New Hampshire HB1339 good or bad?

[ReggieB9mm]

Is this bill a good idea?

NHLA Bill Review: HB1339 (2024) Detail

 

[Rick O'Shea]

I don't like bills of any kind.

 

[CATI]

Reads like what the bill does is adds long gun background checks to the state and not the fed
Currently state does hand gun and "other"
The FFL sends the long gun to the fed
Bill would put all the checks on the state

I don't know the answer but is the state doing the background checks for isolation of its citizens from the federal government or is it nefarious?

 

[KBCraig]

It's not the first time it's been floated. I oppose it.

The reason usually given in favor is that it protects NH purchasers from an anti-gun Presidential administration shutting down NICS. I believe it's far more likely that an anti-gun Governor (we're always teetering on the edge there) could hobble the NH Gun Line.

The more important reason to oppose it: NH doesn't emulate federal gun laws. Not in our definitions, and not in our restrictions. NH doesn't have a background check.

Let the feds handle fed business. Don't assist them using our taxpayer money.

 

[CWulf]

Its a terrible bill... you better move here to Massachusetts.... land of the free.

 

[42!]

What is the problem it solves?
If it was to protect NH residents from an anti-gun prez shutting down NICS, well it doesn't since it requires NH to use that system.
What it does do is add a layer of gov and cost NH money.
This change is pointless, a distraction.

 

[Lank]

Any bill infringing on the RKBA is illegal

 

[42!]

Any bill infringing on the RKBA is illegal

Well this one is neutral on that, it doesn't change when a check is done, nore does it change what DB is used, all it changes is who pays for it, and adds a layer of Gov.

 

[Kevin_NH]

Reads like what the bill does is adds long gun background checks to the state and not the fed
Currently state does hand gun and "other" The FFL sends the long gun to the fed Bill would put all the checks on the state
I don't know the answer but is the state doing the background checks for isolation of its citizens from the federal government or is it nefarious?

No extra protection, just extra point for random delays.

NH state gun line was taking days to respond not too long ago.

 

[Dennis in MA]

I don't like bills of any kind.

Parcells?

Belichick?

Wild Bill Donovan?

Seems pretty namist to me.

 

[LittleCalm]

Parcells?

Belichick?

Wild Bill Donovan?

Seems pretty namist to me.

Buffalo too.

 

[OMM 0000]

My concern is this is only requires an amendment in the future with few small words changed to require checks for all transfers, not just FFLs.

 

[42!]

My concern is this is only requires an amendment in the future with few small words changed to requiring checks for all transfers, not just FFLs.

And how is that any different from now?

 

[OMM 0000]

This just makes it a shorter putt IMO.

 

[sbhaven]

My concern is this is only requires an amendment in the future with few small words changed to requiring checks for all transfers, not just FFLs.

Don't know anything about NH laws currently but if they mandate background checks on private face to face transfers you can expect to see what happened in CT happen in NH. Because CT does similar, runs its own background check system that interfaces with NICS. The FBI and NICS folks mandated that only requests from FFL's can be made. This forced all private face to face transfers in CT to now go through an FFL. Smells like a new method/way to go after and eventually stop private face to face transfers and sales that Democrats/gun grabbers have long sought. Here is what the CT indicated last year:

"Effective 9/11/2023, SLFU will no longer facilitate the private sale of a firearm between two individuals. The State statute for a firearm sale requires a query of the FBI-NICS system, which is not authorized by the FBI unless an FFL is involved. In order to satisfy the state law and the federal regulation, every private citizen sale to another private person must be facilitated through an FFL."