NH Anti-gun bills in the Senate...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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"!
 
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.
 
It seems some of the 'gun groups' are trying to actually pass this bill.
Which side are they on?
 
Evan and Susan need to learn our mantra: we don't improve bad bills, we kill them!

Ok...this names a couple of names, something I didn’t see in an answer to my question a few posts above this one. Susan Olsen, I’m assuming. This surprises and confuses me as in past conversations, she always seemed like a hardcore, no compromise 2A advocate. I don’t get it. Is the other Evan Nappen? I’ve never talked with him but I’m under the impression that he is a well respected 2A attorney. Do they know something all of us don’t?
 
Ok...this names a couple of names, something I didn’t see in an answer to my question a few posts above this one. Susan Olsen, I’m assuming. This surprises and confuses me as in past conversations, she always seemed like a hardcore, no compromise 2A advocate. I don’t get it. Is the other Evan Nappen? I’ve never talked with him but I’m under the impression that he is a well respected 2A attorney. Do they know something all of us don’t?
Evan wrote a column in Granite Grok saying the bill is perfectly fine and absolutely no threat to gun rights, and Susan is talking up the same points all over Facebook.
 
Evan wrote a column in Granite Grok saying the bill is perfectly fine and absolutely no threat to gun rights, and Susan is talking up the same points all over Facebook.

This concerns me greatly...I have always supported the WDL but if she is speaking for them, my days supporting them are numbered.[angry]
 
If it written by a democrat and it's related to the second amendment , it's bad for legal law abiding gun owners no matter what it looks like on it's face.
Even if it seem innocent , there is most likely a back door to make it far worst later.
We are either going to learn that or get used to being bent over the bunk.
NOTHING those communists do is for the benefit of anyone but themselves.
 
This bill started as ostensibly protecting adults who were "financially vulnerable", meaning at risk of being ripped off by someone with influence over them.

That was the same language parroted to get it through the House, even though it was clearly more about seizing guns.

Seizing guns is still the reason it passed the anti-gun majority.
 
The counter to some of the unpleasant accusations is simply to post the text of the bill and highlight the horribly worded sections that deal with weapon confiscation for "neglect" and the shenanigans about accepting protection orders from other states/territories/etc........

The language of the bill and obvious unintended consequences are indefensible

Been there, done that. It makes no difference and they do not care to listen at all.
 
So what is the angle for supporting this? Even if I were to buy in on the thought that it is no longer a "gun bill", having read the bill, I don't understand how anyone would be OK with it, never mind support it.
 
NHFC just sent out an update about the status:

Dear Gun Owner,

We at NHFC wanted to email you about the status of four nasty anti-gun bills.

All four bills have been enrolled and are now awaiting the signature of the Senate President. One of our board members spoke with both the Speaker's office and the Secretary of State's office yesterday to confirm the status. The next step after the signature of Senate President Soucy is the Governor's desk. That is when the 5 day period starts where the Governor needs to sign or veto the bills.

The most dangerous bill of the four is HB696, which mandates that a police officer confiscate firearms on a mere accusation. Yes, you heard me correctly...

...So much for your 4th amendment protections, so much for being able to defend yourself in court, so much for being able have a fair and impartial hearing in front of your peers, and so much for not seizing property without a court order.

This bill destroys all of those Natural and Constitutional rights in one shot (no pun intended).

However, the Governor can still veto this bill and ask that the legislature draft a bill that protects the elderly without violating the rights declared in the US and NH Constitutions. For the Governor to do that, he needs to hear from you.

I have one favor to ask from each of you. I know that many of you have been making calls and sending emails. Thank you!

The sad reality is that the Anti-gun forces just stopped the nomination of the AG to the New Hampshire Supreme Court. To counter act them, we need more gun owners involved.

Please call one or more of your Pro-Second Amendment friends, share what is going on and ask them to call the Governor's office. I would also ask that you share this link so they can sign up for our alerts. NHFirearms.Org

The greater our numbers, the bigger impact we can have.


Here is a list of bills that need to be vetoed by the Governor. Call his office at 603-271-2121

HB 109, Sell a gun to a friend and go to jail;
HB 514, Buy a gun, go home without it,
HB 564, Criminal safe schools;
HB 696, Elder care gun confiscation.

For those that want to know more about HB696, here is an op-ed co-written by one of our advisors and myself, summarizing the issues regarding HB696:

https://www.concordmonitor.com/MyTurn-Hoell-NH_-26740084


Please let your friends know that the New Hampshire Firearms Coalition still has a few remaining Constitutional Carry bumper stickers that they can have for free for just calling the Governors office and asking Gov. Sununu to veto all four anti-gun bills.


Call to Action:

1. Call the Governor's office at 271-2121, thank him for his pro-gun nomination to the New Hampshire Supreme Court and ask him to veto all 4 anti-gun bills ( HB109, HB514, HB564 and HB696).

Click to receive your free Constitutional Carry bumper sticker after you have called.



In liberty,
 
Great post. Real passionate. When do we address the fact that Granite Grok has become a soapbox for HB 696? Does this not concern anyone? Divide and conquer is all I am seeing...
 
ALL of the groups below are united in their opposition to HB 696 and have urged Gov Sununu to veto it.
NHFC
NRA
GONH (NRA Affiliate)
+Gun Owners of America
 
At this point it's Evan, Skip, and Susan against the entire GOP caucus plus six Democrats who also voted against passage of the CoC report.

But according to them, we're all anti-gun and hate the elderly.
 
At this point it's Evan, Skip, and Susan against the entire GOP caucus plus six Democrats who also voted against passage of the CoC report.

But according to them, we're all anti-gun and hate the elderly.

..against the entire GOP caucus, plus six Democrats who also voted against passage of the CoC report... ALONG WITH THE PROTECTIONS OUTLINED IN THE Bill of RIGHTS from both the New Hampshire and US Constitutions. :)
State Constitution - Bill of Rights | NH.gov

These 200+ year old documents actually mean something to many of us.

"[Art.] 15. [Right of Accused.] No subject shall be held to answer for any crime, or offense, until the same is fully and plainly, substantially and formally, described to him; or be compelled to accuse or furnish evidence against himself. Every subject shall have a right to produce all proofs that may be favorable to himself; to meet the witnesses against him face to face, and to be fully heard in his defense, by himself, and counsel. No subject shall be arrested, imprisoned, despoiled, or deprived of his property, immunities, or privileges, put out of the protection of the law, exiled or deprived of his life, liberty, or estate, but by the judgment of his peers,..."


"[Art.] 19. [Searches and Seizures Regulated.] Every subject hath a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches and seizures of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions. Therefore, all warrants to search suspected places, or arrest a person for examination or trial in prosecutions for criminal matters, are contrary to this right, if the cause or foundation of them be not previously supported by oath or affirmation;


Constitutions prohibit Government from doing certain things. Searches without warrants and seizing property without a warrant violates are clearly spelled out.
 
Called and spoke with the secretary. Asked him to veto all the gun bills and to thank him for his SC nominee.
 
Bump.

Here is a list of bills that need to be vetoed by the Governor. Call his office at 603-271-2121

HB 109, Sell a gun to a friend and go to jail;
HB 514, Buy a gun, go home without it,
HB 564, Criminal safe schools;
HB 696, Elder care gun confiscation.
 
I have read the same thing.
Jim Kofalt forwarded a post on FB by John Burt saying it had been vetoed. I am waiting for a definite "yes" from John. This is indeed good news. What alarms me is how some conservatives outside of the house didn't want the Governor to veto it. They said that all the gun stuff had been stripped out...people that I have respect for. I didn't feel good inside when I read some of those editorials...frankly, I was bewildered.

The quote about hanging together or hanging separately came to mind.
 
Back
Top Bottom