NH: 2020 proprosed bill titles [LSRs] are now on line

Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
1,345
Likes
812
The State House website is now showing the initial fillings for next years bills.
Here are the first three:

LSR's Found: 81
2020-2001 HB Title: imposing a ban on assault weapons in New Hampshire.
Sponsors: (Prime) Katherine Rogers
2020-2002 HB Title: requiring a background check for commercial firearms sales.
Sponsors: (Prime) Katherine Rogers
2020-2003 HB Title: imposing a waiting period between the purchase and delivery of a firearm.
Sponsors: (Prime) Katherine Rogers

These bills are being filled by the same state rep that was convicted of assaulting another.

NH General Court

Time to stay involved
 

Prepper

NES Member
Rating - 100%
11   0   0
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
20,478
Likes
8,957
Location
NH
Not this BS again.

1. "Assault weapon" doesn't mean anything significantly different than semi auto gun.

2. They already have background checks for all commercial firearms sales. These idiots make new laws without even knowing the most basic thing about their existing laws?

3. Why the F should I wait after a firearms purchase when I already own dozens of firearms? If it is to keep me from "doing something bad in a fit of rage", then I'd use the many I already own. Plus those of us that got the concealed carry permit in the past already had to wait a couple weeks... that should count for something. Who gets a concealed carry permit then owns no gun?
 
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
8,022
Likes
1,842
Location
WNW of MHT
Those sound like duplicates of bills introduced in the first year of this session, is that kosher?


Gencourt said:
2020-2060 HB Title: relative to possession of firearms on school property.
Sponsors: (Prime) Mary Heath (D-Hillsborough)
2020-2062 HB Title: relative to the discharge of a firearm in the compact part of a city or town.
Sponsors: (Prime) David Doherty (D-Merrimack)
2020-2038 HB Title: relative to disclosure of the source of legislative bill proposals.
Sponsors: (Prime) Garrett Muscatel (D-Grafton)
That last one could be quite meta.
 
Last edited:

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
18,957
Likes
12,936
It was misdemeanor assault, and not domestic. She's not prohibited.
Yet.....she appears to have a thing for initiating fights with people........so that little thing with Susan wasnt her only brush with the law....she's displayed a pattern of behavior and criminality that should disqualify her from holding office.......too bad the current ethics/etc leadership is turning a blind eye
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
18,957
Likes
12,936
Just throwing sh!t against the wall hoping something sticks. They just don't get it.
What they are hoping for is a crisis here in NH that they can fabricate some false political capitol from........a violent event that they can falsely claim "wouldnt have happend if only their crappy tyranical legislation hadnt been vetoed by sununu"
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
18,957
Likes
12,936
Its not just the new bills that we need to be concerned with as per above on 687

There are a very large number of retained bills that committees/sub committees are continueing to work on.

HB 728 establishing ranked voting in NH......your vote isnt quite your vote anymore under ranked voting.......its another leftist attempt to undermine elections
http://gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/billText.aspx?id=363

The nutty bills that are still alive that seek to increase the size/scope of gov and DECREASE your rights is endless

Scroll thru the calendar to see the insanity that is scheduled

Welcome to the NH General Court | NH General Court
 

Yosemite Sam

NES Member
Rating - 100%
11   0   0
Joined
Aug 1, 2019
Messages
580
Likes
576
Location
Massachusetts
Newest one just added by her, although I can't understand why /sarc

2020-2082 HB Title: imposing a ban on Harpoon Guns in New Hampshire.
Sponsors: (Prime) Katherine Rogers

And this is in the Live Free or Die state!

Sooooooo
This bill about the harpoon ban, is really more about self preservation of her own FA

I’m sure the many that have seen her, thought she was a walrus
 
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
3,081
Likes
2,045
Location
NH
This IS the live free or die state. Janice and I are sitting at an outdoor restaurant as I write this. We are both OC, the guy and girl at the next table are talking about his G19. I am sure half of the people here are armed but yet, no one is getting shot or calling the cops. We are all just living free up here!
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
8,022
Likes
1,842
Location
WNW of MHT
HB 728 establishing ranked voting in NH......your vote isnt quite your vote anymore under ranked voting.......its another leftist attempt to undermine elections
http://gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/billText.aspx?id=363
Despite Republican railing against it, I am unconvinced that ranked-choice voting (RCV), aka "instant-runoff", is inherently evil.

In some ways, RCV makes your vote count more than otherwise.

Under RCV, if your first choice can’t win, and no candidate has reached a majority, your ballot is instantly counted for your second choice. This means that voting third party is no longer "throwing away your vote".

Consider for example Trump vs Hillary 2016:

48,801 New Hampshire votes were "throw-aways" under FPPT, but under RCV, their second/third/fourth choice would've counted (neither mainstream candidate had more than 50%). Final winner might well have been different (Doubt many Gary Johnson voters would've had Hillary as their second choice!).

Looking at the gubernatorial race, in 2016 Chris Sununu would've almost certainly still won (due to those same L votes), and in 2018 of course Chris had an outright 52% majority.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
18,957
Likes
12,936
Despite Republican railing against it, I am unconvinced that ranked-choice voting (RCV), aka "instant-runoff", is inherently evil.

In some ways, RCV makes your vote count more than otherwise.

Under RCV, if your first choice can’t win, and no candidate has reached a majority, your ballot is instantly counted for your second choice. This means that voting third party is no longer "throwing away your vote".

Consider for example Trump vs Hillary 2016:

48,801 New Hampshire votes were "throw-aways" under FPPT, but under RCV, their second/third/fourth choice would've counted (neither mainstream candidate had more than 50%). Final winner might well have been different (Doubt many Gary Johnson voters would've had Hillary as their second choice!).

Looking at the gubernatorial race, in 2016 Chris Sununu would've almost certainly still won (due to those same L votes), and in 2018 of course Chris had an outright 52% majority.
Its shenanigans no matter how you slice it

One person
One vote
 

NHKevin

NES Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
May 10, 2011
Messages
2,760
Likes
1,564
Location
Live Free or Die
Despite Republican railing against it, I am unconvinced that ranked-choice voting (RCV), aka "instant-runoff", is inherently evil.

In some ways, RCV makes your vote count more than otherwise.

Under RCV, if your first choice can’t win, and no candidate has reached a majority, your ballot is instantly counted for your second choice. This means that voting third party is no longer "throwing away your vote".

Consider for example Trump vs Hillary 2016:

48,801 New Hampshire votes were "throw-aways" under FPPT, but under RCV, their second/third/fourth choice would've counted (neither mainstream candidate had more than 50%). Final winner might well have been different (Doubt many Gary Johnson voters would've had Hillary as their second choice!).

Looking at the gubernatorial race, in 2016 Chris Sununu would've almost certainly still won (due to those same L votes), and in 2018 of course Chris had an outright 52% majority.
Interesting assessment. Thanks for posting.
 

KBCraig

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
11,314
Likes
6,517
Location
Granite State of Mind
Despite Republican railing against it, I am unconvinced that ranked-choice voting (RCV), aka "instant-runoff", is inherently evil.

In some ways, RCV makes your vote count more than otherwise.

Under RCV, if your first choice can’t win, and no candidate has reached a majority, your ballot is instantly counted for your second choice. This means that voting third party is no longer "throwing away your vote".
RCV isn't as good as approval voting. As shown in Maine, a lot of people don't understand how it works, and it's needlessly complex.

Its shenanigans no matter how you slice it

One person
One vote
Sorry, no. "One person one vote" forces voters to make one choice, when more than one might be acceptable. As often as not, they'll choose None Of The Above and simply refuse to vote in that race.

Approval voting advances all those who are "good enough", while holding back all those who aren't.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
18,957
Likes
12,936
Sorry, no. "One person one vote" forces voters to make one choice, when more than one might be acceptable. As often as not, they'll choose None Of The Above and simply refuse to vote in that race.

Approval voting advances all those who are "good enough", while holding back all those who aren't.
We have ALWAYS had a single vote for a single candidate

The person that garners the most votes wins....end of story

This is shenanigans plain and simple that allows for a muddying of the water
 
Top Bottom