NH Anti-gun bills in the Senate...

Last weekend for this petition.
Four good reasons to sign:
1. We need to stand together to protect our rights
2. We don't want to be like the other states that are passing gun control.
3. We want to demonstrate that if the gun owners stand together, we can stop gun Bloomberg and his puppets
4. And if you call the Governor as well, NHFC will send you a free bumper sticker. https://www.nhfc-ontarget.org/2019/06/action-alerts/veto-bumper-sticker2/

https://www.nhfc-ontarget.org/petition-to-stop-all-proposed-2019-anti-gun-legislation/

PS. there is about 100 stickers left. Call on Monday to get yours
 
You know what to do and when to do it.....

HB 109 Bill Title: requiring background checks for commercial firearms sales.
HB 514 Bill Title: imposing a waiting period between the purchase and delivery of a firearm.
HB 564 Bill Title: (New Title) relative to possession of firearms on school property.
HB 696 Bill Title: establishing a protective order for vulnerable adults.\

Gov. Sununu: (603) 271-2121
 
I got a reply from Chris:

Dear Joseph,

Thank you for contacting my office with your support for ensuring that second amendment rights
remain unchanged in New Hampshire.

When I ran for governor, I made a commitment to the people of New Hampshire that I would
protect our second amendment rights, and that's what I have done. The first bill I signed as
Governor was SB 12 - Constitutional Carry - ensuring that New Hampshire citizens are
guaranteed the fundamental right to carry a firearm in defense of themselves and their families,
as prescribed by Article 2a of our state constitution.

I believe that New Hampshire does it right. Our laws are well crafted and fit our culture of
responsible gun ownership and individual freedom. We should continue to focus our attention on
the problems we can solve and to work to ensure that New Hampshire continues as one of the
safest states in the nation. As long as I am in Concord, you can count on me to protect your
constitutional rights, and promote the principals of justice, equality of opportunity, and personal
responsibility.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and opinions on this important issue. Please do not hesitate
to contact me should you have additional feedback or questions.

Sincerely,

Christopher T. Sununu
Governor
 
HB 109 Bill Title: requiring background checks for commercial firearms sales" ENROLLED and should be sent to Sec of State and Gov within the next week.
HB 514 Bill Title: imposing a waiting period between the purchase and delivery of a firearm: ENROLLED and should be sent to Sec of State and Gov within the next week.
HB 564 Bill Title: (New Title) relative to possession of firearms on school property.....Passsed/NOT YET ENROLLED
HB 696 Bill Title: Red Flag: CoC Amendment passed by Senate and House.......NOT YET ENROLLED

Why are the two most contentious bills still not yet enrolled in either the house or senate?
 
I posted this a couple weeks back, I saw him at the American Legion Ashland NH, I personally face to face asked him about the 4 anti gun bills, and if he was going to veto all 4?. He quickly responded, he will veto all 4 anti gun bills. But, yes , still make the calls, he needs the calls.
 
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.
 
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.

This crap, and "backroom deals" is what brought us Chapter 180 and its follow-ups in Massachusetts. Stay on it, boys and girls.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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...
 
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?
 
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?
 
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 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.
 
Back
Top Bottom