NH Committee Passes Repeal of SYG

[rwl1955]

Truly a sad state of affairs. After NH voted for Obummer I had to take the State off my possible move locations. Now there's nowhere in Northeast that hasn't been infested w/liberals and their socialist policies.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

He was quoting vallaincourt

Please explain. The way I read it, design wrote the amended bill, not vaillancourt. Of course, this could be a reading comprehension fail.

 

[Hiltonizer]

Please explain. The way I read it, design wrote the amended bill, not vaillancourt. Of course, this could be a reading comprehension fail.

formatting fail on his part, comprehension fail on you and a few others ... i'll try to doctor it..

List with names and phone numbers:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/downloads/Members.xls

Fields and Valliancourt voted for the repeal...
-Design

Good News, Bad News For Gun Proponents

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2013 AT 04:50PM
As is often the case in life, there's some good news and some bad news today for the many people concerned about House Bill 135, the so-called stand your ground bill, and four other pieces of gun legislation considered by the Criminal Justice Committee.

As scorekeeper might deem it three for six--three wins; three losses for all concerned.

Good news for opponents of the bill is that two of the three sections have been deleted.

Bad news is that by a 12-6 vote, the House Criminal Justice Committee voted to pass the stripped down version of the bill.

Other good news for gun proponents is the 14-4 failure of Rep. Delmar Burridge's bill (HB290) which would have prohibited unlicensed persons from openly carrying a pistol or revolver in a public building.

Other good news for gun proponents is the 18-0 defeat of a bill (HB396) which would have established a committee to study requiring safety training or instruction prior to the purchase or acquisition of a firearm. We all felt this was simply not the role of government

Other bad news for gun proponents was the 14-4 defeat of the so-called Constitutional carry bill (HB451) which would have repealed the license requirement for carrying a concealed pistol or revolver, like Vermont.

Also, the committee was unanimous (18-0) in defeating the bill (HB609) which would have armed teachers. As I noted during the discussion, even the Union Leader came out against this idea, so the issue was never really in doubt.

Of course, any or all of the five bills could and probably will be debated on the House floor, but I wouldn't bet in favor of overturning the bipartisan committee recommendations.

You'll be reading this in all the media...if you haven't already, but what you will get first here is the official explanation of the House Bill 135 as it will appear in the House calendar, probably not next week but the week after.

The reason it's available here is because I wrote it; the amendment was mine. I'm sure many diehard conservatives will be livid with me, but try looking at it this way. This bill was going to pass the House anyway (the Senate, as always, is another matter). With this compromise, we eliminated two of the problematic sections of the bill.

I know, I know...no amount of compromise would satisfy those who wish to allege their rights are being taken away, but a compelling argument can be made (was made in fact and will be again) that we lived with this version of the bill for 34 years with no problems WHATSOEVER.

Note that I insisted that the section of the bill regarding the Ward Bird case be stripped out. That was part of the compromise.

Here's what you'll read here before any place else. Oh yes, all Democrats voted for the bill. Dennis Fields and I were the two Republicans voting for it. The two absent Reps (Republican Mark Warden and Democrat Tim Robertson) most likely would have followed party lines, so the vote would have been 13-7. As the author of the "blurb", I will be required to defend the position on the floor, and I am prepared to do that. This is a good compromise; not perfect but good.

House Bill 135

Ought To Pass As Amended

Vote 12-6

Rep. Steve Vaillancourt for the Majority of Criminal Justice: This bill, which has been a focus of much attention and a lengthy hearing in Reps Hall, came to the committee with three sections. The committee, in an attempt to reach compromise which balances rights and freedoms with safety interests of society, always a delicate balance, accepted an amendment which eliminates two of the three sections of the bill. All that remains is section one which repeals what is widely referred to as the stand your ground provision which was passed last year. This bill does not prevent anyone from owning or carrying guns. It simply takes us back to the practice that was in effect for more than three decades (and was never challenged in court) which affirms that a person is not justified in using deadly force on another if he or she can retreat from the encounter. Note that nothing about the bill prevents one from using deadly force if retreat is not deemed possible. Also note that the person is not required to retreat if the incident occurs on his or her private property. Thus, the castle doctrine is left intact. The committee believes a legitimate difference can and should be drawn between actions in defense of one’s home and actions in common or public areas. The committee amendment removes the controvertial section (two), referred to by some as the “brandishing” section in recognition of the Ward Bird case. In other words, what Ward Bird did in the famous case would still be legal because it was in regard to his own property. The committee, in concurrence with the sponsor, also removed section three which would have repealed a statute relative to civil immunity for the use of force. In other words, civil immunity will remain for those using force. Many reasons were stated for retaining section one of the bill, the most salient being that ours would be a safer society if people are not encouraged to use guns on the street as a first resort. Some committee members thought of times when they ran into problems on the street, problems which were resolved but could well have escalated had they or those around them attempted to draw weapons. The majority understands that some will not be happy with passage of even a single section of this bill, but the amendment should be seen as a compromise that most should be able to live with.

This is copied from Rep. Vaillancourts blog.

 

[NHAtHeart]

Please explain. The way I read it, design wrote the amended bill, not vaillancourt. Of course, this could be a reading comprehension fail.

Design quoted Vallaincourt's first person blog post, see the bottom of the page.

 

[Kaldone]

Had a feeling Vallaincourt would be one. He was the one at the hearing who repeatedly asked. " Why didn't anyone challenge the law for all the years it was in place?" To half of the people who opposed the bill and spoke. And based on his blog, that is where he was going on this one as well.


Sidenote: Google chrome keeps trying to spell-check Vallaincourt to 'Villainous' , just food for thought. He and fields are getting letters from me. And maybe some of the Dems as well. Just not gonna waste as much postage on the Dems.

 

[Brin747]

Just left a voice message on Rep Hirsch's home phone. He's my rep, and I want some answers...

 

[RadiCS]

At first that's how I read it and I was having flashbacks of Mass!

I think this is his blog... You can put comments.
NH INSIDER- Your Source for NH Politics - Rep Steve Vaillancourt

 

[Kaldone]

At first that's how I read it and I was having flashbacks of Mass!

I think this is his blog... You can put comments.
NH INSIDER- Your Source for NH Politics - Rep Steve Vaillancourt

Yup that's him. I just went back and read his post regarding the hearings on 02/21.. Man makes my blood boil.
Seriously, when he is up for reelection, anyone involved with a Pro 2A candidate running against him need help, let me know. Because, using to a vote to get him out, would be within the bounds of the constitution.

Rep Steve Vaillancourt[/URL];2975954][h=2]Not All Bad Bills Are Unconstitutional[/h]FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2013 AT 12:50PM
All four controversial bills heard in seemingly endless hours of testimony before the House Criminal Justice Committee (in Reps Hall to be sure) will most likely be defeated. However, gun proponents need to realize that all bad bills are not unconstitutional. They can be opposed because they are simply bad bills, bills which overreach, even if they are constitutional.
Without a doubt and despite the protestations of almost all gun lovers, the first bill we heard yesterday is constitutional. It would require that those carrying concealed pistols in public places have a permit. Just shouting that the idea is unconstitutional does not make it so. If restrictions on guns, in the form of permit requirements, were unconstitutional, such limitations would have been successfully challenged long ago.
I asked the question (have such restrictions been rules unconstitutional in courts) so often that I got tired of posing it. Everyone insisted that yes, indeed, such restrictions are unconstitutional. In so doing, these people lose their credibility, at least with me.
Don't bet me wrong.
I still play to vote against the bill, but because it's a bad bill; not because it's unconstitutional. It's badly worded; penalties are far too severe; and it's most likely also not necessary.
I also plan to vote against another badly worded bill, one which either allows or mandates (it's hard to keep the "shalls" and the "mays" straight in this bill) teachers to carry weapons in their classes. This bill is a violation of local control, but again, it's not unconstitutional. It's simply a terrible idea.
As usual, I suppose I've managed to alienate those on both the far left and the far right, and we still have two bills to go.
Another bill would have us follow the Vermont lead and get rid of the need to acquire a permit to carry. Proponents deem it "constitutional carry"; ah yes, yet another misbegotten reference to constitutional rights which do not exist. I grew up in Vermont; most of my relatives either had or have guns, and that's fine with me (I never developed a taste for venison), but apparently only two or three other states follow Vermont's lead. Thus, if permits to carry are unconstitutional, one would think they would have been so deemed somewhere by now.
The fourth bill, coming at us from the left, I will oppose would mandate gun safety programs. We need common sense; the type of common sense Maggie Hassan used and Deval Patrick failed to use during the last blizzard, not more seemingly well intended government mandates.
Numerous citizens testified at length about natural rights yesterday. I almost felt I was sitting through a course of social contract theory without the speakers having ever studied Hobbes, Locke, or anyone else. Hobbes postulated that life in the state of nature was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”. Men could harm each other at will, so we formed ourselves into societies, sacrificing certain freedoms to obtain certain protections (Thank you, Bob O’Neil, Plymouth State ethics professor, 1970; I actually wrote a very complicated term paper, entitled a mechanistic view of Hobbesian man, for Dr. Thomas Duffy’s course in social and intellectual history, but let’s not go there here. I came across it in my basement when I was searching for old issues of the college newspaper, The Clock, last weekend).
I know, I know, there’s a famous line (often incorrectly attributed to Benjamin Franklin) about he who would give up freedoms for security deserves neither. In fact, however, we need to carefully balance freedoms and security. These four bills fail to strike a proper balance.

Thus, I'll be opposing all four bills, angering the left twice and the right twice but exercising sanity and a due respect for social contract theory in all four instances.

 

[Mr Weebles]

Not to mention I got this in my back yard.... Na, na, na.na nah!View attachment 56791

The Gay Pride umbrella is a nice touch.

 

[RadiCS]

I'm considering moving back to NH because of the c*** known as Martha Coakley and her decision to not value life, liberty, or the value of protecting a persons family (Anthony McKay, as an example). IF some a**h*** attacks my family, and I defend my family, IDGAF if you have a badge on you.....get the **** off my property. I saved my kids, I don't need you to "verify it", and I don't need some ****ing c*** to validate it.

Any questions? Or do you want to test my "protect my family" conviction?....? Because if you're coming at me to arrest me for defending my family, you're not my friend............end of story

It makes it easier to justify living in MA when "NH ain't much better" regardless of how untrue that actually is.

Srsly, you guys can keep it, I will post pictures of all the good shit I will be doing next year when move up there.

Come on up... we need all the help we can get.

 

[Harleynut]

I think we need to play some Acorn games and invite pro 2a people to live at our houses and VOTE even if that means some on our couches and floors. Lets be 100% legal about this. Come live on our couches vote pro 2 a and while your living here legally stock up on Kimbers, Colts and all the other good stuff. If you chose to move back after the election FA-10 all the good stuff then either keep or sell it off for a profit.

I just googled this info:
New Hampshire residents who are United States citizens and who will be 18 years of age or older on election day, are eligible to vote. There is no minimum period of time you are required to have lived in the state before being allowed to register. You can only register in the town or ward in which you are domiciled. - See more at: New Hampshire Election Information

 

[MichaelJR]

So is this going to happen?

 

[timbo]

.New Hampshire residents who are United States citizens and who will be 18 years of age or older on election day, are eligible to vote. There is no minimum period of time you are required to have lived in the state before being allowed to register. You can only register in the town or ward in which you are domiciled. - See more at: New Hampshire Election Information

This is exactly why we are losing the conservative edge in NH...If I remember, this is a fairly new ruling and because the progressive's definition of "domicile" was broadened greatly, it makes legal for all college students to vote if they are going to school here in NH as long as they haven't voted in their home state, but I get the feeling that hasn't stopped them anyway...I mean, how would we know? . The voting laws in NH have tanked and until they are changed, it's going to keep getting worse...

 

[rwl1955]

You NH residents have to make the bastards pay for this.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

I reread design's post and Vaillancourt's blog. With that being said, I am truly sorry Mr. Hoell for my pointed remarks aimed at you. It was, in fact, reading comprehension fail on my part.

 

[RadiCS]

Emailed Villaincourt...

 

[RadiCS]

Rep. Villancourt,

Since I cannot have the pleasure of not voting for you in the next election because I am not in your district -- I will send a donation to your opponent and make sure that other Gun Owners in NH do the same. Democrat or Republican doesn't matter.

Sincerely,
Radics

First Response:
Hopefully it'll be a large one...or you could consider moving...or you could gtaffaard!

Second Response (none from me):
Most likely the person you contribute to will be even more anti-gun than you claim I am since it was only through my amendment that we managed to strip two sections of the bill out. He or she will probably be a big tax and spender as well. Open your eyes!

My response:
You need to open your eyes and see what you have done... Protection of my family utmost importance!!

Very nice language...

The politicians have no respect... maybe I was little hard but respectful.

 

[soloman02]

Rep. Villancourt,

Since I cannot have the pleasure of not voting for you in the next election because I am not in your district -- I will send a donation to your opponent and make sure that other Gun Owners in NH do the same. Democrat or Republican doesn't matter.

Sincerely,
Radics

First Response:
Hopefully it'll be a large one...or you could consider moving...or you could gtaffaard!

Second Response (none from me):
Most likely the person you contribute to will be even more anti-gun than you claim I am since it was only through my amendment that we managed to strip two sections of the bill out. He or she will probably be a big tax and spender as well. Open your eyes!

My response:
You need to open your eyes and see what you have done... Protection of my family utmost importance!!

Very nice language...

The politicians have no respect... maybe I was little hard but respectful.

Inform him his address is going to be posted on every map on the internet and that you hope someone takes advantage of that information.

Then ask him how it feels to know you are a marked man.

 

[sieveboy]

the moonbat exodus from their skankholes (of their own creation) is destroying NH, VT and Upstate NY.

Shun these ****ers

 

[TimMcG74]

This is exactly why we are losing the conservative edge in NH...If I remember, this is a fairly new ruling and because the progressive's definition of "domicile" was broadened greatly, it makes legal for all college students to vote if they are going to school here in NH as long as they haven't voted in their home state, but I get the feeling that hasn't stopped them anyway...I mean, how would we know? . The voting laws in NH have tanked and until they are changed, it's going to keep getting worse...

What about temporary residents with vacation property there? Is a small, seasonal trailer or cabin a "domicile"?

 

[Harleynut]

If we are afraid on how the college kids will vote I would think we are making out on this. I can see more kids leaving for college outside of NH then coming in from other states to go to School in NH.

This is exactly why we are losing the conservative edge in NH...If I remember, this is a fairly new ruling and because the progressive's definition of "domicile" was broadened greatly, it makes legal for all college students to vote if they are going to school here in NH as long as they haven't voted in their home state, but I get the feeling that hasn't stopped them anyway...I mean, how would we know? . The voting laws in NH have tanked and until they are changed, it's going to keep getting worse...

 

[gtpdy]

Thinking about moving to NH. But after doing a little research I think freedom in the state will soon be gone. I'm going to start to look down south. Good luck with the fight.

 

[Wrench75]

Heads. Spikes. Walls.

 

[SpaceCritter]

For better or worse, we're committed now to a New Hampshire relocation, so I'm in this fight. Given what I've been told (repeatedly, and by many different people), "outsiders" getting too aggressive about expressing themselves on matters politican isn't appreciated, at least until they've been around awhile, I'm a little reluctant to start hammering my future reps with letters. And this is especially so considering we're right at the beginning of the process: haven't (but soon will) pulled the 2 acres we're building on out of CU and paying the penalty, haven't (but soon will) pulled the permits (except the septic - that's done), ...

 

[Nicole]

For better or worse, we're committed now to a New Hampshire relocation, so I'm in this fight. Given what I've been told (repeatedly, and by many different people), "outsiders" getting too aggressive about expressing themselves on matters politican isn't appreciated, at least until they've been around awhile, I'm a little reluctant to start hammering my future reps with letters. And this is especially so considering we're right at the beginning of the process: haven't (but soon will) pulled the 2 acres we're building on out of CU and paying the penalty, haven't (but soon will) pulled the permits (except the septic - that's done), ...

While I certainly sympathize with how it must be for locals to watch "outsiders" come in and change familiar dynamics, if you have a vested interest in a community, you aren't "speaking out of turn". People are dishonest - what they dislike is people making changes they disagree with. Labeling someone as an interloper makes it easier to attack the person instead of the change, when the change could just have easily been pushed by a younger native generation.


I have been an "outsider" my entire life. If I am lucky, I may actually stay in my current home long enough for the locals to think I am legit. That doesn't stop me from voting and writing.

Tread carefully until you get your bearings...for instance, I won't speak out about the school board elections because I don't yet have the proper context or info on the candidates. That is polite and responsible.

But I will darn well let my legiscritters know about principles. The locals can think I am rude if they like. I would think much worse of someone who would begrudge me my rights due to the length of my residency.

 

[nheric]

I think we need to play some Acorn games and invite pro 2a people to live at our houses and VOTE even if that means some on our couches and floors. Lets be 100% legal about this. Come live on our couches vote pro 2 a and while your living here legally stock up on Kimbers, Colts and all the other good stuff. If you chose to move back after the election FA-10 all the good stuff then either keep or sell it off for a profit.

I just googled this info:
New Hampshire residents who are United States citizens and who will be 18 years of age or older on election day, are eligible to vote. There is no minimum period of time you are required to have lived in the state before being allowed to register. You can only register in the town or ward in which you are domiciled. - See more at: New Hampshire Election Information

I have an extra room to offer up . Hell I will go out and buy a couple sets of bunk beds

 

[soloman02]

You beat me to it... Here's a slightly larger one with everyone that has an address listed ~350+ that are listed. Lost about 60 plus due to listing PO boxes and using the capitol as their home address.

Newspapers started this insanity posting addresses - we have to match their insanity I guess.

PM for map if you want it... NES user PM'ed me asking to take down so we don't have republicans (that respect 2a) on the list... understandable.

Thank you. We can have republicans on the map, I just want to make sure only the bad ones go on it. I know it can be argued they are all bad for other stuff (and I would agree with that), but for guns we need to make it known that this is our line, cross it and face the consequences. Then once we have hopefully stopped this madness on the 2A, we can use the same threat on other issues until we have taken back our lost liberty.

 

[RadiCS]

Sounds like this guy is a piece of work...

Steve Vaillancourt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[RadiCS]

Looks like he's posting emails on his blog...

 

[KBCraig]

I think we need to play some Acorn games and invite pro 2a people to live at our houses and VOTE even if that means some on our couches and floors. Lets be 100% legal about this.

You can't play the ACORN or SEIU games and be 100% legal, because playing their game would mean our "guest voters" would also be voting absentee in their true home districts, and casting ballots not just in our districts, but at least 4-5 other districts on the same day.