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

Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
1,631
Likes
1,365
Feedback: 4 / 0 / 0
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
 
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?
 
She's the one who bears a striking resemblance to:
iu

correct?

I need to keep my hideous Donks straight.

Edit: Yup:
maxresdefault.jpg
 
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:
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
 
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:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Whether I'm happy/not happy is irrelevent

Its a matter of whats constitutional....

The NH Constitution indicates that the winning candidate be the one with a plurality of votes

You want to change that then you need to amend the constitution of nh
Nothing I've supported would do any such thing.

Approval voting still produces a winning candidate with a plurality of votes.
 
Back
Top Bottom