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

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

Maybe she feels threatened by a harpoon gun as a whale would feel threatened...just sayin'
 
yea, that fat cow is complaining about Sununu's proper/lawful/constitutional veto of HB 611

Sununu vetoes 'no excuse' voting by absentee

here's the purple wonders letter to the editor

Your Turn, NH: Rep. Katherine Rogers -- No excuse for vetoing 'no excuse' ballot law

I wish these hack rags hadn't shut down comments. There was usually more truth in those than the column/editorial/LTE. At least they would let common citizens parse the articles and seek the real truth.
 
“No excuse” benefits everyone, including seniors who might have trouble getting to the polls, rural voters far from a polling place, first responders whose schedules can be preempted, a single parent working two jobs, families whose kids get sick, someone with an unexpected trip, and all of us in dicey weather.

Rodgers left out that it might prevent out of state non-residents (read that as liberal democrats) to vote illegally in NH.
 
What the bill would do is to give people more than one vote.....

How has it worked in Maine so far?.....allow me to tell you.....its a complete utter shit show
And then out of those votes cast, the person with the most votes wins.

Maine doesn't have approval voting. They have ranked choice voting, which is an utter shit show, because it's not at all the same system.
 
Doesnt distract from the issue.......the dems are trying to pass a bill that will effectively allow a person to cast more than one vote and alter elections........not to mention the fact that the constitution provides for the candidate with the plurality of votes wins

One person
One vote
Have you never voted in a multi-member race in NH?

They literally say, "Vote for not more than n candidates". (It can be as many as 24, I think, depending on the district.)

One person.
One vote for everyone they want to see win.
 
Probably the easiest way to deal with this kind of crap is to pass a bill that requires any sort of firearms legislation to be brought before the people for a vote.
The power of a few or in Massachusetts's case one to write legislation that effects all of us significantly should be voted on by "we the people."
We need to empower ourselves. This is not going away, they are going to keep throwing the same shit at the wall till it sticks.
 
Probably the easiest way to deal with this kind of crap is to pass a bill that requires any sort of firearms legislation to be brought before the people for a vote.
The power of a few or in Massachusetts's case one to write legislation that effects all of us significantly should be voted on by "we the people."
We need to empower ourselves. This is not going away, they are going to keep throwing the same shit at the wall till it sticks.
In MA this would mean the end to firearms ownership.
 
... the initial fillings for next years bills. ... first three:
2020-2001 HB Title: imposing a ban on assault weapons in New Hampshire.
Sponsors: (Prime) Katherine Rogers

2020-2002 HB Sponsors: (Prime) Katherine Rogers
2020-2003 HB Sponsors: (Prime) Katherine Rogers

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

Seems to be some incongruity here.

She has no standing, as they say sometimes.
 
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

New Hampshire House State Representative, Katherine Rogers (D-Concord), pleaded guilty to assaulting a citizen during a ballot recount in 2016.

Dem Rep Pleads Guilty to Assaulting a Citizen; Then It Got UGLY...
 
Hashtags I use when tweeting this stuff:
#RKBA #2A #secondamendment #civilright #civilrights #freedom #liberty #tyrant #tyranny #constitution #usconstitution
 
Sorry to say that Mass gun owners allowed this to happen by not having enough people active and enguaged

Its the same way Mittens was allowed to be the GOP nominee for Gov in Mass as well as Senate in Utah
Fair answer. There needs to be a legislative way to deal with this. On a battle field it blows to be the defender because all you can do is react to the attacking force
until you can get squared away enough to move forward. We need a plan, we need to get organized. The opposition is better organized they show up in their "game jersey's"
and they speak out. We are mostly individualists who value that position. However in this context we need to come together or we will lose.
 
We need a plan, we need to get organized. The opposition is better organized they show up in their "game jersey's"
and they speak out. We are mostly individualists who value that position. However in this context we need to come together or we will lose.
Much like the Irish. Wonderful fighters, but as a culture they were trained/expected to fight as ferocious individuals. Which works great until you engage troops like the Romans, who were trained as one tight knit group.
 
Thats not what is being discussed or proposed...I dont feel like you're being honest about this discussion.....furthermore you're example demonstrates exactly my point.....that the voter gets multiple votes under whats being proposed.
I feel you're making the mistake that you claim I'm making.

If there are 4 people to be elected to a single district, and there are 10 total names on the ballot (whatever combination of R/D/L/G/I), no one's franchise is taken if a voter finds zero, two, five, six, even nine of those candidates acceptable and worthy of the office, and checks every acceptable name on the ballot. The entire ballot is the voter's "one vote".

The winners are those with the highest number of votes cast for them -- just exactly as it is today.

The only real change would be an end to strategic voting, where you vote against candidates by voting for someone you don't support, but who you think can win.

cf. The 2016 Presidential Election, for a perfect example of people voting out of fear of the other side winning.
 
Probably the easiest way to deal with this kind of crap is to pass a bill that requires any sort of firearms legislation to be brought before the people for a vote.
Absolutely not. Voter initiatives produce some of the worst laws.

And just like has been seen in Maine and Mass when it comes to cannabis legalization, the voter initiative produces a law that is just like any other law: it can be screwed with by the legislature and screwed over by the executive.

I might support a voters' veto, which lets the voters overturn a law passed by the legislature. It would have to be carefully crafted.
 
100% right, Craig.

Majority rule isn't liberty. It's "pure democracy," which is a great soundbite but is the same thing as mob rule - 51% voting about what happens to 49%. Or famously and grossly put, two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner (with even worse math to the loser). Historically all pure democracies have been great stories written about elites with democratic rights over others without such rights. Ideally, government is created to create a space in which natural rights are defended from infringement (i.e., where such freedoms can be exercised) - that's liberty. It's literally in the USA's founding documents. If one believes people should be free from coercion and able to act as they will so long as they do not coerce another or impinge on their freedoms, then, well, a system with certain rights insulated from mob vote should make sense.
 
More anti-gun bills have been posted.
Something must be in the water in district 3 in Manchester. The spouse of this rep used to have A with a pro-liberty group and has since dropped to a F...

2020-2150 HB Title: repealing limited liability for manufacturers, distributors, dealers or importers of firearms or ammunition.
Sponsors: (Prime) Andrew Bouldin
 
More anti-gun bills have been posted.
Something must be in the water in district 3 in Manchester. The spouse of this rep used to have A with a pro-liberty group and has since dropped to a F...

2020-2150 HB Title: repealing limited liability for manufacturers, distributors, dealers or importers of firearms or ammunition.
Sponsors: (Prime) Andrew Bouldin
I thought this was a federal thing.

Where can I find the text of these, the link seems to just have the titles.
 
I thought this was a federal thing.
Where can I find the text of these, the link seems to just have the titles.
These are just the Legislative Service Request (LSR) summary titles, actual bills come later.

Once the LSR has been turned into a bill and signed off on by its sponsors, it is assigned to a committee. Weak bills usually die at this point, but with the Dems in control, who knows?
 
Last edited:
The text is not published until late December. This is only a warning on where the Dems are going
 
You seem to want to quibble about the details and diffferences while totally ignoring my point

Dems want to take a simple/effective/constitutional and proven means of running elections and turn it into a complicated shit show in order to manipulate outcomes of elections

I am opposed to that

Those details and differences make all the difference. You keep ignoring that, and talking about this bill that I don't support.
 
Back
Top Bottom