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

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
18,235
Likes
11,973
Really!? OK. Perhaps you have some sort of explanation how it is that a mob of one enforced her will on the Massachusetts gun owner.
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
 

Mother Deuce

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jul 7, 2019
Messages
261
Likes
153
Location
Shangri La, Live free or Die
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.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
18,235
Likes
11,973
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 have a legislative solution.....turn out and vote

Problem is getting people to get off their arses and making an effort
 
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Jan 1, 2014
Messages
1,388
Likes
1,160
Location
Manchester, NH
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.
 
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
2,895
Likes
1,703
Location
NH
We have a legislative solution.....turn out and vote

Problem is getting people to get off their arses and making an effort
We can't count on Gov. Chris to continue to save our rights! Go to the statehouse whenever there is legislation and go vote!!!
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
18,235
Likes
11,973
We can't count on Gov. Chris to continue to save our rights! Go to the statehouse whenever there is legislation and go vote!!!
To your point.....this is why all of us need to volunteer to help the 2020 GOP candidates win here in NH........and ensure that Sununu gets re-elected

If we cant re-elect Sununu after he vetoed all of those bills it will send a message.....and not a good one.

We also cannot afford to leave any seats in NH House unchallenged.....in 2018 there were something like 25 seats with no GOP candidate to run against a Donk.......so we in essence gave them those seats
 

KBCraig

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
11,009
Likes
6,024
Location
Granite State of Mind
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.
 

KBCraig

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
11,009
Likes
6,024
Location
Granite State of Mind
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.
 

strangenh

NES Member
Rating - 100%
36   0   0
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
6,543
Likes
1,627
Location
NH
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.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
18,235
Likes
11,973
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.
Please go back and read the bill

http://gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/billText.aspx?id=363

It makes a mess out of everything from primaries to general elections for everthing up to and including presidential primaries

It takes a very very simple process which currently exists and turns it into a complicated shit show which voters are sure to f*** up.....

Voters can barely handle the current simple process and you're supporting making it MORE complicated and fraught/easily manipulated for fraud?

No thanks

One office
One Vote
One uncomplicated Winner
 

KBCraig

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
11,009
Likes
6,024
Location
Granite State of Mind

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
18,235
Likes
11,973
You keep attacking RCV as if I'm defending it. I never have. I said from the beginning that it's a shit show.

Approval voting is not RCV.
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
 
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
1,339
Likes
801
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
 

42!

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
6,665
Likes
4,028
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.
 
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
7,923
Likes
1,713
Location
WNW of MHT
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:
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
1,339
Likes
801
The text is not published until late December. This is only a warning on where the Dems are going
 

KBCraig

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
11,009
Likes
6,024
Location
Granite State of Mind
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.
 

KBCraig

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
11,009
Likes
6,024
Location
Granite State of Mind
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
Yes, she went a bit hard left.

You may have noticed that when they got married, he took her last name.

She and I used to be pretty good friends. The first time we saw each other in person at the state house, she asked if we could have a hug, and of course I said yes. It was bittersweet, because she and her husband will vote 100% against me. Her daughter sang the National Anthem to open one Session Day. I wish her/them well, but I regret that she went so anti-freedom.


I thought this was a federal thing.
Theoretically, NH residents could sue NH firearms manufacturers for harms caused by NH-manufactured firearms that weren't involved in interstate commerce.

The tricky thing is that everything after Wickard v. Filburn (1942) involves interstate commerce. If Mr. Rep. Bouldin wants to argue that firearms manufactured in NH and never transferred outside the state are not "interstate commerce", then he will have the full support of every firearms manufacturer, including those who only manufacture Title 2 items like silencers.

We'll all agree with him. The BATF will not.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
18,235
Likes
11,973
Those details and differences make all the difference. You keep ignoring that, and talking about this bill that I don't support.
KBCraig

I posted a link to the bill
I pointed out that it will increase complexity (massively)
I pointed out that it introduces a LOT more room for voter fraud amongst other things

But somehow you still want to argue about bullshit that doesnt matter.

If you dont support the bill then why are you argueing........you can bitch and moan all you want about this bill and the shenanigans they passed in Maine but the simple fact of the matter is that BOTH do/did what I illustrated above so who farking cares

If you wish to continue being obtuse then by all means be my guest......
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
18,235
Likes
11,973
Theoretically, NH residents could sue NH firearms manufacturers for harms caused by NH-manufactured firearms that weren't involved in interstate commerce.

The tricky thing is that everything after Wickard v. Filburn (1942) involves interstate commerce. If Mr. Rep. Bouldin wants to argue that firearms manufactured in NH and never transferred outside the state are not "interstate commerce", then he will have the full support of every firearms manufacturer, including those who only manufacture Title 2 items like silencers.

We'll all agree with him. The BATF will not.
If the bill were simply to assert that NH goods manufactured here in NH are not subject to interstate commerce/fed regulations (broadly) then I expect that you would be correct and NH businesses/manufacturers would fully support that bill

But thats not the case based on the title.

Given that the title of the bill involves the repeal of limited liability protections laws which are very beneficial and proper wrt firearms/ammunition/etc these companies know where their bread is buttered and I expect that legal council for these companies will be advising that they will incur a lot more liability/risk by supporting these bills

USSC has already ruled wrt firearms that interstate commerce is not unlimited/as broad as you seem to suggest.......recall that the first GFSZA was struck down as being too broad......the second version that Gingrich and the rest of the GOP passed under clinton in the 90's is much more narrowly defined and I do not believe that we've yet had a prosecution wrt a firearm that was manufactured in same state as the accused
 

edmorseiii

Navy Veteran
NES Member
Rating - 100%
18   0   0
Joined
Mar 25, 2008
Messages
19,324
Likes
10,147
Location
NH
USSC has already ruled wrt firearms that interstate commerce is not unlimited/as broad as you seem to suggest.......recall that the first GFSZA was struck down as being too broad......the second version that Gingrich and the rest of the GOP passed under clinton in the 90's is much more narrowly defined and I do not believe that we've yet had a prosecution wrt a firearm that was manufactured in same state as the accused
Didn't this just happen to a dude (vet, I believe) down in Kansas or some place? Homeboy bought a local made suppressor without getting a stamp and got hammered, brought it to court and Trump told them to ignore the case?

I have been drinking heavily lately, so my memory is a little hazy, take this for what it's worth.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
18,235
Likes
11,973
Didn't this just happen to a dude (vet, I believe) down in Kansas or some place? Homeboy bought a local made suppressor without getting a stamp and got hammered, brought it to court and Trump told them to ignore the case?

I have been drinking heavily lately, so my memory is a little hazy, take this for what it's worth.
If it did that doesnt ring a bell with me

Got a link?
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
18,235
Likes
11,973
Admittedly I havent read the case but on it face it sounds like a different argument than the interstate commerce discussion

Kansas and seven other states joined in a court filing urging the justices hear the appeal. The states said the court should affirm that the Second Amendment protects “silencers and other firearms accessories.”
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
18,235
Likes
11,973
Well that's what I get for trying to sound smart. [laugh]
Personally I wish we knew how high up the trump administration its urgings to SCOTUS went to stay out of the case and allow the conviction to remain

What a pile of BS
 
Top Bottom