-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
NH Anti-gun bills in the Senate...
- Thread starter design
- Start date
In NH we can stop this, but EVERY gun owner needs to call in. After you call, send a copy of this alert to your friends and ask them to call the Governor as well.
https://www.nhfc-ontarget.org/2019/06/action-alerts/it-is-time/
https://www.nhfc-ontarget.org/2019/06/action-alerts/it-is-time/
Isn't today Sununu's last day to veto or it becomes law without his signature?
ChevyGuy91
NES Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2008
- Messages
- 22,916
- Likes
- 23,496
Is this the case?
Good call: How a Bill Becomes a Law | New Hampshire Almanac | NH.gov
When a bill has passed both houses, it is sent to the Committee on Enrolled Bills for the purpose of enrolling. This committee carefully examines the bill for clerical errors or formal imperfections. In case of such errors, it reports them back to both houses for amendment in those particulars only.
Once the enrolling reports are read in each house, the bill is signed by the Senate President or the Speaker of the House. (This is an administrative function only and does not carry power of veto by refusal.) The bill is then forwarded to the Secretary of State.
The bill is transmitted to the Governor by the Secretary of State.
[...]
If the legislature has not adjourned, the Governor has five days in which to sign the bill, veto the bill, or allow the measure to pass without signature.
[...]
If the Legislature has adjourned, the Governor has five days (excluding Sundays and holidays) in which to sign the bill. If it is not signed, the bill dies. This is the "pocket veto."
Once the enrolling reports are read in each house, the bill is signed by the Senate President or the Speaker of the House. (This is an administrative function only and does not carry power of veto by refusal.) The bill is then forwarded to the Secretary of State.
The bill is transmitted to the Governor by the Secretary of State.
[...]
If the legislature has not adjourned, the Governor has five days in which to sign the bill, veto the bill, or allow the measure to pass without signature.
[...]
If the Legislature has adjourned, the Governor has five days (excluding Sundays and holidays) in which to sign the bill. If it is not signed, the bill dies. This is the "pocket veto."
They'd better hurry up. By my count they have until Tuesday to get it on the governor's desk, or he can just pocket veto.
KBCraig
NES Member
What happens in November? Or did you mean November 2020?
ChevyGuy91
NES Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2008
- Messages
- 22,916
- Likes
- 23,496
Yeah, 2020.
I ran into John Burt at the fireworks store today and we got to talking about these 4 bills. He said he personally spoke with gov. Sununu and said gov was going to veto all 4. Let's hope he is right. Still calling Sununu's office anyway but it sounds like good news.
ChevyGuy91
NES Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2008
- Messages
- 22,916
- Likes
- 23,496
My rep has told me the same every time I have run into him since this mess started, but yes, please keep calling.
I just spoke with Gov Sununu face to face at the spaghetti dinner, I asked him if he was going to veto all 4 anti guns bills when they get to his desk. He quickly said that he will veto all 4 of these anti gun bills. But yes, keep calling.
It appears that HB 564 and HB 696 have conference committee reports avail on gencourt
I know that there are folks looking at/trying to evaluate the impact of the changes in language but I would urge everyone to look for themselves.
I would argue that HB 564 (Gunz on school grounds/buses/etc) is arguably worse now....there's language about local school boards authorizing individuals and specfic firearms but having to hold public hearings for individual authorizations.....that alone will have a chilling effect of essentially eliminating any requests by parents/etc.....
http://gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_st...year=2019&txtbillnumber=hb564&sortoption=&q=1
http://gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/billtext.aspx?sy=2019&txtFormat=amend&id=2019-2591C
HB 696 on the other hand I believe is arguably an even bigger/more ambiguous mess.....specific "firearm" language appears to have been stripped but its so vague, squishy and non specific that its entirely subjective/ripe for abuse by activist judges.....
Bill_Status
http://gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/billtext.aspx?sy=2019&txtFormat=amend&id=2019-2523C
This is my own assessment......basically what they are doing is creating new sections within the domestic violence/protective order statures (RSA 173 section)......and its still ex parte nonsense so it smacks of unconstitutionality not only federally but here in NH....it appears to ignore evidentiary standards which is not constitutional in NH for all the reasons argued in multiple hearing (see Dan Itse's testimony).
Instead of crafting a specific bill with specific guidelines/conditions/consequences and sentencing instructions this is the typical back room rancid sausage making bullshit that yields poorly written statutes that are open to judicial activism and subsequent (expensive) challeges to higher courts that in turn end up "writing" the statute and how it will be handled by the courts.........
Isnt it time that dems and reps alike stopped trying to pimp poorly written legislation just to get "something" across the goal with no regard/consideration of how it will impact citizens for years to come?
Sununu needs to veto all four of them and spend some time writing a response outlining to citizens and the legislature why.....specifically use 696 as an example of bad/rancid sausage making/legislative process.
IMHO his message should be something like "Give me clear/concise/well written bills and I will consider them based on their merits.....if you give me bad rancid sausage I will veto them regardless of intent/content/feelings"
I know that there are folks looking at/trying to evaluate the impact of the changes in language but I would urge everyone to look for themselves.
I would argue that HB 564 (Gunz on school grounds/buses/etc) is arguably worse now....there's language about local school boards authorizing individuals and specfic firearms but having to hold public hearings for individual authorizations.....that alone will have a chilling effect of essentially eliminating any requests by parents/etc.....
http://gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_st...year=2019&txtbillnumber=hb564&sortoption=&q=1
http://gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/billtext.aspx?sy=2019&txtFormat=amend&id=2019-2591C
HB 696 on the other hand I believe is arguably an even bigger/more ambiguous mess.....specific "firearm" language appears to have been stripped but its so vague, squishy and non specific that its entirely subjective/ripe for abuse by activist judges.....
Bill_Status
http://gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/billtext.aspx?sy=2019&txtFormat=amend&id=2019-2523C
This is my own assessment......basically what they are doing is creating new sections within the domestic violence/protective order statures (RSA 173 section)......and its still ex parte nonsense so it smacks of unconstitutionality not only federally but here in NH....it appears to ignore evidentiary standards which is not constitutional in NH for all the reasons argued in multiple hearing (see Dan Itse's testimony).
Instead of crafting a specific bill with specific guidelines/conditions/consequences and sentencing instructions this is the typical back room rancid sausage making bullshit that yields poorly written statutes that are open to judicial activism and subsequent (expensive) challeges to higher courts that in turn end up "writing" the statute and how it will be handled by the courts.........
Isnt it time that dems and reps alike stopped trying to pimp poorly written legislation just to get "something" across the goal with no regard/consideration of how it will impact citizens for years to come?
Sununu needs to veto all four of them and spend some time writing a response outlining to citizens and the legislature why.....specifically use 696 as an example of bad/rancid sausage making/legislative process.
IMHO his message should be something like "Give me clear/concise/well written bills and I will consider them based on their merits.....if you give me bad rancid sausage I will veto them regardless of intent/content/feelings"
JPK is correct, HB564 is worse, meaning more anti-gun and HB696 is still a mess. Massive violations of due process, courts can order LEOs to take firearms without a hearing, etc. Bill needs to be stopped. FWIW, you need to merge the amendment with the bill to see all of the issues. The CoC amendment is NOT all of the final text.
Good point. Still lots of issues: New Hampshire HB696 | 2019 | Regular Session
Bill is the merge of what was passed by the Senate and the CoC amendment:
Senate amendment:
http://gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/billText.aspx?sy=2019&id=14&txtFormat=html
CoC amendment:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/committee_of_conference/report.aspx?id=2523
They left several things still in like:
No rules of evidence,
Exparte hearings
No due process.
This bill is a piece of C***
Hersey provision is still in the bill
173-D:4,
V. In any proceeding under this chapter, the court shall not be bound by the technical rules of evidence and may admit evidence which it considers relevant and material.
Exparte hearing and telephonic orders meaning no written evidence
173-D:5 Temporary Relief.
I. Upon a showing of an immediate and present danger of abuse, exploitation, or neglect, the court may enter temporary orders to protect the plaintiff with or without actual notice to defendant. The court may issue such temporary orders by telephone, facsimile or any other methods approved by court rules. Such telephonically issued orders shall be made by a circuit court judge to a law enforcement officer, shall be valid in any jurisdiction in the state, and shall be effective until the close of the next regular court business day. Such orders shall be returnable to the circuit court where the plaintiff resides or to which the plaintiff has fled, unless otherwise ordered by the issuing judge. If non-telephonic temporary orders are made ex parte, the party against whom such relief is issued may file a written request with the clerk of the court and request a hearing on such orders. Such hearing shall be held no less than 2 business days and no more than 3 business days after the request is received by the clerk. Such hearings may constitute the final hearing described in RSA 173-D:4, V. Such temporary relief may include:
Police come and take firearms without a court order and then you get to make your case to get them back... After you spend $10K on an attorney
173-D:11 Protection by Peace Officers.
I. Whenever any peace officer has probable cause to believe that a person has been abused, exploited, or neglected, as defined in RSA 161-F:43 and RSA 173-D:2, 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.
Call the Governor again
Senate amendment:
http://gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/billText.aspx?sy=2019&id=14&txtFormat=html
CoC amendment:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/committee_of_conference/report.aspx?id=2523
They left several things still in like:
No rules of evidence,
Exparte hearings
No due process.
This bill is a piece of C***
Hersey provision is still in the bill
173-D:4,
V. In any proceeding under this chapter, the court shall not be bound by the technical rules of evidence and may admit evidence which it considers relevant and material.
Exparte hearing and telephonic orders meaning no written evidence
173-D:5 Temporary Relief.
I. Upon a showing of an immediate and present danger of abuse, exploitation, or neglect, the court may enter temporary orders to protect the plaintiff with or without actual notice to defendant. The court may issue such temporary orders by telephone, facsimile or any other methods approved by court rules. Such telephonically issued orders shall be made by a circuit court judge to a law enforcement officer, shall be valid in any jurisdiction in the state, and shall be effective until the close of the next regular court business day. Such orders shall be returnable to the circuit court where the plaintiff resides or to which the plaintiff has fled, unless otherwise ordered by the issuing judge. If non-telephonic temporary orders are made ex parte, the party against whom such relief is issued may file a written request with the clerk of the court and request a hearing on such orders. Such hearing shall be held no less than 2 business days and no more than 3 business days after the request is received by the clerk. Such hearings may constitute the final hearing described in RSA 173-D:4, V. Such temporary relief may include:
Police come and take firearms without a court order and then you get to make your case to get them back... After you spend $10K on an attorney
173-D:11 Protection by Peace Officers.
I. Whenever any peace officer has probable cause to believe that a person has been abused, exploited, or neglected, as defined in RSA 161-F:43 and RSA 173-D:2, 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.
Call the Governor again
They don't seem to be moving very fast. Maybe they think it's already dead. By my count, if it's not on the gov's desk tomorrow, he can just pocket veto. Maybe they're trying to push other bills through before the deadline that they have the votes to override?
Sununu started his veto'ing spree in earnest today, with 8 bills getting the red pen treatment, and promises of more to come.
Gov. Chris said:
The legislature does not adjourn until the fall, so a 'pocket veto' is not going to happen. It needs to be a real veto.
I am hearing that some of those who are on the side of the gun owners think that HB696 has been neutered. It has not been. There are still serious issues:
I am hearing that some of those who are on the side of the gun owners think that HB696 has been neutered. It has not been. There are still serious issues:
2019 New Hampshire legislative session - Ballotpedia
"New Hampshire convened its legislative session on January 2, 2019, and legislators will remain in session until June 30, 2019."
[Art.] 19. [Adjournment.] The house of representatives shall have the power to adjourn themselves.
June 2, 1784
In practice they do not adjourn until the beginning of the next session as it is too hard to create a new session.
KBCraig
NES Member
Even week to week, the House doesn't "adjourn", it goes into recess. The first vote at the first of every session day is to adjourn the previous session day and begin a new one.
House voted on conference committee report/amendment on 564 (schools) and 696 (red flag) today.
It looks like 100% or thereabout of Republicans voted AGAINST both and a few dems opposed it as well............that means that the house doesnt have the votes to over ride a veto from Sununu
It also means that if Sununu signs/allows the bills to become law that he will be going against his entire party........the optics of such a mistake and almost certain consequences at the ballot box would be ugly....
Now is the time to write/call Gov Sununu and urge him again to veto these bills and remind him that the GOP in the house has voted against these bills as a block.......and that going against the party and base would be a mistake
It looks like 100% or thereabout of Republicans voted AGAINST both and a few dems opposed it as well............that means that the house doesnt have the votes to over ride a veto from Sununu
It also means that if Sununu signs/allows the bills to become law that he will be going against his entire party........the optics of such a mistake and almost certain consequences at the ballot box would be ugly....
Now is the time to write/call Gov Sununu and urge him again to veto these bills and remind him that the GOP in the house has voted against these bills as a block.......and that going against the party and base would be a mistake
Similar threads
