New Hampshire: Firearm Seizure Bill to be Heard

Which groups have posted alerts about this? I know NHFC has sent out emails, what about the other groups?
 
I testified shortly before lunch.

Pro tip: If you're going to testify, make sure you stay within the 3-minute limit, and 2 minutes is better. It makes a better impact than a long rant.
 
The necklaces were funny, and according to WMUR tonight controversial. Shannon Watts complained that they were an insult to her organization, as "clutching one's pearls" is a metaphor for being over-dramatically shocked at something. The reps who wore them said they were meant as an expression of solidarity with women, not as an insult to anyone.

As a demonstration, I found the message to be unclear, which you never want your message to be.

I summed up my testimony with this point: "Laws are supposed to be applied consistently. So why are you considering this bill when the law encourages, and even provides government funds for, a woman who declares a specific intent to take the life of an innocent human being - her unborn child?"
 
I summed up my testimony with this point: "Laws are supposed to be applied consistently. So why are you considering this bill when the law encourages, and even provides government funds for, a woman who declares a specific intent to take the life of an innocent human being - her unborn child?"

So not helpful. Being Pro-Life demographics are angry old white men. Yes, we all know people who do not fit that stereotype, but it is too close to being true to not acknowledge it.

The purpose of testifying in these hearings is to try and help your side win. Your audience is
1) people who are truly undecided and want to hear cogent arguments on both sides to try and decide -- This is a unicorn and likely does not exist
2) the person who feels the political pressure to vote against you but is looking for the reason/excuse to vote with you -- this is who you are really talking to

you are NOT talking to the person who already agrees with you or the zealot on the other side. You have no reason to talk to those people in this forum.

So going up and talking about killing unborn children is only going to alienate both groups of people you are trying to swing to your side.

You dont necessarily know what the people in category (2) will latch onto to allow them to support your cause, but try to avoid the inflammatory rhetoric that is known to alienate the very people you are trying to influence.

Statistics about the lawfulness of gun owners compared to the average citizen or police member
Statistics about how MURDER (not deaths) by guns are down and continue to go down
Statistics about how opiates and cars and... all kill far more people and are a better place to focus energy
Fear, uncertainty and doubt about how this law will allow for abuse and the taking away of rights --> do you want that to happen to your first amendment rights?

I would avoid mentioning unborn babies even indirectly
 
For real man. WTF Bob? I agree with your position on the subject but talk about misplaced testimony... I pray your not serious.
 
No surprise......the UL doesnt seem to be capable on actual reporting as in the merits/lack thereof, problems with bill, contradictory language, the fact that it violates current law/due process yada yada yada.......all the UL can do is report on social media butt hurt it appears....

If the UL would return to REPORTING I would consider picking up a subscription again

Lawmakers with pearl necklaces at hearing on 'red flag' bill stir social media

Red flag debate draws opposing forces on gun control to State House

Capt. Stephan Poulin of the Exeter Police Department testifies in support of a red flag law for New Hampshire. “I do not feel this bill is something you should fear will take your guns away,” he said.

f*** your "feels"
 
Yea....he clearly didnt read the bill and is only agreeing based on his experience with the couple who's kid committed suicide in his town and he alleges he had no tools to take any action to prevent.

The state of NH DOES in point of fact have procedures for involuntary committal and the young man in question HAD been voluntarily committed....and according to parents this was a long term/ongoing issue,,,,...it APPEARS that the parents did NOT pursue a process for involuntary committal and instead are blaming the inanimate object and to the exclusion of all other factors

The fact of the matter remains that gun control and erpo laws have been demonstrated statistically to have NO IMPACT on suicide rates
and how did a 17 year old get a gun? why didn't his parents stop this?
 
I do however have questions about whether their son lied/properly filled out 4473......he had been VOLUNTARILY committed more than once.......

Voluntary MH committments are not disqualifiers under fed law at least. You have to be flagged for MH by some other means.

That would be a horrendously bad situation if they were, of course. (because then you'd have gun owners not seeking treatment/help!)

-Mike
 
My recollection was that they testified that their son had issues throughout college and post college......which would suggest that the firearm purchases were in fact when he was of legal age.

I do however have questions about whether their son lied/properly filled out 4473......he had been VOLUNTARILY committed more than once.......
I was under the impression he committed suicide at 17. maybe I misread it.



That’s the year the Exeter couple lost their troubled teenage son to suicide from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

The 17-year-old had struggled with depression for years. “His behavior had escalated and sent up red flags and warning signs. The evidence was there,” said his father. “These should have been trip wires for a more robust response.”
 
Back
Top Bottom