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.
I am hearing that a group of lobbyists is working overtime to 'salvage' HB696. They have managed to convince some that this is *not* a anti-gun bill and therefore the Governor can sign it. Time for more calls.
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.
Their internet was out. I got an email from General Court to my secondary address this morning.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
They host their own email and web servers, and they do it on-premises? What is this, 2003? Grow up and move to Office 365 and AWS.Their internet was out. I got an email from General Court to my secondary address this morning.
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.
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: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
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?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...
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 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?
Creating a legal situation where an officer SHALL seize things based on allegation only, with no warrant, is over the line.
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.