NH Constitutional Carry in Sub-CMTE tomorrow at 1pm, LOB 204

design

design

Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
1,678
Likes
1,473
Feedback: 4 / 0 / 0
All,
There is a sub-cmte meeting tomorrow to discuss taking HB536 and modifying the language to get this bill to pass. If you have any letters that you want read to the Sub-CMTE please post here are email and I will bring them on your behalf.
I need the letters by noon tomorrow.

- Rep. Hoell
 
Dear Sub-committee members I applaud your efforts to re-establish the Constitutional Right to Carry for the citizens of New Hampshire, the right of law-abiding citizens to carry in the manner of their choosing (open or concealed) without a government registration, permits, taxes, token training mandates -uninfringed, as the Constitution intended. would be a major step in restoring our rights that have been gradually infringed upon.
As you are aware I currently can carry openly without a permit, why should I need a permit to cover it with a shirt of jacket, this would also reduce man hours for police departments that currently issue permits so fiscal impact would be positive for NH. I ask you to pass a bill with an optional permit for reciprocity. This would be the most Constitutional bill and the most in line with my belief of fiscal responsibility and smaller government.
 
Thank you! As stated in the first post, all posts and PM's will be read and turned in at the sub-cmte tomorrow.
-Design
 
Design, I don't have alot to add other than...

"Live free or die".

It has worked in VT for some time... if we in NH continue to make strides in earning our spot as freest state in the nation, we will ride a wave of prosperity similar to what this nation experienced when it was, for a time, the freest nation on the planet. Freedom works... we should stick with that.

Also, I'll be donating to your reelection campaign come time. You just let us know when that is.
 
Though I agree that people should not have to ask permission from their government officials to exercise their constitutional rights, we live in a world where many don't follow or belive in the bill of rights. So if we ever get this passed in NH, we will still need a provision that mandates the state issue one if requested. I ask this because I like many others shoot in different states. To obtain a non-resident permit in other states, the first requirements is to have a valid permit issued in your home state.
 
Last edited:
IIRC the previous version had a optional permit for reciprocity.

Am I the only one that sent anything to design? Do you really want Constitutional carry or not?
 
[Art.] 2-a. [The Bearing of Arms.] All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.

The above quote from the NH state bill of rights specifically calls out an individual's inherent right to keep and bear arms. It is crystal clear.

A right expressed in longer form is a right to be left alone. A permit system, even if it is shall issue, effectively infringes upon that right turning the aforesaid right into a privilege. A permit to exercise a right is a contradiction in terms.

A right is also owned by an individual. A right is not granted to an individual by the state. The two choices for a state are to either recognize that right or infringe upon it. It is also illogical for a state to charge a fee for a right that an individual already owns. It is even more illogical for the state to punish an individual for exercising a right that the individual owns if that individual didn't purchase a permit to exercise that right.

If someone is arguing that a permit system for a right is acceptable, be it for public safety, or the public good, or whatever other philosophically bankrupt defense, then to be consistent that same standard must apply to any other right. A permit for free speech? Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? Just as ridiculous as a permit to carry.
 
Last edited:
An important concept that the general public fails to grasp is the fundamental principle of The Constitution of the United States of America. The rights of the people exist inherently and the powers of the government are limited by the people and are given to the government by the people. This is why our "way of life" is unique, relative to other forms of government. I admit, this concept is hard to adopt right out of the box because while growing up, I had a set of rules to obey. I dared not tell my parents that I was going to vote them out next term because I did not like their curfew rules! It takes time, education and listening to grow out of that line of thinking, which started in the household, and to learn to become a responsible citizen. It sure seems like we, as citizens, need to start upholding the Constitution, even more so nowadays, because our elected officials will not.
 
NHPatriot said:
If someone is arguing that a permit system for a right is acceptable, be it for public safety, or the public good, or whatever other philosophically bankrupt defense, then to be consistent that same standard must apply to any other right. A permit for free speech? Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? Just as ridiculous as a permit to carry.
Click to expand...

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/128670/
 
snwbrdr435 said:
Non-res will still need PP correct?
Click to expand...

Like Lamina said, no. That would effectively create more problems than it solves. Note that none of the other states that have no permit have that sort of requirement, because it's inherently against the fundamental ideas behind that.

-Mike
 
Dear Sirs/Madams of the Sub Committee,
I would like to thank you all for your undying attention given to the citizens of this state. Since the last election, the Senate and House have made myself and many others happy. You have put forth your best and most sincere efforts to move this state to greatness, both financially and through smaller government interference.
I now ask that this committee work towards our intended goal of Constitutional Carry for our citizens and visitors of our great state. Getting this bill to pass will move us closer to what the for fathers intended our states to be; free. Both the US and state constitution egknowledge the right to bear arms. We should not have to ask for permission from anyone to protect our lives from tyranny or from harm. Thank you for your time.
 
Last edited:
Well since there are other MA residents speaking up, I would just like to say you guys are great and every time I read about these kinds of things it makes me push harder to move up to NH sooner.
 
New Hampshire has a long history of promoting individual liberty, guaranteed by the U.S. and N.H. Constitutions. These constitutions do not grant rights, but merely guarantee the government cannot take them away. Requiring a permit for the bearing of arms part of "keep and bear arms" is no different than requiring a permit to speak freely or practice religion. Whether or not a police union, a safety division, or council agrees or endorses this matter is of no consequence, because these groups have no say in the matter. Rights endowed by our creator and guaranteed by our constitutions are not up for debate. It is time that our government representatives recognize our right to self defense, and send these groups a message. Your disrespect and disregard for a right, will not be tolerated. If you do not vow to uphold and protect our constitution, from all enemies, foreign and domestic, then you must be removed from such power you have attained. No one is more responsible for my safety than I am. Do not try again to take away the rights and tools necessary to protect one's self, and don't try especially when the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no obligation to protect me.

Constitutional Carry does not grant anything. It replaces what the people allowed to be broken by prior legislatures. Restore our freedom the way it was meant to be from the beginning.
 
Last edited:
Just tell them to leave it as it was, and this time tell the NRA to FOAD and tell the member that screwed us all at the last minute because he couldn't get his pork added to a budget bill so he tanked us right when it had a chance of going through, to join the NRA and FOAD.

[grin]
 
drgrant said:
Like Lamina said, no. That would effectively create more problems than it solves. Note that none of the other states that have no permit have that sort of requirement, because it's inherently against the fundamental ideas behind that.

-Mike
Click to expand...

I just put my non res app in the mail yesterday! Just because i did that this will pass.
 
Our current "shall issue" system of licensing for the concealed carry of pistols and revolvers, while seeming quite reasonable, is an infringment on our rights as citizens of the United States of America. As mentioned, rights are never to be licensed or allowed. They are to be protected, only.

There should never be any expectation of forfieture of privacy when exercising rights. Must you disclose your personal information when speaking your mind? Must you disclose your personal information when practicing your religion? You are also not required by law of the Constitution of the United States of America to disclose your personal information when exercising your right to keep and bear arms. It is no business of anyone, including any governmental institution, police, state, federal of when, where or how you exercise your rights.

A licensing system is a system of issuing rights.

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
 
The rest of the Story... [Paul Harvey]

thehoyt,
I'm still cooling off from one of the follow up emails that stated they are going with the weaker language... but before I go on a rant, I would like to say that the text of all posts asking for this passage were mailed to the chair just after the meeting.

below I will post two versions of the bill that can go forward. The weaker one is the one the sub-cmte is currently considering. (the text of what is being considered is in red and black)
Note: for those reading this, text that is plain black or red is current statute and is what is being modified. Text that is green or bold is being added, text that is in brackets and [struck through] is being removed.

-Design


Please note:
There is one caveat that I am aware of: and that is that a important part of that language in the "agreed to" version was lost in the SB88 passage. "Pointing" was to be included in SB88.


Here is what language is being considered in the sub-cmte.

The text in black and red is the weaker bill, and was a portion of the language that the gun groups "agreed" to.
Text in green is added to the weaker bill to make the bill a better Constitutional carry bill. The red text is removed from the weaker bill

1.
Pistols and Revolvers; Carrying Without License. RSA 159:4 is repealed
and reenacted to read as follows:
159:4 Affirmative Right to Carry Without License.
I. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, each person
present in this state has the natural, essential, and inherent right to keep and
bear arms and, except when his or her exercise of such right is suspended due
to incarceration in a jail or prison, by court order to be in a mental institution, or
by prohibition from possessing a firearm under RSA 159:3, 159:3-a, or 159:19,
no person shall be guilty of an offense for carrying a firearm openly or
concealed, loaded or unloaded, upon or about his or her person, or upon or in a
vehicle, whether or not such person possesses a license, permit, or other
authorization to carry a firearm, or be guilty of an offense for the possession,
use, purchase, transfer, sale, advertisement, gift, bequest, or inheritance of any
firearm or self defense tool without any license or permission of any kind from
or by any government agency.
II. The provisions of paragraph I shall not constitute a bar to
prosecution for any of the following offenses:
(a) RSA 159:3, relative to convicted felons.
(b) RSA 159:3-a, relative to armed career criminals.
(c) RSA 159:19, relative to courthouse security.
(d) RSA 637:7, relative to receiving stolen property.
(e) RSA 637:7-a, relative to possession of property without a serial number.
(f) RSA 597:7-a, relative to default or breach of conditions of release.
2.
159:6 Pistols and Revolvers; Optional License to Carry.
Amend RSA 159:6, I to read as follows:
The selectmen of a town or the mayor or chief of police of a city or some full-
time police officer designated by them respectively, upon application of any
resident of such town or city, or the director of state police, or some person
designated by such director, upon application of a nonresident, shall issue a
license to such applicant authorizing the applicant to carry a loaded pistol or
revolver in this state for not less than [4] 5 years from the date of issue, if it
appears that [the applicant has good reason to fear injury to the applicant’s
person or property or has any proper purpose, and that] the applicant is a
suitable person to be licensed. [Hunting, target shooting, or self-defense shall
be considered a proper purpose.] Applicants not prohibited from
possession of a firearm under RSA 159:3 or RSA 159:3-a shall be
deemed suitable persons. The license shall be valid for all [allowable]
lawful purposes regardless of the purpose for which it was originally issued.
The license shall be in duplicate and shall bear the name, address, description,
and signature of the licensee. The original shall be delivered to the licensee
and the duplicate shall be preserved by the people issuing the same for [4] 5
years. When required, license renewal shall take place within the month of the
[fourth] fifth anniversary of the license holder’s date of birth following the date
of issuance. The license shall be issued within 14 Calendar days after
application, and, if such application is denied, the reason for such denial shall
be stated in writing, the original of which such writing shall be delivered to the
applicant, and a copy kept in the office of the person to whom the application
was made. The fee for licenses issued to residents of the state shall be $10,
which fee shall be for the use of the law enforcement department of the town
or city granting said licenses; the fee for licenses granted to out-of-state
residents shall be [$100] $20, which fee shall be for the use of the state. The
director of state police is hereby authorized and directed to prepare forms for
the licenses required under this chapter and forms for the application for such
licenses and to supply the same to officials of the cities and towns authorized to
issue the licenses. The form shall require no more information than was
required on the state of New Hampshire application for pistol/revolver
license, form DSSP 85, as revised in December 2009. No other forms
shall be used by officials of cities and towns and no other information shall
be required. The cost of the forms shall be paid out of the fees received from
nonresident licenses.
3. Pistols and Revolvers; Amend RSA 159:6 by adding a new section III to read
as follows:
III. The availability of a license to carry a loaded pistol or revolver under this
section or under any other provision of law shall not be construed to impose a
prohibition on the unlicensed transport or carry of a firearm in a vehicle, or on
or about one’s person, whether openly or concealed, loaded or unloaded, by
either a resident, non resident, or alien if that individual is not otherwise
prohibited by statute from possessing a firearm in the State of New Hampshire.
4. Pistols and Revolvers; Reciprocity. RSA 159:6-d is repealed and reenacted to
read as follows:
159:6-d Reciprocity. The director of the division of state police shall
negotiate and enter into reciprocal agreements in other jurisdictions to
recognize in those jurisdictions the validity of the license issued under RSA
159:6. The director shall apply to every jurisdiction with which New Hampshire
does not currently have a reciprocity agreement, at least once every 5 years to
obtain recognition in those jurisdictions of the license issued under RSA 159:6.
Any such agreement executed shall not expire unless an expiration date is
required under the statutes of the reciprocal jurisdiction.
5. Pistols and Revolvers; Exemption. Amend RSA 159:14 to read as follows:
159:14 Exemption. None of the provisions of this chapter shall prohibit an
individual not licensed under the provisions thereof who is not engaged in the
business of selling pistols or revolvers from selling a pistol or revolver to a
person who is licensed under this chapter, to a New Hampshire resident
who may lawfully own firearms, or to a person personally known to him or
her.
6. Game Animals; Bow and Arrow. Amend RSA 208:5, V to read as follows:
V. The licensee shall not be entitled to carry any firearms while hunting
under the provisions of this section, unless such licensee also possesses a valid
firearms hunting license, a valid license to carry pursuant to RSA 159, or is or is
otherwise qualified pursuant to RSA 159:6 III.
7. Effective Date.
I.
This act shall take effect upon its passage.
 
Just read the green section. If you like it, contact your State Rep.(s) and State Senator.
-Design
 
Lamina said:
You've done much for us my friend... may I ask on more thing? Cliffnotes on the above.
Click to expand...

Looks like the 159:4 replacement is there to make it explicit that carrying without a license is perfectly legal and an essential, natural right, subject only to certain enumerated restrictions. Replacing the red chunk in 159:6 is to remove any sort of "suitability" or discretion from the licensing entity and the addition of "Calendar" is to make the timetable for approval absolute and without wiggle room (it is essentially a maximum of what, 10 business days?).
 
The important part is the removal of the section listed below:

"159:4 Carrying Without License. – No person shall carry a loaded pistol or revolver in any vehicle or concealed upon his person, except in his dwelling, house or place of business, without a valid license therefor as hereinafter provided. A loaded pistol or revolver shall include any pistol or revolver with a magazine, cylinder, chamber or clip in which there are loaded cartridges. Whoever violates the provisions of this section shall, for the first such offense, be guilty of a misdemeanor. For the second and for each subsequent violation of the provisions of this section, such person shall be guilty of a class B felony, provided such second or subsequent violation has occurred within 7 years of the previous conviction. "

This is our current statute. Both of the versions of text before the committee remove this.
-Design
 
I'd love to see the BS about convicted felons gone, and anything else indexing to federal law... But I suppose I can deal with those imperfections to get this ball rolling.

Does this bill have any effect on the prohibition on traveling with loaded long guns?
 
I must agree with Lamina. Any law that indexes federal law is playing with fire. All it takes is for federal law to change to make potential problems for a lot of gun owners.
Design, if you can, who are the representatives in this committee? I would like to know who is it that believes any linking of state laws to federal is a great idea. While I would love for people to get closer to our natural right, I don't want it at the expense of having our state laws linked to federal. This has potential for abuse and other issues down the road.
 
If NH wishes to index Federal law, why not use the same language in their own law without being tied directly to federal rulings. You can easily copy the wording and incorporate it with any fine tuning that might be taken.
 

Similar threads

North Carolina Senate Passes Constitutional Carry
Replies
29
Views
424
lutstribe
L
GOP Lawmakers Introduce Bills to Make North Carolina 30th Constitutional Carry State
Replies
24
Views
250
dingbat
dingbat
NES-NH Dinner - Sunday, Mar. 30, 2025 at 5PM - Manchester, NH
Replies
16
Views
259
240Geezer
2
Wild Fight At Gas Station Ends in Shoutout
Replies
7
Views
286
Chevy 2 65
Chevy 2 65
NH Criminal Attorney North Country
Replies
4
Views
390
granitestater
G
Back
Top Bottom