NH ACTION ALERT: HB1589 ***DEFEATED***

[MikeRizz]

It gets worse! Her latest reply!

" This bill as amended pertains to commercial sales only. "

How does she NOT know what is in a bill she is voting on? Wow. Just Wow! I did of course reply to her again and set her straight.

 

[atilla]

that woman is positively unreal.

 

[ChevyGuy91]

that woman is positively unreal.

Remove her.

 

[BBQ.Uncle]

It gets worse! Her latest reply!

" This bill as amended pertains to commercial sales only. "

How does she NOT know what is in a bill she is voting on? ...

She has to pass the bill in order to find out what's in it. Standard 'D' operating procedure.

 

[DispositionMatrix]

Dude, Bill Maher all over her page.

I couldn't help but post on her complaint about laws on women's health being exactly how she treats us with guns.

Gun restrictionism is the left's white whale, just as abortion is for the right.

 

[DispositionMatrix]

It gets worse! Her latest reply!

" This bill as amended pertains to commercial sales only. "

How does she NOT know what is in a bill she is voting on? Wow. Just Wow! I did of course reply to her again and set her straight.

She does not know because she does not care. In her worldview guns Я bad. Trying to educate her is pointless since she has already reached a conclusion.

 

[soloman02]

She does not know because she does not care. In her worldview guns Я bad. Trying to educate her is pointless since she has already reached a conclusion.

If you really wanna piss her off, tell her you are going to push for a hefty tax on abortion or womens health insurance if she is going to push for a tax on your rights.

 

[RadiCS]

Wow that hurt my brain...

 

[MikeRizz]

So I replied with:

" In all due respect, you are incorrect. Please go and read the bill again! This bill is about the CITIZENS, not commercial sales!!! You could not be any more wrong. It would prevent the average citizen from selling one of their own guns to anyone, a husband/wife, brother, sister, neighbor, etc... without the use of a FFL holder ( who will also charge a fee ).

How do you NOT know what is in a bill you are voting on? < Sigh> "

Her reply ( at least she says she will re-read it ):

" I will re- do, and review as you suggest! my understanding is the bill left the committee 10 to 8, path as amended and the amendment carries more weight, than what you describe.

Thank you for speaking up for what you believe, as well. I really do appreciate this, as well as I appreciate the original content of your letter - because it was original + from NH. each of us have received close to 500 emails re: this bill. "

 

[atilla]

oh, you got a lot of letters? so did the other reps?

GOOD.

 

[drgrant]

Unfortunately, I don't think they care about cost either. Doesn't affect them but rather people they don't like--gun owners, who in their minds are equivalent to child murderers. We are dealing with gun restriction ideologues; they won't be persuaded by appeals for our plight.

While this is true there are probably several "weebly wobblies" voting on this bill at some juncture or another. You need to use tact when appealing to them, some of them may not have a huge emotional stake in the game but are voting based on the information supplied to them. Sometimes this requires appealing to things that are more understandable to the average person, like paying taxes and fees for something. Another analogy you might use with such people is along the lines of this... "Many NH residents consider guns to be tools, how would you feel about having to pay an additional fee on buying or selling a drill, a hammer, or an axe? Sounds silly, doesn't it?"

I would also explain that if this bill passes, it will turn a bunch of their constituents into criminals because many will unintentionally violate this law. "You and I are here talking about this law, but there are thousands of people who don't know any better and will not know about it whether it is passed or not. " Forcing a dealer transfer on guns is a bizzare concept to folks who own firearms in a state like New Hampshire.

-Mike

 

[noddaduma]

Jack Flanagan is one of my reps and informed me that he will be speaking against it. I gave him some additional food for thought to consider beyond the typical 2A-thumping talking points.

 

[ChevyGuy91]

Even though I will probably oppose this bill, I do not appreciate threats.



Carolyn Gargasz

Threat? I said I would work to ensure they do not get reelected. That is a threat these days?

 

[xtry51]

Threat? I said I would work to ensure they do not get reelected. That is a threat these days?

Yes. Never threaten the noblemen. They'll send the king's men against you.

 

[soloman02]

Threat? I said I would work to ensure they do not get reelected. That is a threat these days?

Here is her contact info guys:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376336

You should reply back:

Frankly, the government is supposed to fear the people. And guess what? You are part of the government.

You are supposed to be fearful that if you vote poorly, the people will seek to oust you and vote for a better candidate.

In fact, due to your snarky attitude, I'm going to find someone from Hollis to run against you in the primary and donate money and time to them.

So how do you like them apples?

 

[NH_Realtor]

Just got this back from Andy Renzullo

Of course I will fight this bill, but I fear we 2nd amendment folks may be in the minority. Elections do have consequences. Unfortunately people have short memories and periodically elect anti-2nd Amendment people. So please,

Remember In November,

Representative Andy Renzullo

 

[RadiCS]

I got a good response..

Of course I will fight this bill, but I fear we 2nd amendment folks may be in the minority. Elections do have consequences. Unfortunately people have short memories and periodically elect anti-2nd Amendment people. So please,

Remember In November,

Representative Andy Renzullo

 

[strangenh]

I REALLY don't think she cares what reality is. That is the major problem with these people. They will say whatever they have to to get the sheep all stirred so they can have thier way.

They will bold face lie and cheat to push thier agenda.

Then why send anyone any emails at all?

Look, that's fine what you say, but this is an effort to find 20 or so votes who are on the fence. It behooves us to formulate intelligent responses that might make them think. Gut reactions against someone's presumed gut reactions are not going to do any good.

 

[strangenh]

Threat? I said I would work to ensure they do not get reelected. That is a threat these days?

It shouldn't be, but "do this or I will do that" isn't going to sit well even with people on our side. Leave it implicit. Like, "I ask that you vote against this bill. As a point of reference, I plan to only vote for people who opposed this bill and to work to support their campaigns against those who would sacrifice privacy and liberty for the illusion of security."

 

[strangenh]

That was a really good response you sent. I think the key is you pointed out that it stops all SELLING to friends, family, etc. without a dealer. The whole bill is intended as and aimed at creating a registry of gun owners. That will soon be followed by a registry of guns. And we all know what in time tends to follow those.

So I replied with:

" In all due respect, you are incorrect. Please go and read the bill again! This bill is about the CITIZENS, not commercial sales!!! You could not be any more wrong. It would prevent the average citizen from selling one of their own guns to anyone, a husband/wife, brother, sister, neighbor, etc... without the use of a FFL holder ( who will also charge a fee ).

How do you NOT know what is in a bill you are voting on? < Sigh> "

Her reply ( at least she says she will re-read it ):

" I will re- do, and review as you suggest! my understanding is the bill left the committee 10 to 8, path as amended and the amendment carries more weight, than what you describe.

Thank you for speaking up for what you believe, as well. I really do appreciate this, as well as I appreciate the original content of your letter - because it was original + from NH. each of us have received close to 500 emails re: this bill. "

 

[drgrant]

Does anyone here actually know a gun owner that supports private sales going through a dealer and NICS?

If you start to dig, a lot of gun owners will cave on this, or they'll make up some weebly wobbly feeling about it, etc. I find when discussing these kinds of things its better to focus on the unintended consequences of the bills rather than the stuff that "feels good" to them. EG "So what if a loved one, doesn't know about this law and gives his relative a shotgun or something like that as a gift, and through no actions of his own, ends up getting charged with a felony for something that isn't even a violent crime? "

-Mike

 

[nhpoke]

If you start to dig, a lot of gun owners will cave on this, or they'll make up some weebly wobbly feeling about it, etc. I find when discussing these kinds of things its better to focus on the unintended consequences of the bills rather than the stuff that "feels good" to them. EG "So what if a loved one, doesn't know about this law and gives his relative a shotgun or something like that as a gift, and through no actions of his own, ends up getting charged with a felony for something that isn't even a violent crime? "

-Mike

Your example is good, but the "other side" can provide equally good examples to gun owners...
"Don't you think it should be illegal to sell a gun to a felon or child abuser?" Well, of course.
"Then don't you support background checks?" Sure I do <<<---- So you support HB1589!

Unfortunately people actually need to pay attention to the details of this thing to really understand what it is about (as is obvious from the reply from Ms. Vail).

 

[soloman02]

Your example is good, but the "other side" can provide equally good examples to gun owners...
"Don't you think it should be illegal to sell a gun to a felon or child abuser?" Well, of course.
"Then don't you support background checks?" Sure I do <<<---- So you support HB1589!

Unfortunately people actually need to pay attention to the details of this thing to really understand what it is about (as is obvious from the reply from Ms. Vail).

The answer to that person should be "It is already illegal. RSA 159:7 states you can't sell to a felon."

Then they will respond "But how will you know if they are a felon?" To which you reply: "NH requires that I only sell to a person I personally know or if they provide a pistol & revolver license for which a background check was done by the police. Therefore no new law is needed." (RSA 159:14).

 

[nhpoke]

I agree that "should" be the response. It normally isn't .

 

[ChevyGuy91]

The answer to that person should be "It is already illegal. RSA 159:7 states you can't sell to a felon."

Then they will respond "But how will you know if they are a felon?" To which you reply: "NH requires that I only sell to a person I personally know or if they provide a pistol & revolver license for which a background check was done by the police. Therefore no new law is needed." (RSA 159:14).

That is solid. I should have said something like that.

 

[DispositionMatrix]

20 Democrats have to vote no to kill this bill?

 

[nhpoke]

20 Democrats have to vote no to kill this bill?

For it to be killed in the House, yes. After that it will go to the Senate (assuming it passes, of course).

I *assume* this will have to go through appropriations as well.

Finally to the Governor, assuming everyone else approves.

 

[DispositionMatrix]

Thanks. I was just not sure of that number. Too bad we do not have a Dem-specific list. I would like to send a more targeted email.

 

[nhpoke]

Gimme about 10 minutes... I should be able to generate one...

 

[soloman02]

20 Democrats have to vote no to kill this bill?

For it to be killed in the House, yes. After that it will go to the Senate (assuming it passes, of course).

I *assume* this will have to go through appropriations as well.

Finally to the Governor, assuming everyone else approves.

That 20 number assumes no republican defections and also assumes all republicans show up to vote. During the Marijuana bill, 60 house members (a mix of both parties) didn't show up to vote.