated that POCs are able to increase deniability by 19.5%, in comparison to non-POC denials."
So POCs increase denials, not reduce them. This could be good or bad, but it makes clear that POCs deny MORE not less.
"While the average rate at which denials that are appealed to NICS are reversed is consistently around 28% across non-POC and partial-POC states,"
So it doesn't help to be a POC when it comes to appeals.

Most of the report is useless, but they do point out some procedural issues at POCs including processes that result in duplicate submissions to NICS by the POC. There is a comment about how the broadening of the search by the POC results in more hits. It's almost like the POCs looked at were trying to get hits when they would not have under normal circumstances... something to think about, but of course NH was NOT part of the study..

 

[Kevin_NH]

"It is estimated that POCs are able to increase deniability by 19.5%, in comparison to non-POC denials."
So POCs increase denials, not reduce them. This could be good or bad, but it makes clear that POCs deny MORE not less.

Reading the detailed numbers in the study, state POC/PPOC vary from the Fed-NICS checks in both directions, but yes, the study does say the net end result is more denials, and gives a few possibilities for why.

In order to operate as a POC, every POC state is required to check the three standard national databases, plus whatever state records they want to add into the mix. In some cases, the state records (e.g. for dismissed domestic violence charges or expired restraining orders) are more complete than the Fed records and result in the state POC allowing a sale which the Feds (lacking the closure information) would have denied. Or vice-versa.

 

[42!]

Reading the detailed numbers in the study, state POC/PPOC vary from the Fed-NICS checks in both directions, but yes, the study does say the net end result is more denials, and gives a few possibilities for why.

In order to operate as a POC, every POC state is required to check the three standard national databases, plus whatever state records they want to add into the mix. In some cases, the state records (e.g. for dismissed domestic violence charges or expired restraining orders) are more complete than the Fed records and result in the state POC allowing a sale which the Feds (lacking the closure information) would have denied. Or vice-versa.

All correct, but also those state records are just as likely to be incorrect as the Fed records. The point I was making is that the argument that the GL is less likely to deny is not correct, there is a more likely chance of a denial, correct or incorrect when you add another layer. There is also the issue of the information not being correctly passed on to the Feds, we've seen that nationally with disastrous results. We need accountability, but that's a separate issue.

I still believe the GL has no up side. Those that say this would give the Feds more controle simply aren't looking at the situation as it currently is. Right or wrong the Fed has control now, the GL uses the Fed DBs and the Fed controls those, the very existence of a POC is dependant on the Fed allowing it, they can end it with a letter. As for the idea that the Fed could use NICS against us in some new way, well so far they haven't, and no I don't trust them, but past behavior is an indicator of future behavior. So far they use Congress to pass more restrictive laws, I expect that will continue. And if someone wants to reduce the control the Fed has, then that's were they need to put their efforts.

 

[Kevin_NH]

As for the idea that the Fed could use NICS against us in some new way, well so far they haven't, and no I don't trust them, but past behavior is an indicator of future behavior. So far they use Congress to pass more restrictive laws, I expect that will continue. And if someone wants to reduce the control the Fed has, then that's were they need to put their efforts.

As I stated upthread, they're malicious but not stupid; if they're going to go to the effort of effing with NICS, unlikely to end the effort with an approach that only hurts the 36 non-POC states.

 

[omega42]

...

Commerce clause intent: Massachusetts can't ban or tax imports from New Hampshire.

Commerce clause in effect today: the Feds have total control over everything, because it might affect some commercial transaction in another state.

Commerce clause starting a couple of weeks ago: Massachusetts can tax imports from New Hampshire (thanks SO much "Constitutionalist" SCOTUS).

 

[42!]

And once again we're back to you asserting that the NH gun line is just a mirror copy of the Fed and thats demonstrably false

We have a mechanism to help minimize speed bumps that the FBI is almost certain to throw in buyers paths but the legislature is enguaging in strategic surrender of the one tool they have to the feds

Once again you put words in my mouth, anyone reading my posts can see I recognize the differences and the similarities, even if they don't agree. So your statement that I see them as a mirror copy is blatantly false.

What's the weather like on your planet? Please tell us all about this mechanism to stop the FBI. Remember, all they have to do is say no more POC and the POC is gone. The POS exists at their discretion. It can never be used as a tool to work around them because it would just cease to exist.

 

[strangenh]

Remember, all they have to do is say no more POC and the POC is gone. The POS exists at their discretion. It can never be used as a tool to work around them because it would just cease to exist.

Engaging on this point, that's true but I think that would be a much larger move than just slowing down the FBI call line's response times. Don't you? I mean, the state POC is not just a conservative thing - it would have liberal and conservative states reacting to such a move.

Permanent Brady State Lists | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

States in which the FBI Conducts NICS Checks for All Firearms Transactions Alabama Alaska American Samoa Arizona Arkansas Delaware D.C. Georgia Idaho Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana New Mexico North Dakota N.

www.atf.gov

States that Act as the Point of Contact (POC) for All Firearms Transactions​

California	Colorado	Connecticut
Hawaii	Illinois	Nevada
New Jersey	Oregon	Pennsylvania
Tennessee	Utah	Virginia

States that Act as a Partial Point of Contact (POC) for NICS Checks​

​

Florida
Florida Dept. of Law Enforcement for all firearms,
except licensees may contact the FBI for certain pawn transactions
Iowa
Permit POC for handguns
FBI – long guns
Maryland
Maryland State Police – handguns and assault weapons
FBI – long guns and pawn redemptions
Michigan
Permit POC for handguns
FBI – long guns
Nebraska
Permit POC for handguns
FBI – long guns

Whereby, slowing things down, a de facto waiting period, wouldn't tend to offend a state's majority but in the more conservative states.

Again, this issue cuts both ways. People (not saying you, 42!) shouldn't be making it out like it isn't a two-edged sword just to score "I'm more conservative than you" points. That goes both ways (ha ha) I guess!

 

[Qwikdraw45]

I'll see your full POC and raise you one "Permanent Brady Exemption List". With the permit, no NICS check at all. Sign and drive. Did the state I lived in require fingerprints? Yes, for the initial permit. For renewal, it's a one-page form, every 5 years and $60. They have gone Con-Carry since then, too, but most keep the permit for the speed of check out. Could Biden et al. push for a waiting period? Yes, and they are trying. But until that happens, I prefer the "sign and drive" method overall. (I still keep mine for reciprocity, and since I plan on moving back to AZ someday).

Permanent Brady Permit Chart | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Prepared by: ATF Office of Enforcement Programs and Services Last updated: August 10, 2023 Note: Notwithstanding the dates set forth below, permits qualify as alternatives to the background check requirements of the Brady law for no more than 5 years from the date of issuance. The permit must be...

www.atf.gov

 

[strangenh]

Sure. Perma check exemption is a goal several people - including Nappen while at PGNH - have pursued. They supposedly can take that away at a moment's notice, too, since despite the law saying "The transferee presents to the licensee a permit which was issued not more than 5 years earlier by the State in which the transfer is to take place and which allows the transferee to possess or acquire a firearm, and the law of the State provides that such a permit is to be issued only after an authorized government official has verified that available information does not indicate that possession of a firearm by the transferee would be in violation of the law," there is allegedly some kind of "good enough" hurdle. That includes allegations that NH RSA §159:6 may need to be amended to limit to no more than 5 years on the nose, while we all also want to ensure it's not going back to allowing short-issue periods. I've argued that it doesn't need that change since by the statute's language, the individual's PERMIT's date of issue is what is in question, not the law's permission about the length of time a permit is good for. But, it seems like that's one of the "good enough" magic provisions. If this can be done without 159:6 being further amended, yeah, sure, youbetcha. The words sure say that. The "good enough" hurdle, however, as told by many throughout the last 15 years, says different on many other fronts we all probably wouldn't like, like central-issue ID cards, a NICS check required by law done by the issuing agency, and fingerprinting.

 

[granitestater]

Not at all

You've asserted repeatedly in this thread that the state police get a proceed/deny same as the FBI so there's no benefit for NH to retain the gun line

That has been your position throughout this thread

The FACT of the matter remains.....the NH State Police process is different and their access to data is different than the FBI line......and other POC states have indisputedly demonstrated that.

My assertion that the RETENTION of the gun line is a strategic point of leverage that the republican governor and legislature can use to buffer dumb stuff that the fed counterparts may do down the line....

This also is a fact....that states have significant wiggle room on how they manage a POC state.....as seen by previous statstical reports.

The problem here isnt that NH is a POC state......its that the governor (past and present) has failed to manage it properly.....and state legislature has similarly failed to do its part......the management of the Gun Line has been as big a mess as the AG's office and their failure to prosecute voter fraud......seems like every rock we turn over in the bureaucracy reveals a hot mess due to lack of executive branch management/oversight......

But instead of the governor and legislature FIXING it and making a sound strategic decision.....they're simply punting to the Biden administration........really short sighted move.

No they can't. If Biden shuts down or slows down NICS either through personall layoffs or computer shutdowns, slowdowns or network outages NH gun line is effectively shut down. And even if what you say is correct --- what will happen when we have a DEMOCRAT governor and legislature? More problems with the gun line since it has always been a slow process. But consider that NICS existed under Clinton for 2 years and 2 1/2 months and under Obama for 8 years and no problems anywhere near what NH handgun byers have endured. The gun line has got to go. When NRA, NSSF and GOA all agree I trust that SB 141 is a good bill.

 

[KBCraig]

I'll see your full POC and raise you one "Permanent Brady Exemption List". With the permit, no NICS check at all. Sign and drive. Did the state I lived in require fingerprints? Yes, for the initial permit. For renewal, it's a one-page form, every 5 years and $60. They have gone Con-Carry since then, too, but most keep the permit for the speed of check out. Could Biden et al. push for a waiting period? Yes, and they are trying. But until that happens, I prefer the "sign and drive" method overall. (I still keep mine for reciprocity, and since I plan on moving back to AZ someday).

Permanent Brady Permit Chart | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Prepared by: ATF Office of Enforcement Programs and Services Last updated: August 10, 2023 Note: Notwithstanding the dates set forth below, permits qualify as alternatives to the background check requirements of the Brady law for no more than 5 years from the date of issuance. The permit must be...

www.atf.gov

The NICS-exempt list is administrative, not law. It can be undone with a snap of the right finger.

 

[KBCraig]

And once again we're back to you asserting that the NH gun line is just a mirror copy of the Fed and thats demonstrably false

We have a mechanism to help minimize speed bumps that the FBI is almost certain to throw in buyers paths but the legislature is enguaging in strategic surrender of the one tool they have to the feds

As has been pointed out by multiple respondents, the feds can tell NH to take their one tool and shove it.

POC/PPOC exist solely at the discretion of the feds.

If it were otherwise, why wouldn't we just become a total POC state and give an instant "Proceed" on every inquiry?

You know why: because the feds would instantly revoke that POC status. Just like they could do with the previous PPOC agreement, and just like they can do with NICS at any time.

 

[drgrant]

Sure. Perma check exemption is a goal several people - including Nappen while at PGNH - have pursued. They supposedly can take that away at a moment's notice, too, since despite the law saying "The transferee presents to the licensee a permit which was issued not more than 5 years earlier by the State in which the transfer is to take place and which allows the transferee to possess or acquire a firearm, and the law of the State provides that such a permit is to be issued only after an authorized government official has verified that available information does not indicate that possession of a firearm by the transferee would be in violation of the law," there is allegedly some kind of "good enough" hurdle. That includes allegations that NH RSA §159:6 may need to be amended to limit to no more than 5 years on the nose, while we all also want to ensure it's not going back to allowing short-issue periods. I've argued that it doesn't need that change since by the statute's language, the individual's PERMIT's date of issue is what is in question, not the law's permission about the length of time a permit is good for. But, it seems like that's one of the "good enough" magic provisions. If this can be done without 159:6 being further amended, yeah, sure, youbetcha. The words sure say that. The "good enough" hurdle, however, as told by many throughout the last 15 years, says different on many other fronts we all probably wouldn't like, like central-issue ID cards, a NICS check required by law done by the issuing agency, and fingerprinting.

The problem is NH's P&R license does not qualify for a NICS exemption. It's about 900 miles away from being able to do that. So the state would have to create another "enhanced" P&R license and a set of fed-compatible issuance guidelines to go with it. I can see that going over like a fart in church. The only way that can be done without losing rights is to have the "enhanced" license off in its own little container. that doesn't break any existing NH gun law concepts. I forget what state it is, but there is at least one state that has a two tiered carry license like that. They have a "simple" license which is easy to get, that gets you state carry and limited reciprocity and another "enhanced" license which gets you greater reciprocity (multiple more states) with the tradeoff being the term doesn't last as long (because of the 5 yr thing) and has a few extra requirements.

In a pipe dream world someone would create a shall-issue carry compact; and a base set of guidelines that all the non-shit states could agree to, and states could create an enhanced
license that would grant you full reciprocity in all the member states. I think this is what should have been done instead of the faggy NRA "national reciprocity bill" that ultimately will
never be passed. Ignore the garbage states and make them look dumb, instead.

 

[strangenh]

The problem is NH's P&R license does not qualify for a NICS exemption. It's about 900 miles away from being able to do that. So the state would have to create another "enhanced" P&R license and a set of fed-compatible issuance guidelines to go with it. I can see that going over like a fart in church. The only way that can be done without losing rights is to have the "enhanced" license off in its own little container. that doesn't break any existing NH gun law concepts. I forget what state it is, but there is at least one state that has a two tiered carry license like that. They have a "simple" license which is easy to get, that gets you state carry and limited reciprocity and another "enhanced" license which gets you greater reciprocity (multiple more states) with the tradeoff being the term doesn't last as long (because of the 5 yr thing) and has a few extra requirements.

In a pipe dream world someone would create a shall-issue carry compact; and a base set of guidelines that all the non-shit states could agree to, and states could create an enhanced
license that would grant you full reciprocity in all the member states. I think this is what should have been done instead of the faggy NRA "national reciprocity bill" that ultimately will
never be passed. Ignore the garbage states and make them look dumb, instead.

Yes, exactly. The actual law says one thing, the "qualify for" it by being "good enough" rules invented by ATF say another. The issues raised are legion.

 

[Qwikdraw45]

The NICS-exempt list is administrative, not law. It can be undone with a snap of the right finger.

====> Well, apparently anything can be undone with a snap of the fingers. Gun Line can be delayed, POC's shut down, NICS shut down/delayed, so if that's the case we might as well all just curl up in a ball under the table sucking our thumbs and whining about it. Anything can be changed "in the future", so we might as well try for something now, even if it only works for now.

In a pipe dream world someone would create a shall-issue carry compact; and a base set of guidelines that all the non-shit states could agree to, and states could create an enhanced
license that would grant you full reciprocity in all the member states. I think this is what should have been done instead of the faggy NRA "national reciprocity bill" that ultimately will
never be passed. Ignore the garbage states and make them look dumb, instead.

The only way the Dems would even slightly consider this is if it would contain UBC's, super-restrictive licensing, insurance, and taxing schemes. To the point where only the uber-rich could afford it. With a carve-out for politicians, of course. And then we know the Reps would never go for it.