• 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.

AN ACT requiring background checks for all firearm sales. NH HB1589

E. Elaine Andrews-Ahearn. You don't need to know the letter that follows her name because the "initial" first name and the hyphenated last name should tell you plenty.
 
Thanks to all that attended!

Was there any obvious winner of this (i.e. were we represented well, squashed, or...)?
 
I really think this election year we need to lend time support (IMO is more important than money) to some more liberty minded candidates. We really want to make sure that we don't have to worry that these things have a chance at passing the house if they aren't ITL'd It is way to hard to regain freedoms if they are lost.

If the Rep in your area is liberty minded and likely to win, donate some time to a campaign in another area. I need to find out if any good candidates are running against my Rep Tim Smith. He definitely is not a Pro-2A more than some others of his party, but not much farther.
 
turbo89 said:
Thanks to all that attended!

Was there any obvious winner of this (i.e. were we represented well, squashed, or...)?
Click to expand...

I felt, that like always pro Liberty/2A was well represented over and above those Anti. However as for voting.... A little disheartening when the people on the committee don't stay through all the testimony. One way or the other it means they have their minds made up on the bill
most likely.
 
A couple of quick updates:
1. Thanks to all who attended. From the blue sheets at the sign in table, we clearly out numbered the radical gun-control Nazis.
2. Thanks for continuing to be one of the best groups at the state house. Our professionalism is noticed by the staff. It is clear that there are two very different views (The correct one [that which we share] and the anti-gun crowd [AKA] wrong) Even with tough subject matter the gun owners in clear and concise testimony destroyed that irrational arguments of the opposition.
3. Inside sources say the bill will go to a sub-committee, back to commerce, to the full house. IFF [if and only if for the non programmers out there] the bill passes the house the first time, the bill will go to CJ&PS and then to finance.
4. We need to tell the committee that there is NO VALUE TO THE BILL and a sub-committee is a waste of time. This bill needs to die and to die hard quickly!!


PS. Andrews-Ahearn also wants to BAN ASSAULT WEAPONS AND BAN GUN SHOWS per the blue book. This is where she wrote her priorities for this session... :)

-design
 
But Rep. J.R. Hoell, R-Dunbarton, secretary of the New Hampshire Firearms Coalition, said the group is “strongly opposed” to a bill that he said would “put New Hampshire citizens in prison for up to seven years for selling a gun to a friend or neighbor.”

“Have you ever lent a rifle to a friend while hunting?” Hoell asked.

http://www.unionleader.com/article/20140121/NEWS06/140129870
 
Thank you to all that spoke and attended. I wish I could have been there but I've been missing work because of being sick.
 
Someone I know on FB who is a gun owner is arguing minutia with me. He claims the common activities (that I submitted in my testimony) are not illegal under the bill because:

Transfer is defined as: "means the intended delivery of a firearm to another person, either with or without consideration of payment or promise of payment, and includes gifts and loans." The key word here is delivery. Delivery means I give you the gun and LEAVE you in sole possession. If I'm standing next to you at a sandpit and you're using it, that is not a transfer, therefore it would not be illegal under this bill. Secondly: "(i) between spouses; (ii) for the purposes of immediate self-defense provided the transfer lasts only as long as immediately necessary;" These are two separate things. Meaning the person doesn't have to be a spouse for them to use one of your guns for self defense.
Click to expand...

Now, delivery doesn't necessarily mean you were left in sole possession of the item. Delivery is "the act of taking something to a person or place" according to Merriam Webster. Now when you consider the language here: "The temporary transfer of a firearm" you could say: "The temporary delivery of a firearm" instead. But my reading is that it is still illegal under this bill. Does this make sense?
 
soloman02 said:
Someone I know on FB who is a gun owner is arguing minutia with me. He claims the common activities (that I submitted in my testimony) are not illegal under the bill because ... But my reading is that it is still illegal under this bill. Does this make sense?
Click to expand...
If you read section VII, I think he is correct. Clearly (i) and (ii) are distinct, as the section continues on with (iii) and (iv) which are also not exclusive to spouses.

Point him at the latest from GraniteGrok, http://granitegrok.com/blog/2014/01/hb-1589-a-means-to-an-end

HB1589 says “Transfer” means the intended delivery of a firearm to another person, either with or without consideration of payment or promise of payment, and includes gifts and loans, this appears not to be intended to apply to use within the sight and supervision of the owner.
 
So your acquaintance on FB is willing to let the courts decide if he's right or not, and/or thinks cops wouldn't construe it is a way that would allow him to be charged?

Ask him if he wants to buy some ocean front property in Arizona I have for sale. Then ask him if he has ever read the explanations politicians used to pass the sixteenth amendment.

What we think the law can be interpreted as has zero to do with how it WILL be interpreted by police, prosecutors and judges. FFS we're at a position now where people read 2A and still think permits and bans are legal. How much more plain language than "shall not be infringed" can you get? They've ****ed that up, and he thinks they won't abuse this?!

Government should not have the authority to regulate purchases or uses of property in any fashion. Period. You don't let them have an inch when you already know they'll take a light year.
 
Last edited:
Kevin_NH said:
If you read section VII, I think he is correct. Clearly (i) and (ii) are distinct, as the section continues on with (iii) and (iv) which are also not exclusive to spouses.

Point him at the latest from GraniteGrok, http://granitegrok.com/blog/2014/01/hb-1589-a-means-to-an-end

HB1589 says “Transfer” means the intended delivery of a firearm to another person, either with or without consideration of payment or promise of payment, and includes gifts and loans, this appears not to be intended to apply to use within the sight and supervision of the owner.
Click to expand...

Here is how I see it:

According to Merriam Webster, the definition of "delivery" is: the act of taking something to a person or place.

So replace delivery in the definition of transfer with the definition above and you have: "the intended act of taking a firearm to another person, either with or without consideration of payment or promise of payment, and includes gifts and loans."

Under the language of section VII (Temporary transfer) you can replace the definition of transfer as such: "the intended temporary act of taking a firearm to another person, either with or without consideration of payment or promise of payment, and includes gifts and loans."

So if I take my gun and hand it to you that is "the intended temporary act of taking a firearm to another person."

No where is there any implication that I left the area and in fact, subsection (iii) of section VII says the following: "provided the firearm is kept at such range during the entirety of the transfer"

This right here implies that "sole possession" is not the intended use of the word delivery and thus makes this apply to giving someone a gun to try out.
Click to expand...



xtry51 said:
So your acquaintance on FB is willing to let the courts decide if he's right or not, and/or thinks cops wouldn't construe it is a way that would allow him to be charged?

Ask him if he wants to buy some ocean front property in Arizona I have for sale. Then ask him if he has ever read the explanations politicians used to pass the sixteenth amendment.

What we think the law can be interpreted as has zero to do with how it WILL be interpreted by police, prosecutors and judges. FFS we're at a position now where people read 2A and still think permits and bans are legal. How much more plain language than "shall not be infringed" can you get? They've ****ed that up, and he thinks they won't abuse this?!

Government should not have the authority to regulate purchases or uses of property in any fashion. Period. You don't let them have an inch when you already know they'll take a light year.
Click to expand...

He is an actual friend. He went to work for a gun company (in NH) and then changed to be less absolute on the 2A and is accepting of some of this extra BS we put up with.
 
xtry51 said:
You can be 100% certain the way you are reading it is the way cops and prosecutors will enforce it.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt it. Just look at what happened with the definition of "loaded" as it pertains to a firearm. The AG wanted to railroad a guy for having a loaded magazine next to a firearm (in a car without a P&R license) and it took a year long legal battle ending with a NHSC ruling clarifying the word and squashing the charges.
 
You are correct soloman and we should never leave it up to the people who want to make criminals out of us.
 
If it wasn't intended to be read as Soloman intended, why would they mention exemptions for being at an official range? I may be misreading the bill, but that was why I read it that way.

In addition, apparently, it would make it illegal to give a gun to someone under 18 without them being supervised. So 16-17 year old who is responsible on their own land with a good berm, could not use it unsupervised.


VII. The temporary transfer of a firearm (i) between spouses; (ii) for the purposes of immediate self-defense provided the transfer lasts only as long as immediately necessary; (iii) that occurs at an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located, provided the firearm is kept at such range during the entirety of the transfer; (iv) that occurs at a lawfully organized competition involving the use of a firearm, or while participating in or practicing for a performance by an organized group that uses firearms as part of the performance, provided the transferee’s possession of the firearm is exclusively while participating in such activity; (v) to a person who is under 18 years of age for lawful hunting, sporting, or educational purposes while under the direct supervision and control of a responsible adult who is not prohibited from possessing firearms; or (vi) while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm and the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting. Any temporary transfer allowed under this paragraph shall be permitted only if the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law.
 
Last edited:
And we have video of the whole hearing.

All times below are approximate. You may wait several seconds before the people listed below actually speak.

Representative JR Hoell Speaks at 37:53
Representative Al Baldasaro Speaks at 46:20
Ian Underwood Speaks at 1:12:40
Ralph Demicco Speaks at 1:20:35 (Owner of Rileys)
Representative John Burt Speaks at 1:47:40
Rick Olsen Speaks at 2:05:50 (Head of Londonderry F&G club and the NHWF)
I speak at 3:04:10.
Penny Dean speaks at 3:18:30.

I haven't had time to look at the other speakers to give times.

Ian Underwood gave awesome testimony BTW. Here is a link to the transcript of it: http://granitegrok.com/blog/2014/01/testimony-of-ian-underwood-on-hb-1589

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The bill has a sub-committee work session tomorrow:
The members of the sub-committee are listed below.
Light up their phones guys. (some of those are home phones, try to call before 9pm)

WORK SESSION - SUBCOMMITTEE
THURSDAY 1/23/2014
COMMERCE AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS LOB 304 2:15 PM
(Name of Committee) (Place) (Time)
2:15 PM HB1589-FN requiring background checks for all firearm sales.
Sponsors:
HB1589-FN
Rep. E. Elaine Andrews-Ahearn Rep. David Borden Sen. David Pierce
Rep. Rebecca Brown Rep. Laurie Harding Rep. Donna Schlachman
Rep. Katherine Rogers Rep. Kenneth Ward
Comments: PLEASE POST
Please note the subcommittee will be held in Room 304.
Subcommittree members include Reps. Butler, Flanders and McNamara.


Representative Edward Butler (d)
Carroll- District 07
Seat #:2042
Former

Home Address:
2 Morey Rd
Harts Location, NH 03812-4105
Phone: (603)374-6131



Representative Donald Flanders (r)
Belknap- District 03
Seat #:4009
Incumbent

Home Address:
19 Kensington Dr
Laconia, NH 03246-2910
Phone: (603)524-5369
Email: [email protected]


Representative Richard McNamara (d)
Hillsborough- District 38
Seat #:2055
New

Home Address:
PO Box 1891
Hillsborough, NH 03244-1891
Phone: (603)464-0212
Email: [email protected]
 
So I found the "dirt" that was mentioned earlier in this thread and was mentioned in testimony yesterday:

http://votesmart.org/candidate/political-courage-test/42489/e-elaine-andrews-ahearn/#.UuA97RAo670

I am only copying the one that matters to us, guns. I'm sure the rest of her stances are equally as anti-liberty.

New Hampshire State Legislative Election 2002 National Political Awareness Test

This candidate has responded to a Political Courage Test in a previous election. As a continued effort to provide the American public with factual information on candidates running for public office, these archived responses are made available here.
The Political Courage Test asks candidates which items they will support if elected. It does not ask them to indicate which items they will oppose. Through extensive research of public polling data, we discovered that voters are more concerned with what candidates would support when elected to office, not what they oppose. If a candidate does not select a response to any part or all of any question, it does not necessarily indicate that the candidate is opposed to that particular item.


Gun Issues
Indicate which principles you support (if any) concerning gun issues.
X a) Ban the sale or transfer of semi-automatic guns, except those used for hunting.
X b) Maintain and strengthen the enforcement of existing state restrictions on the purchase and possession of guns.
c) Ease state restrictions on the purchase and possession of guns.
d) Repeal state restrictions on the purchase and possession of guns.
X e) Support the four-year license requirement to carry concealed weapons in New Hampshire.
X f) Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks on guns.
X g) Require background checks on gun sales between private citizens at gun shows.
X h) Require a license for gun possession.
X i) Other or expanded principles

Ban the sale of handguns of all types - all automatic weapons - and all ammunition- if we can't get rid of guns let's get rid of bullets!
Click to expand...
 
Kaldone said:
I felt, that like always pro Liberty/2A was well represented over and above those Anti. However as for voting.... A little disheartening when the people on the committee don't stay through all the testimony. One way or the other it means they have their minds made up on the bill
most likely.
Click to expand...
It should be pointed out to those who did stay at start of testimony, that it appears that some(those who left) could care less, what the people they claim to represent think about this.
 
Wouldnt really call that "dirt", hell a lot of people in her district probably LOVE that attitude.

Always fun to demonize something somebody ELSE enjoys.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
 
Please read the following and start calling these house members tomorrow.
-design
------------------------
NHFC: New Hampshire's Only No Compromise Gun Rights Organization


Dear Member,

Earlier this week we told you about New Hampshire HB 1589. A bill that will put you in prison for up to 7 years if you sell or loan a gun to a friend, shooting partner or hunting buddy.

The bill had a public hearing on Tuesday, January 21, 2014 and opponents outnumbered supporters by 30 - 1. Nevertheless, instead of just killing the bill, Rep. Edward Butler, Chairman of the House Commerce and Consumer Affairs Committee has appointed himself and 2 other State Representatives to a "sub committee" to "study" the bill.

Here's what you need to do:

Contact the members of the Sub Committee, let them know in very clear and polite language, that you are strongly opposed to criminalizing the sale, gifting or loaning of your private property.

Explain to these legislators that HB 1589 might make them "feel like they are doing something" but in reality nothing needs to be done. Please point out that HB 1589 would do nothing to advance public safety. It would not have prevented the tragedies in Newtown, CT (guns stolen after a murder), Aurora, CO (passed background check), or Tuscon, AZ, (passed background check). In fact there is no proof, anywhere, that allowing peaceable, law-abiding state residents to sell and trade their lawfully-owned firearms poses any risk whatsoever to public safety.

Don't be fooled, private parties cannot order firearms through the mail or UPS, only licensed dealers can do that. HB 1589 only addresses face to face private sales. Please also let these legislators know (because they are most likely ignorant about firearms) that dealers are licensed, but private parties are currently free and should remain free to dispose of their property as they see fit.

Tell them to vote HB 1589, "inexpedient to legislate", (ITL), no amendments, no study committees, the only acceptable vote is ITL.

Sub Committee:
Rep. Edward Butler, (603)374-6131
Rep. Donald Flanders, (603)524-5369
Rep. Richard McNamara, (603)464-0212

Time is of the essence, the Sub Committee has scheduled a "work session" for tomorrow, January 23, 2014 at 2:15PM. Please contact these State Reps. promptly.

If any of these elected officials writes back to you please forward that email to NHFC.

Thanks for your support.

In Liberty,
Scott A. Krauss
Scott A. Krauss
Vice President - NHFC
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

CT: HB-5467 An Act Concerning Firearms Background Checks (2024)
Replies
2
Views
217
sbhaven
S
Biden EO: Background Checks for Private Sales
Replies
1
Views
290
Toast
Toast
ATF Rule Requires Smugglers to Get NICS Checks on Gun Sales
Replies
14
Views
323
powerman
powerman
Thousands more gun dealers must run background checks on buyers as Biden administration moves to close 'doggone dangerous' loophole
Replies
4
Views
186
AJK129
AJK129
ATF Redefines All Private Sales & Who Has To Have A FFL
2
Replies
38
Views
1K
Flint
F
Back
Top Bottom