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

vorgain said:
So, if the 29th itself does not count toward the five days, today would be the fourth day.

Or does the 29th count as Day 1?

Basically, could we be waiting until tomorrow night to find out what happens with this?
Click to expand...

The 29th counts, it is inclusive.

NH is following an opinion written based on the MA Constitution, basically they wrote that since no legal holidays existed at the time the constitution was created, they should be treated as Sunday's.

The same issue was presented under the Massachusetts Constitution, and resolved in Opinion of the Justices, 291 Mass. 572. Although that Constitution contains no express exclusion from the period allotted for action by the executive, the Justices held that both Sundays and holidays should be excluded. Their opinion *410410 pointed out that when the Constitution was adopted no provision existed for legal holidays although Sunday was strictly set apart by statute. The Justices reasoned that it was intended that the Governor should have five "secular" or "official days when business ordinarily would be transacted" (pp. 576, 577), in which to consider legislation submitted for his approval and that therefore holidays and Sundays were to be excluded.
Click to expand...
 
timbo said:
Isn't the legal holiday exemption in conflict with the NH State Constitution?
Click to expand...

The constitution doesn't mention holidays in article 44.

[Art.] 44. [Veto to Bills.] Every bill which shall have passed both houses of the general court, shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the governor, if he approves, he shall sign it, but if not, he shall return it, with his objections, to that house in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it; if after such reconsideration, two-thirds of that house shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with such objections, to the other house, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and, if approved by two-thirds of that house, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of persons, voting for or against the bill, shall be entered on the journal of each house respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the governor within five days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law in like manner as if he had signed it unless the legislature, by their adjournment, prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.
Click to expand...
 
NHAtHeart said:
They are basing this on an opinion from the 1960's that used a court opinion from MA as a basis.
Click to expand...

I would think that if this be the case, then Article 44 of the NH Constitution needs to go through a legal amendment process, not just some legal "opinon". The law per Article 44 is very clear.
 
timbo said:
I would think that if this be the case, then [Art.] 44. [Veto to Bills.] of the NH Constitution needs to go through a legal amendment process, not just some opinion. The law per Article 44 is very clear.
Click to expand...

Agreed, it could possibly be defeated in court if this opinion is in direct conflict to numerous previous interpretations.
 
Because there were no legal holidays at the time the constitution was written I can understand the ruling from 1961 even if I may not fully agree with it. However, there is still grounds for a case for this and any bill that was presented on the 29th that gets vetoed. According to RSA 288:1 July 4th is the official Holiday so actions should have been taken by Friday. Under this ruling an administrative holiday (July 3rd) dictated by the executive branch should not have a bearing on the timeline.
 
NHAtHeart said:
The 29th counts, it is inclusive.

NH is following an opinion written based on the MA Constitution, basically they wrote that since no legal holidays existed at the time the constitution was created, they should be treated as Sunday's.
Click to expand...

Right, I just read through that case text a bit more and found:

3. The constitutional provision (Pt. II, Art. 44) affording the Governor five days to consider bills passed by both houses implies that approval given after adjournment must be manifested within five days after the day of presentation of the bills to him, and in computing the five-day period, the day of presentation is to be counted, while Sundays as well as legal holidays are to be excepted.
Click to expand...

So it looks like we're either getting a veto today or a passing without signature.

Here's hoping.
 
jeepchute said:
Because there were no legal holidays at the time the constitution was written I can understand the ruling from 1961 even if I may not fully agree with it. However, there is still grounds for a case for this and any bill that was presented on the 29th that gets vetoed. According to RSA 288:1 July 4th is the official Holiday so actions should have been taken by Friday. Under this ruling an administrative holiday (July 3rd) dictated by the executive branch should not have a bearing on the timeline.
Click to expand...

Agreed, I think that's where the battle would be, they are arguing because July 3rd is the observation of the legal holiday, it is therefore also a legal holiday. However according to the constitution the Saturday is a business day, therefore that should be the only day that is exempted based on Opinion 402.
 
It's taking me forever to get my lawn mowed today. I keep coming into my shop to check on the status of this.
 
frenchman said:
Ok. I'm dumb. If, as you guys say, the 29th counts, and it was Monday, how is Friday the 3rd not the fifth day?
Click to expand...

They're contention is that the 3rd was an observed holiday and doesn't count, the 4th an actual holiday, doesn't count, and Sunday doesn't count according to the constitution. Therefore today is it. I don't agree.
 
Between 6/29 and 7/3? What Holliday would that be? And what's an observed Holliday? They're making shit up as they go. First, it wasn't even clear if the fourth counts, and now this? Bullshit.
 
Last edited:
frenchman said:
Ok. I'm dumb. If, as you guys say, the 29th counts, and it was Monday, how is Friday the 3rd not the fifth day?
Click to expand...

They are saying Friday is considered a legal holiday, as is Saturday according to the response someone posted earlier.

I don't think they can have it both ways, the opinion 402 rules in our favor on that as it only exempts July 4th, not the 3rd AND 4th. Meanwhile the 3rd was a Monday, so in that year the 4th was observed on the 4th.
 
Mark my words, if it's not vetoed yet, and this appears to be a stepping stone for her, she will just backdate the veto, and there's nothing we can do.
damnit, I hate politicians with a passion.
 
Her Statement
Governor Maggie Hassan released the following message after vetoing SB 116:
“By the authority vested in me, pursuant to part II, Article 44 of the New Hampshire Constitution, on July 6th, 2015, I have vetoed Senate Bill 116, repealing the license requirement for carrying a concealed pistol or revolver.
“New Hampshire’s current concealed carry permitting law has worked well for nearly a century – safeguarding the Second Amendment rights of our citizens while helping to keep the Granite State one of the safest states in the nation. Our concealed weapons permitting system gives an important oversight role to local law enforcement, while allowing for appeals through appropriate channels.
“Throughout the process on Senate Bill 116 I have heard concerns from law enforcement and public safety officials, as well as citizens across New Hampshire, about allowing individuals to carry concealed guns without a license. They oppose removing the protections that the licensing process offers to help ensure that potentially dangerous individuals are not allowed to carry hidden weapons and I share their concerns.
“I support the Second Amendment and I believe that Americans have a right to responsibly own guns for personal safety, hunting, and recreation. However, I also recognize the need to balance the rights of gun owners with the rights of all New Hampshire citizens to be safe in their communities. With this consideration, I believe that New Hampshire’s current law is appropriate and responsible.
“Further, the ability of states to responsibly and appropriately regulate the concealed carry of firearms is a standard that has been reaffirmed in its constitutional soundness time and time again by the United State Supreme Court. In the majority decision in the 2008 Supreme Court case of District of Columbia v. Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, ‘Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues ... The majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.’
“New Hampshire law already allows for the open carry of handguns without a permit, and it also ensures that an appeal process is in place when a permit is denied.
“Many proponents of Senate Bill 116 cite the states that allow the concealed carry of firearms without a permit. However, the gun laws of a state cannot be viewed in isolation of one another, and upon broader examination, many of the states referenced in testimony by proponents have far stricter regulations at the point of original purchase than New Hampshire does, including more vigorous background checks for the purchase of guns.
“Even Texas, which still issues permits for concealed carry, does so while requiring the submission of ‘Information regarding any psychiatric, drug, alcohol, or criminal history,’ in issuing its permits. In fact, according to the New Hampshire Department of Safety, as recently as 2010, the State of Texas declined to recognize New Hampshire resident pistol/revolver licenses asserting that New Hampshire gun laws do not meet the standards set forth in Texas law and stating ‘…New Hampshire authorities or agents are not required to conduct background checks, including searches of the NCIC and III databases on all applicants for a concealed handgun permit prior to issuance of the permit.’
“In his book Live Free or Die, Republican Governor Mel Thomson said that the current permitting process for concealed carry in New Hampshire is ‘a sensible handgun law.’ That is as true today as it was then. By allowing Senate Bill 116 to become law, we would be eliminating a responsible step from our tradition of common-sense gun laws and in doing so compromising the public safety of our citizens. Therefore, I am vetoing Senate Bill 116.”
Click to expand...
 

Similar threads

Amber Alert Chicopee
2
Replies
42
Views
793
Garys
Garys
  • Poll
NH - Governor's race
Replies
17
Views
458
Grendizer138
Grendizer138
Mall of NH shooting
2
Replies
50
Views
2K
hunt4riches
H
Alert! Col. Macgregor Warns Dems Plan To Turn Guns On US Citizens Once Military Recruits Illegals
Replies
16
Views
1K
240Geezer
2
*UPDATE 4/8* Goin on 4 months and still at “local pd”
2 3 4
Replies
92
Views
3K
JDL
JDL
Back
Top Bottom