NH Alert: SB116. Still on the Gov's desk. ***Vetoed***

Yes I am, hence this bill being of exceptional importance to me. It seems this bill is very much intended as a remedy to cases exactly like mine (Denial from local police chief with no criminal record).

What I am finding (and I included it in my written testimony) is that more and more people are being denied for minor things or worse, for police incompetence. People are being denied for arrest records where they were arrested and never charged. In some cases those arrests were false arrests. So you sadly are not alone and this is why we need to remove the licensing requirement. The police have abused their power and so the punishment is to take it away. And the be frank, they never should have had that power to begin with.

BTW I forgot to mention, Simkin testified. Yes that Simkin. The one who had his license revoked my his Mass chief and he said it cost him $100K to get it back. He called it "the most expensive plastic card you will ever see."
 
Attached is what Earl Sweeney prepared for the Department of Safety as their testimony. Apparently he has gone senile (maybe he always was). Further, the Department of Safety troopers (Sgt Sean Haggerty and Colonel Robert Quinn) and who testified must have agreed with it as they submitted it.

Certainly, gang members and drug dealers from south of the border will come to regard the streets in our cities and towns as "free fire" zones....Tourist families who already in fear of guns because of the daily drumbeat of incidents on the news, may hesitate to come to a tourist destination that they regards as a return to the Wild West.

imppgWT.jpg
 
Attached is what Earl Sweeney prepared for the Department of Safety as their testimony. Apparently he has gone senile (maybe he always was). Further, the Department of Safety troopers (Sgt Sean Haggerty and Colonel Robert Quinn) and who testified must have agreed with it as they submitted it.

Showing YET ONCE AGAIN why the serfs hate the police...

This isn't the middle east, when the shit hits the fan they aren't going to be able to blend back in to the public. They apparently don't get it.
 
Those arguements seem to be in line with the level of mind boggling absurdity that was presented in the senate hearing (i.e. cops will no longer be able to stop people loitering outside of businesses and pat them down and then get their CCW license to be sure the weapon is legal). I would love have it explained to me how exactly the police will lose their momentary advantage over someone pulling a gun at a traffic stop, as if this would somehow in someway have any influence over a situation like that. Also I'm sure if this were to pass we would see a huge decrease in tourist revenue from people no longer willing to risk driving through to see the foliage because its too dangerous. Absolute insanity, I just refuse to believe they actually believe any of the stuff they are positing, in reality its that they want to be the ones with the guns, not you.
 
I would go further, the chiefs are prohibited from the the PR/L licenses and records being made public per:
Section 159:6-a
159:6-a Confidentiality of Licenses. – Notwithstanding the provisions of RSA 91-A:4 or any other provision of law to the contrary, all papers and records, including applications, pertaining to the issuance of licenses pursuant to RSA 159:6 and all licenses issued pursuant to said section are subject to inspection only by law enforcement officials of the state or any political subdivision thereof or of the federal government while in the performance of official duties or upon written consent, for good cause shown, of the superior court in the county where said license was issued.

However, they are not prohibited from asking all of the other towns about if you are eligible when you apply and they run a NICS check, so they have used the licensing system requests to create a defacto database of those with P/RL... It appears that they now have a "list of names" that are potentially carrying at all times..

Lists are the first step to collection. Just ask NYC...

Boys, we have a real issue on our hands... That is why they had at least 6 uniformed officers at the hearing today. 2 from DOS and 4 others. There may have been more.
 
Attached is what Earl Sweeney prepared for the Department of Safety as their testimony. Apparently he has gone senile (maybe he always was). Further, the Department of Safety troopers (Sgt Sean Haggerty and Colonel Robert Quinn) and who testified must have agreed with it as they submitted it.

While I agree with your comments about Sweeney, do we know that he actually prepared this talking point for the DoS?
 
I would think in the "Live Free or Die" state, hollow arguments against constitutional carry are painfully obvious. The people of New Hampshire aren't sheep and both sides of the house know this. I'll be very disappointed if this doesn't make it through.
 
Showing YET ONCE AGAIN why the serfs hate the police...

This isn't the middle east, when the shit hits the fan they aren't going to be able to blend back in to the public. They apparently don't get it.

agreed - but I'm going to add to that pile all the politicians that trade our freedoms for power.
 
While I agree with your comments about Sweeney, do we know that he actually prepared this talking point for the DoS?

At the moment we can only rely on what the two DoS officers testifying said, which was that Sweeney wrote the testimony. This came about because Rep. Burt confronted them about the "free fire zone" comment in the written testimony.
 
Here is the first hour and 20 minutes of the HB582 hearing. The videographer had to leave before the hearing finished. Ian Freeman recorded the rest of the hearing. I will post that as soon as it is up.

non-embed link: http://youtu.be/-g1M2k74bcc

[video=youtube_share;-g1M2k74bcc]http://youtu.be/-g1M2k74bcc[/video]
 
Wow. Not a single logical reason presented by the defense.

The woman in the blue jacket toward the end did a good job, speaking to Vermont and their success with low homicide rates, same as Alaska.
 
So the AG is testifying that the DOS and the police chiefs would be at risk if this bill passes because the state would be required to issue conceal carry permit ​even if the applicant can not legally own a firearm. Sounds like they are worried they will get sued if someone gets a permit and goes out of state on a shooting spree. I don't see a problem with requiring an NICS check for the permit if this is their only issue.
 
While I agree with your comments about Sweeney, do we know that he actually prepared this talking point for the DoS?

The emails he wrote back when the state tried to change the P&R license show that he's no friend of gun owners, and critical thinking is not his strong suit.

This testimony looks like something he would write.
 
We are working to get rid of the license. Why would we agree to giving the government anything? We are looking to take things away from the government. Think about what you said again.

This bill does not get rid of the permit - it retains it for reciprocity in other states.

update: and I'll add that it is optional and not required
 
Last edited:
Showing YET ONCE AGAIN why the serfs hate the police...

This isn't the middle east, when the shit hits the fan they aren't going to be able to blend back in to the public. They apparently don't get it.

Its not ALL state police......I've met some NHSP that were great.....have also met some that would be better suited to working for a eastern european police agency under communism.........

The officer that has shown up to this years hearings has not had his facts straight and has been openly hostile to a couple of reps and folks that have shown up to the hearings..........not winning the hearts and minds of NH's citizens by acting the way he has.....real chip on his shoulder.

I get the fact that he's probably not too happy about having to do sweeney's bidding but he really should get his facts straight and understand and properly represent the basics accurately........silly things like the fact that NHSP enforce fed laws all the time.....so to claim that they dont or CANT is silly.

So are statements about how universal background checks will reduce interstate trafficking of firearms........which by the way is already a felony if transferred between citizens of two different states w/o going through an FFL.............

Folks are losing respect for the state police because they are not sticking to the facts and constantly misrepresent law....same goes for the AG office........but we all need to recognize that leadership of both of these orgs are politically appointed and under the thumb of Hassan........

So while ordinary rank and file officers may be more impartial.....the upper levels are not.....they are representing and forwarding the political agenda of Hassan
 
Okay so the "License" would be as a courtesy, okay Great! Then it needs to be a shall issue, using the same so called background they use now.

Yes, we are in agreement. The problem is that "suitability" was never defined and the AG is complaining that the new bill will require the towns to issue permits to felons or other prohibited persons opening themselves up to lawsuits.
 
The officer that has shown up to this years hearings has not had his facts straight and has been openly hostile to a couple of reps and folks that have shown up to the hearings..........not winning the hearts and minds of NH's citizens by acting the way he has.....real chip on his shoulder.

Do you remember his name? I wonder if it's the same trooper who worked with Earl during the P&R app change fiasco.
 
So the AG is testifying that the DOS and the police chiefs would be at risk if this bill passes because the state would be required to issue conceal carry permit ​even if the applicant can not legally own a firearm. Sounds like they are worried they will get sued if someone gets a permit and goes out of state on a shooting spree. I don't see a problem with requiring an NICS check for the permit if this is their only issue.

Permit to CARRY CONCEALED does not convey PERMIT TO OWN

Same as being legally "not prohibited" ("Allowed to own") does not convey ability to legally carry concealed/loaded

It may seem to be a silly point but it is in fact true and accurate as they are wholly separate and unrelated
 
Permit to CARRY CONCEALED does not convey PERMIT TO OWN

Same as being legally "not prohibited" ("Allowed to own") does not convey ability to legally carry concealed/loaded

It may seem to be a silly point but it is in fact true and accurate as they are wholly separate and unrelated

Understood - one of the other points the AG had was that unless there was at least a federal prohibition check - other states would be unlikely to enter into agreement for reciprocity. I would like the licence (I just checked mine - it is indeed called a license and not a permit) to mean something so I can carry in other states.
 
Its not ALL state police......I've met some NHSP that were great.....have also met some that would be better suited to working for a eastern european police agency under communism.........

The officer that has shown up to this years hearings has not had his facts straight and has been openly hostile to a couple of reps and folks that have shown up to the hearings..........not winning the hearts and minds of NH's citizens by acting the way he has.....real chip on his shoulder.

I get the fact that he's probably not too happy about having to do sweeney's bidding but he really should get his facts straight and understand and properly represent the basics accurately........silly things like the fact that NHSP enforce fed laws all the time.....so to claim that they dont or CANT is silly.

So are statements about how universal background checks will reduce interstate trafficking of firearms........which by the way is already a felony if transferred between citizens of two different states w/o going through an FFL.............

Folks are losing respect for the state police because they are not sticking to the facts and constantly misrepresent law....same goes for the AG office........but we all need to recognize that leadership of both of these orgs are politically appointed and under the thumb of Hassan........

So while ordinary rank and file officers may be more impartial.....the upper levels are not.....they are representing and forwarding the political agenda of Hassan

How many of the "good ones" testified FOR CC?
 
Back
Top Bottom