NH HB687 Red Flag Gun Confiscation bill vote scheduled for 1/8 or 1/9/2020"

Kevin_NH

NES Member
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
7,817
Likes
1,604
Location
WNW of MHT
(NHFC)
NHFC said:
Brandishing a weapon is one of the many reasons that such an order can be issued. Since anti-gun Conservation Officers are already claiming that carrying a gun in the woods is evidence of poaching, it won’t be long before they start telling the courts that openly carrying a gun is brandishing and cause for a gun confiscation order to be issued;
Much of what NHFC is saying is hyperbole, they should know better.

For example, the actual phrasing isn't just "brandishing" but "The unlawful or reckless use, display, or brandishing of a firearm by the respondent.".

The bill is horrible, no need to overstate it.

HB687 said:
III. Any person who files a petition under this chapter containing allegations the petitioner knows to be false, or who files a petition with intent to harass the respondent, shall be subject to criminal penalties, as set forth in RSA 159-E:11.
. . .
I. In addition to other applicable charges and penalties, a person shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor if such person knowingly files a petition under this chapter containing false allegations, or if such person files a petition with intent to harass the respondent.
Just a misdemeanor? Knowingly giving false statements, with the intent of depriving civil rights, should be a felony.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
17,132
Likes
10,878
Much of what NHFC is saying is hyperbole, they should know better.

For example, the actual phrasing isn't just "brandishing" but "The unlawful or reckless use, display, or brandishing of a firearm by the respondent.".

The bill is horrible, no need to overstate it.


Just a misdemeanor? Knowingly giving false statements, with the intent of depriving civil rights, should be a felony.
I dont think its overstating at all.....look at how similar language has been abused in every state where these bills have been passed
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
77
Likes
73
Location
New Hampshire
Much of what NHFC is saying is hyperbole, they should know better.

For example, the actual phrasing isn't just "brandishing" but "The unlawful or reckless use, display, or brandishing of a firearm by the respondent.".

The bill is horrible, no need to overstate it.
I don't think they overstated anything, NHFC is correct... read the words, it does'nt say and brandishing it says OR which means brandishing alone will be cause for you to lose your guns. And lets not forget, Fish and Game will stop at nothing to confiscate guns and falsely accuse people of poaching.
 
Rating - 100%
18   0   0
Joined
Dec 25, 2012
Messages
3,782
Likes
2,799
Location
nh
BTW, it is always a good thing to write a LTE against them and their extreme views in a local paper. Reps *love* that type of treatment.
So who wrote that 9 day waiting period on ammo bill? Tell me and I’ll write a letter right now.
 
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
1,331
Likes
783
BTW, can we call this thread ['Red Flag' Gun Confiscation Order Bill' submitted in NH]
 

MaverickNH

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
3,342
Likes
1,230
Location
SoNH
I got several supportive replies from my representatives. And two from the NH EPRO bill sponsors. One was wish-washy, like “I support 2ndA & Gunowners as well as common sense gun laws.” The other was more interesting - the representative included a link to a 2016 study looking at the Connecticut ERPO law with 1999-2013 data, showing *some* efficacy.

This suggests that Giffords/Everytown/Bloomberg is seeding legislators with background (and no doubt money) to organize behind the bill. I sent a polite pushback noting the study she offered from CT over 13yr was an early and limited study vs Lott’s study of CA, CT, IN, WA over 36yr showing no efficacy of ERPO laws.

Some NH Democrat legislators are rabid, anti-gun liberals but others are just left of the fence, even if not on it. They are fed the background that support the gun-control agenda. You know...like the 3yr preliminary study of the 1994-2004 AWB that showed it was working while the final 10yr study showed it didn’t work. Nobody says “While early, limited studies showed the laws work, broader long-term studies showed they didn’t, but we’re going with the early, limited studies to support our views.” Cause that would look stupid and deceitful. They like to lie by omission and mislead but not out-and-out lie.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
17,132
Likes
10,878
Back to the top and an ask for the OP/Admins to add hearing date to title/OP

Everyone needs to attend this hearing

Public Hearing: 03/05/2019 10:00 am LOB 204
 

Woodsy

NES Member
Rating - 100%
15   0   0
Joined
Apr 6, 2009
Messages
5,069
Likes
2,117
Location
In the north woods likely hunting or trapping
This will end up being a nationwide thing, unfortunately. They’re digging for anything just to say that they’re trying to stop these active shooter events, and of course it’s us that will pay the price, not the criminals, not the mentally deranged or freakshows of FB.

20.00 bucks says this will be nationwide SOP within 2 yrs.
I agree, the best policy is to go quiet
 

Boston4567

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
561
Likes
486
Location
Merrimack Valley
When NH gets a full time legislature its doa.
A very interesting thought. Professional politicians, hmm. WCGW?
Actually, lots of research indicates that professional legislatures without term limits result in more stability over time. Basically, there's more incentive to avoid radical shifts because there's more for them to lose and they aren't under pressure to make a name for themselves before their term limits are up by passing dumb laws.

So you're less likely to get hard leftist politicians that get elected in a wave year and do a bunch of stupid shit. And yes, you're less likely to get lots of hard-right politicians in a wave year that do stuff you like. But at the end of the day I'll take more bias towards the status quo over radical back-and-forth shifts. At the end of the day, "you shall not pass" is generally a victory for conservatism. It's the other side that wants government to do lots of stuff.
 

42!

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
6,345
Likes
3,615
Actually, lots of research indicates that professional legislatures without term limits result in more stability over time. Basically, there's more incentive to avoid radical shifts because there's more for them to lose and they aren't under pressure to make a name for themselves before their term limits are up by passing dumb laws.

So you're less likely to get hard leftist politicians that get elected in a wave year and do a bunch of stupid shit. And yes, you're less likely to get lots of hard-right politicians in a wave year that do stuff you like. But at the end of the day I'll take more bias towards the status quo over radical back-and-forth shifts. At the end of the day, "you shall not pass" is generally a victory for conservatism. It's the other side that wants government to do lots of stuff.
WHAT!, please cite sources, I need to read that.
Have you looked at what the MA Legislature has done/is doing? If you want to ignore their hard leftist leaning, just look at how they gave themselves a pay raise. The MA Legislature can't give themselves a salary increase, so they called it a stipends. But the people can vote to overturn any Bill..... unless that Bill includes salaries for Judges. Now guess what they added to their stipends Bill to insure the people could do nothing.

This is how a professional legislature acts. It's also one of the big reasons I left the PRM.

I can only assume you have some form of Stockholm Syndrome, I wish you a speedy recovery.
 

Boston4567

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
561
Likes
486
Location
Merrimack Valley
WHAT!, please cite sources, I need to read that.
Have you looked at what the MA Legislature has done/is doing? If you want to ignore their hard leftist leaning, just look at how they gave themselves a pay raise. The MA Legislature can't give themselves a salary increase, so they called it a stipends. But the people can vote to overturn any Bill..... unless that Bill includes salaries for Judges. Now guess what they added to their stipends Bill to insure the people could do nothing.

This is how a professional legislature acts. It's also one of the big reasons I left the PRM.

I can only assume you have some form of Stockholm Syndrome, I wish you a speedy recovery.
I didn't say professional legislatures keep out leftists. We live in a left-leaning state with left-leaning voters, so we get left-leaning politicians and left-leaning policy. That has nothing to do with whether or not we have a professional legislature.

But if you take the political lean of the state into account, and the fact that the legislature is 80% Democrats, we have more stable, less hard-left policy and less wild swings than lots of other states. I read about this years ago, but can't find the source now.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
59   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
69,206
Likes
28,287
Actually, lots of research indicates that professional legislatures without term limits result in more stability over time. Basically, there's more incentive to avoid radical shifts because there's more for them to lose and they aren't under pressure to make a name for themselves before their term limits are up by passing dumb laws.

So you're less likely to get hard leftist politicians that get elected in a wave year and do a bunch of stupid shit. And yes, you're less likely to get lots of hard-right politicians in a wave year that do stuff you like. But at the end of the day I'll take more bias towards the status quo over radical back-and-forth shifts. At the end of the day, "you shall not pass" is generally a victory for conservatism. It's the other side that wants government to do lots of stuff.
Whoever is doing that research is an idiot because they obviously haven't been to Massachusetts.... the only thing preventing ma legislature from being 150% more communist is that the commies fight about the money they get to redistribute and what it gets used for... and occasionally the tax base pushes back instead of giving them more money to blow..... plus the institutional soft corruption in this state causes more sloth but that's a terrible thing to rely on politically... it's kind of like saying "oh we don't have to worry about those people driving, theyre too drunk to even start the car on a regular basis" "Professional" legislators are mostly human garbage. imo every legislator should have a term limit of some sort or maximum number of terms that they can run. Representation ratio needs to be high in the house, and the season of the legislature in each case should be as short as humanly possible..... Basically the more "professional" the legislature is, and the longer the sessions run, the more opportunities they have to f*** everybody over... "idle hands, spend time at the genitals".

-Mike
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
17,132
Likes
10,878
Maybe there's an argument to be made either way on a professional legislature, but there's no question that term limits are horrible for freedom if you live in a liberal state. They basically change all the incentives for legislators towards "doing things" to make a name for themselves before they get term limited. For evidence, I have one word for you: California.

In liberal states, term limits just create a revolving door between "progressive" organizations and interest groups and the legislature that funds them and pays them off. In states without them, and with a legislative salary, there's an incentive for those politicians to sit around and collect their salary and not make too much noise (e.g., not pass too many laws).
Would you guys take your mass legislation discussion somewhere else?

This is a NH Red Flag thread
 
Top Bottom