Any News on NH 'Red Flag' Hearing Beyond Concord Monitor and Union Leader?

Joined
Apr 30, 2006
Messages
104
Likes
29
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
I have checked the Monitor and the Union Leader. There is also a post on NHFC on an amendment which was mentioned by the bill's sponsor but apparently not available at the hearing. I can't readily see any difference between it and the original bill but it is in dense legalese.

Does anyone have an AAR as to what happened? Does it look like the bill will go forward or will it be "inexpedient to legislate"?
 
I heard from one member that it's very tight but it appears that the Nays have a slight edge. It will be helpful for everyone to write, email and call each committee member with a brief message opposing the bill.
 
So the ERPO bills take peoples' guns because "The person might be a threat to themselves or others."

Do they also take the person's cars, ropes, knives, baseball bats, or golf clubs? Do they take away the person's access to high places, or eliminate gravity? Do they take away the person's prescription drugs? Because there are many ways for people to hurt themselves or others beyond just guns.

Do they provide ANY counseling or other services to these ostensibly despondent people? Or just take away their guns, thereby PROVING that "they really are out to get them"?

Answer the questions honestly and it becomes evident pretty quick that these bills have nothing whatsoever to do with anyone's safety, and everything to do with just taking guns for the sake of taking guns.
 
Last edited:
Clearly this over the top version of Red Flag law is is designed to leave plenty of room for “compromise” so they can tout how “reasonable” the final bill is.

The inner evil these self rightous maggots possess is astounding.
 
So the ERPO bills take peoples' guns because "The person might be a threat to themselves or others."

Do they also take the person's cars, ropes, knives, baseball bats, or golf clubs? Do they take away the person's access to high places, or eliminate gravity? Do they take away the person's prescription drugs? Because there are many ways for people to hurt themselves or others beyond just guns.

Do they provide ANY counseling or other services to these ostensibly despondent people? Or just take away their guns, thereby PROVING that "they really are out to get them"?

Answer the questions honestly and it becomes evident pretty quick that these bills have nothing whatsoever to do with anyone's safety, and everything to do with just taking guns for the sake of taking guns.

Well that and deterring ownership... and furthering the "guns are objects that cause bad things to happen" memetic agenda, which you indirectly referenced
above. It's an inroad for the shitbirds to demonize guns and gun owners.

Only so many people will ever actually get hit with an ERPO. Problem is the downstream effects of it even existing are many times worse than the law itself.

"Mr Jablome got an erpo filed on him after a heated discussion with a teacher at school after his son was put in in school suspension for bringing a glock pen into
school. Guns = bad, and Mr. Jablome is a bad man because he had the audacity to raise his voice to the teacher, therefore guns and gun owners are bad, blah blah blah, quack quack quack, erpo quack erpo!!!" It's about furthering the contamination of the public consciousness about guns.

Unfortunately RKBA advocates don't have a strategy for this. IMHO antis should pretty much be considered in the same league as child molesters in this
regard, but we still haven't managed to push the public bar on them beyond the "average smoe thinks they are clowns" level, and even that level is not consistently
reached. We'll never win until these people are derided like pedophiles, neo nazis, or treated like the "god hates fags" funeral protesters are.

-Mike
 
Back
Top Bottom