NH Anti-gun bills in the Senate...

design

NES Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
1,277
Likes
708
I just found out that yesterday there were some articles written by a 'pro-2a' attorney in favor of this bill? "....As a Pro-2A activist, I do not feel the least bit threatened by this bill. The elderly need special protection because they are particularly vulnerable. …"

If there was actual abuse the correct thing to do would not be take the firearms, but to actually charge the alleged perpetrator with a crime and have a trial, however this bill does not due that. Instead, it allows the firearms to be seized before the person is even arrested or before a judge has even reviewed the case.

There is a significant amount of effort by a small fringe of well connected lobbyists to pass this bill. All we need your help to stop it. Call the Governor and then call a friend and ask him/her to do the same.

As JPK stated:
No warrant
No due process
No process for getting them returned
No storage requirements
No protections whatsoever.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
13,673
Likes
7,273
Shocked that the concord monitor even allowed a pro liberty/pro constitution letter to editor be published

Our Turn: Constitutional protections go up in smoke

WRT HR 696

On the eve of our country’s birthday, the New Hampshire Legislature voted to require that personal property must be confiscated upon a mere and potentially unfounded accusation, and the police do not even need a search or arrest warrant to begin the process.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
13,673
Likes
7,273
gencourt.state.nh.us site is down hard

No ping......

I guess thats one way for dems to try to sneak shit through and prevent folks from contacting them/complaining about the BS they're pushing
 

Racenet

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
2,340
Likes
1,064
Location
New Hampshire
gencourt.state.nh.us site is down hard

No ping......

I guess thats one way for dems to try to sneak shit through and prevent folks from contacting them/complaining about the BS they're pushing
I bet they smashed it with a hammer. [devil]
 

KBCraig

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
9,854
Likes
4,423
Location
Granite State of Mind
gencourt.state.nh.us site is down hard

No ping......

I guess thats one way for dems to try to sneak shit through and prevent folks from contacting them/complaining about the BS they're pushing
Their internet was out. I got an email from General Court to my secondary address this morning.
 

timbo

Navy Veteran
NES Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Dec 17, 2010
Messages
9,176
Likes
5,080
Location
Rt 3, NH
I just found out that yesterday there were some articles written by a 'pro-2a' attorney in favor of this bill? "....As a Pro-2A activist, I do not feel the least bit threatened by this bill. The elderly need special protection because they are particularly vulnerable. …"
Was this from the Women's Defense League? I saw this somewhere but I was on vacation so couldn't really follow up on it. If it is, my support for the WDL went down the commode.
 

design

NES Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
1,277
Likes
708
Granite Grok posted the following opinion pieces.

"...As a Pro-2A activist, I do not feel the least bit threatened by this bill. The elderly need special protection because they are particularly vulnerable. It is easy to distinguish between unlawful use of a deadly weapon and mere possession. Bad guys unlawfully use deadly weapons, good guys do not use deadly weapons to abuse, exploit or neglect the elderly, or anyone else for that matter.

HB 696 does not violate our Constitutional rights concerning search and seizure because it requires that the deadly weapon “be involved” in the abuse, exploitation, or neglect...."

Should the Police Prevent Abuse, Neglect, or Exploitation of the Elderly? - Granite Grok

"....The agreement made with the Governor’s office, the elderly advocates and the two gun groups who worked to remove the “gun grab” and make it an actual bill to protect the elders is well known
Those of us who worked for more than six months to help craft it have kept our word; now it’s the Governor turn."

HB696: Who You Gonna Believe? - Granite Grok
[bolding mine]…
#NotMyViews
#NotMyStatements
 
Rating - 100%
18   0   0
Joined
Dec 25, 2012
Messages
3,389
Likes
1,929
Location
nh
It really does not matter how the bill is written as we saw in Middlebury, Vt. when they ERPOed the guns from some little punks uncle because he threatened to steal them. Why? Because gunz that’s why...

Only fools and gun grabbers don’t see or care about the abuse this bill will bring.
 

Boston4567

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
543
Likes
470
Location
Merrimack Valley
Was this from the Women's Defense League? I saw this somewhere but I was on vacation so couldn't really follow up on it. If it is, my support for the WDL went down the commode.
Granite Grok posted the following opinion pieces.

"...As a Pro-2A activist, I do not feel the least bit threatened by this bill. The elderly need special protection because they are particularly vulnerable. It is easy to distinguish between unlawful use of a deadly weapon and mere possession. Bad guys unlawfully use deadly weapons, good guys do not use deadly weapons to abuse, exploit or neglect the elderly, or anyone else for that matter.

HB 696 does not violate our Constitutional rights concerning search and seizure because it requires that the deadly weapon “be involved” in the abuse, exploitation, or neglect...."

Should the Police Prevent Abuse, Neglect, or Exploitation of the Elderly? - Granite Grok

"....The agreement made with the Governor’s office, the elderly advocates and the two gun groups who worked to remove the “gun grab” and make it an actual bill to protect the elders is well known
Those of us who worked for more than six months to help craft it have kept our word; now it’s the Governor turn."

HB696: Who You Gonna Believe? - Granite Grok
[bolding mine]…
#NotMyViews
#NotMyStatements
I think we haven't been looking at the final HB696 conference committee bill. Unless I'm misunderstanding, there are no references to firearms whatsoever in the final bill:

http://gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/billText.aspx?id=14&txtFormat=html&sy=2019

The single provision that's still there is "[c]onfiscating any deadly weapons involved in the alleged abuse, exploitation or neglect." Note - it doesn't allow them to confiscate all your guns, just the ones specifically used to commit these crimes. Does anyone here honestly disagree with this?

I think we won this one already. I don't see any problem with this bill...
 

42!

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
5,718
Likes
2,832
The single provision that's still there is "[c]onfiscating any deadly weapons involved in the alleged abuse, exploitation or neglect." Note - it doesn't allow them to confiscate all your guns, just the ones specifically used to commit these crimes. Does anyone here honestly disagree with this?

I think we won this one already. I don't see any problem with this bill...
If they are taking one gun they will take them all. You seriously think they would only take one?

This whole thing seems redundant. There are already ROs that will allow the police to take all weapons, why do we need more?
 

Kevin_NH

NES Member
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
7,628
Likes
1,403
Location
WNW of MHT
I think we haven't been looking at the final HB696 conference committee bill. Unless I'm misunderstanding, there are no references to firearms whatsoever in the final bill:

http://gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/billText.aspx?id=14&txtFormat=html&sy=2019

The single provision that's still there is "[c]onfiscating any deadly weapons involved in the alleged abuse, exploitation or neglect." Note - it doesn't allow them to confiscate all your guns, just the ones specifically used to commit these crimes. Does anyone here honestly disagree with this?

I think we won this one already. I don't see any problem with this bill...
If a "deadly weapon" is truly "involved in the alleged abuse", police can already confiscate it (subject to the constraints of the law), so why is there a need to give police additional new powers of confiscation?
 

strangenh

NES Member
Rating - 100%
35   0   0
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
6,202
Likes
1,250
Location
NH
If a "deadly weapon" is truly "involved in the alleged abuse", police can already confiscate it (subject to the constraints of the law), so why is there a need to give police additional new powers of confiscation?
Exactly, and this new power is based on probable cause, without a warrant. If it were about exigent circumstances, the officer can already temporarily seize a weapon for officer (or bystander) safety. If it's about an abuse where a specific weapon is alleged to be part of it, then a warrant should certainly be used. Creating a legal situation where an officer SHALL seize things based on allegation only, with no warrant, is over the line.
 

Boston4567

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
543
Likes
470
Location
Merrimack Valley
If a "deadly weapon" is truly "involved in the alleged abuse", police can already confiscate it (subject to the constraints of the law), so why is there a need to give police additional new powers of confiscation?
Exactly, and this new power is based on probable cause, without a warrant. If it were about exigent circumstances, the officer can already temporarily seize a weapon for officer (or bystander) safety. If it's about an abuse where a specific weapon is alleged to be part of it, then a warrant should certainly be used. Creating a legal situation where an officer SHALL seize things based on allegation only, with no warrant, is over the line.
If you commit a crime, the police have a right to confiscate evidence, including implements used in that crime. If they have to enter your home, they would still have to get a warrant. Nothing in the bill purports to overrule the constitutional requirement to get a warrant.

I agree that the provision is redundant, but not in a way that's a danger to our rights. The bill as currently constituted is not a gun bill and will have no meaningful impact on 2A rights in the real world or even in theory. If I were lobbying the legislature I would lobby against this provision, but now we're at a point where it's going to the governor and there's no longer the possibility of amending it.

If 2A activists demand Sununu veto it and he does, we've needlessly politically weakened our only bulwark against waiting periods, UBC, red flag, AW bans, etc. by making him veto a popular, feel-good bill. And he's up for election next year. If we demand he veto it and he doesn't, maybe he starts to think 2A activists are just crazy people who don't matter, especially if he wins re-election anyway. And because of that, maybe he doesn't listen to us next time.

Take the long view here, this bill isn't something that affects 2A rights.
 

strangenh

NES Member
Rating - 100%
35   0   0
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
6,202
Likes
1,250
Location
NH
I entirely disagree about the bill not purporting to authorize certain actions without a warrant that would have otherwise required a warrant. I also agree it's not a "gun bill" but that doesn't make it a good bill, either.
 

edmorseiii

Navy Veteran
Rating - 100%
17   0   0
Joined
Mar 25, 2008
Messages
18,578
Likes
8,281
Location
NH
I entirely disagree about the bill not purporting to authorize certain actions without a warrant that would have otherwise required a warrant. I also agree it's not a "gun bill" but that doesn't make it a good bill, either.
Even if it is not a gun bill, I don't vague garbage legislation jamming up every day life. This is why I moved to NH, let's not let this shit go, guns or not.
 

SERE

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
20   0   0
Joined
Oct 30, 2010
Messages
5,189
Likes
3,524
Location
North of Boston
I think we haven't been looking at the final HB696 conference committee bill. Unless I'm misunderstanding, there are no references to firearms whatsoever in the final bill:

http://gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/billText.aspx?id=14&txtFormat=html&sy=2019

The single provision that's still there is "[c]onfiscating any deadly weapons involved in the alleged abuse, exploitation or neglect." Note - it doesn't allow them to confiscate all your guns, just the ones specifically used to commit these crimes. Does anyone here honestly disagree with this?

I think we won this one already. I don't see any problem with this bill...

You are missing the beginning of that sentence that covers their collective asses:

that officer shall use all means within reason to prevent further abuse, exploitation, or neglect including, but not limited to:

(a) Confiscating any deadly weapons involved in the alleged abuse, exploitation or neglect.

You have a safe door full of Glocks. Which 'black pistol' does the officer take?

It is legislative creep.
 

strangenh

NES Member
Rating - 100%
35   0   0
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
6,202
Likes
1,250
Location
NH
Even if it is not a gun bill, I don't vague garbage legislation jamming up every day life. This is why I moved to NH, let's not let this shit go, guns or not.
Quite so. The first place to stop legislation with unconstitutional provisions is voting it down at the legislative origin. The second is at the veto. The third is at the courts. The fact the courts could interpret it to require a warrant, doesn't justify waiting until it gets to that point.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
13,673
Likes
7,273
I think we haven't been looking at the final HB696 conference committee bill. Unless I'm misunderstanding, there are no references to firearms whatsoever in the final bill:

http://gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/billText.aspx?id=14&txtFormat=html&sy=2019

The single provision that's still there is "[c]onfiscating any deadly weapons involved in the alleged abuse, exploitation or neglect." Note - it doesn't allow them to confiscate all your guns, just the ones specifically used to commit these crimes. Does anyone here honestly disagree with this?

I think we won this one already. I don't see any problem with this bill...
How exactly does a cop do that.....and without a search warrant......they are just going to take everything you have

Bill fails to provide due process
Fails to provide protections/process for handling your private property
Fails to provide a process for getting your private property back

What the f*** is "Neglect" and why/how is it lumped in with confiscation of weapons.

Lets move onto other disasterous portions of the bill.....

as per below the state of NH is going to accept on its face any similar order from any other state, territory or tribe.......

yea....read that again......you read it right

With absolutely no regard for whether or not this other entity/tribe/other had a legal/lawful/sane process that included protections of the accused rights let alone rules for evidence and a raft of other protections......NH is just going to take the word of this other entity?

The bill is badly written......Gov should veto it with a statement telling them to come back with a clean bill next year and he'll support it

This is what you get when paid lobbyists are involved in the rancid sausage making process

173-D:14 Orders Enforceable.

I. Any protective order issued under this chapter shall be effective throughout the state.

II. Any protective order issued by any other state, tribal, or territorial court related to abuse, exploitation or neglect of a vulnerable adult, including an ex parte order, shall be deemed valid if the issuing court had jurisdiction over the parties and matter under the law of the state, tribe, or territory, and the person against whom the order was made was given reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard. There shall be a presumption of validity where an order appears facially valid.

III. Any valid protective order, as defined in paragraph II, shall be accorded full faith and credit throughout the state.

IV. A person entitled to protection under a foreign protective order, as defined in paragraph II, may file such order in any circuit court by filing with the court a certified copy of the order. Such person shall swear under oath in an affidavit to the best of such person’s knowledge that the order is presently in effect as written. Such filing shall be without fee or cost. The clerk of the circuit court shall forward such order to the administrative office of the courts which shall enter such order in the state database. Such filing shall not be a precondition to arrest or enforcement of a foreign order.

V. A peace officer may rely upon a copy of any protective order issued under this chapter or upon a copy of a foreign protective order, as defined in this section, which has been provided to the peace officer by any source.

VI. Law enforcement personnel may rely on the statement of the person protected by the order that the order remains in effect as written, provided such person reasonably appears to be of sound mind when making such statement.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Nov 8, 2005
Messages
23,913
Likes
2,852
Every single republican in the senate and house that voted, voted against the final bill

What does that tell you?

Is Sununu really going to go against his entire caucus and expect to get re-elected next year
Someone needs to tell him this. No, even if you think he "knows it", he needs to "hear it"!
 

KBCraig

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
9,854
Likes
4,423
Location
Granite State of Mind
Evan and Susan need to learn our mantra: we don't improve bad bills, we kill them!

They think they improved this bill, so now SO is falling back on her tribalism and accusing JR of being against a bill to protect elders, and also accusing him of having written anti-gun bills in the past.

The internecine warfare gets old, but I know which side throws all the rocks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jpk

jpk

Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
13,673
Likes
7,273
Someone needs to tell him this. No, even if you think he "knows it", he needs to "hear it"!
Keep calling his office and writing email outlining that the optics of going against his entire caucus over a badly written bill will not bode well for next election
 

design

NES Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
1,277
Likes
708
It seems some of the 'gun groups' are trying to actually pass this bill.
Which side are they on?
 
Top Bottom