NH HB687 Red Flag Gun Confiscation hearing scheduled 6/24/20

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.
This is nothing more that legalizing SWATTING. It's to keep the cops and lefties protected, not you. If you dare defend yourself, they have every right to murder you, and then get to claim "see? he was crazy!". And the DA will call the murder "justified".
 
Would they arrest you for not turning them all over ? After all they do have a record of what you own legaly
In MA they would arrest you under C. 269 S. 10. In NH (this thread) it depends on what the law says if/when passed. And in both states they do NOT have a record of what you currently own legally!

But you have done them. Do you live under a rock?[laugh2] Unless you buy all your guns used from the back of van down by the river. You filled out a 4473
4473s are ONLY filled out when doing a transfer thru an FFL, not for private transfers. So no, they don't have 4473s for every gun a person owns in most cases.
 
But you have done them. Do you live under a rock?[laugh2] Unless you buy all your guns used from the back of van down by the river. You filled out a 4473

Sure, I have done them. For new gun purchases from a dealer. Not for private sales between myself and another NH resident, nor for firearms that were purchased prior to 1968. Many of the firearms I have here have never been 4473ed. So, what's your point? You are incorrect in your assumptions.
 
In MA they would arrest you under C. 269 S. 10. In NH (this thread) it depends on what the law says if/when passed. And in both states they do NOT have a record of what you currently own legally!


4473s are ONLY filled out when doing a transfer thru an FFL, not for private transfers. So no, they don't have 4473s for every gun a person owns in most cases.

Len, he has been told this several times, yet, can't grasp/understand the concept.
 
I am guessing you know this already but for clarification the ATF does not have the 4473's. The dealers keep them. If a firearm is used and or recovered from a crime scene the PD will call the ATF for a trace. At which point the ATF will contact the FFL. In the video you posted those containers full of 4473's are from dealers no longer in business.
OK
 
In MA they would arrest you under C. 269 S. 10. In NH (this thread) it depends on what the law says if/when passed. And in both states they do NOT have a record of what you currently own legally!


4473s are ONLY filled out when doing a transfer thru an FFL, not for private transfers. So no, they don't have 4473s for every gun a person owns in most cases.
I get all the private sales stuff etc.. .. However, IF the ATF wanted to they could look back and find out, who owns a/the gun. I know there are all laws that prevent them from doing so unless it's used in a crime. Importer/Manufacturer - Wholesaler - Retail Gun Dealer- Owner. Thats the path they will follow. They also have the old yellow forms on microfilm.
 
I get all the private sales stuff etc.. .. However, IF the ATF wanted to they could look back and find out, who owns a/the gun. I know there are all laws that prevent them from doing so unless it's used in a crime. Importer/Manufacturer - Wholesaler - Retail Gun Dealer- Owner. Thats the path they will follow. They also have the old yellow forms on microfilm.

There is no way they would be aware of what a person has as the data is not put together by name, but Importer/Manufacturer and serial number. The trail will stop at the first owner that buys the firearm from the FFL, as no one is required to keep a record of how they sell to in private sale. So the Government will not spend the time trying to look up all that a person might own. In fact in Mass. the files at FRB are so screwed up (and they know it), I doubt they will push too hard, as they don't want get called out for poor record keeping. Remember the Dept. of Public Safety in that state is having some real credibility issues right now.
 
2 pages and no one has a bill number?

Maybe because it doesnt appear to exist yet afaict

Red Flag Bill Submitted in New Hampshire ~ VIDEO

Links to: http://bills.nhha.org/ which lists the statist dem Rep. Debra Altschiller as the sponsor

But Gencourt has no such bill listed with her as sponsor

That is because the bill text is not yet available. It is still an LSR at the time of this post. Either legislative services/legislative IT became retards when the dems took over and can't get bill text to the public in a timely manner (pretty sure all bills had text publicly available by at this point in previous sessions) or it is purposely being withheld from the public for as long as possible to prevent us from rallying against it and mobilizing until it is too late.

This link should update with the bill number when it is available.

LSR# 2019-0007 - relative to extreme risk protection orders.
 
I spoke with the attorneys that draft the bills and she came in on the very last day to sign off the bill and asked for a complete rewrite....
 
I suspect that we will see a bill by the end of next week. The bill needs to be drafted, reviewed, sent to the speaker for a committee assignment, sent to the house clerk to be published.
 
This bill creates a storage fee program that could and most likely ending up costing the accused party (Respondent) more money than he or she can afford to get the firearms back thus losing then to the storage facility. This has caused some severe hardships in Mass.
 
Trying to see what has changed from the existing protective order. But just to start off, III h, j, l,... seems like any one could get into trouble for doing no harm, like shooting a gun you just bought today, 299 feet away from a dwelling, would be unlawful.
 
Holy horse shit......looks like it was written by soros/bloomberg and co
Wouldn't surprise me in the least if it was!

Taken from another thread here

Thousands of dads are left in shock as DIY paternity tests soar

20-30% of children are fathered by someone other than the man who's been told he was the father..........demonstrates a pattern of deceptive/dishonest behavior

Taken in context along with known abuse of false dv charges which are regularly used as a tactic in divorce/custody proceedings and we have every reason to believe that red flag laws will be used in the same manner

False Allegations of Domestic Violence: More Common Than You Think

Costs the state
Costs taxpayers
Costs the accused massive $$ to defend against with no evidence and no crime actually having been committed.......dont get me started on due process
Then there's the impact on reputation, employment etc.......

Bad bill
You can bet the farm that it will be abused more often than not.
 
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Dear Representatives and Senators,

As sponsors of House Bill HB-687-FN “AN ACT relative to extreme risk protection orders” you should be aware of the published study by Dr John Lott, PhD, that finds “Red flag laws had no significant effect on murder, suicide, the number of people killed in mass public shootings, robbery, aggravated assault, or burglary. There is some evidence that rape rates rise.” This study of States that have already enacted Red Flag Laws demonstrates that such laws are ineffective and, in fact, counterproductive. Further, any such law lacking Due Process is offensive to a US Citizen’s civil rights. I strongly urge you to withdraw your sponsorship and resist jumping on the bandwagon supporting “feel good” laws that do not address criminal violence.

Respectfully,

Full Name
Address
Telephone
Email

Do Red Flag Laws Save Lives or Reduce Crime? by John R. Lott, Carlisle E. Moody :: SSRN
 
I emailed all those jokers. Thanks for posting it. A couple popped back as undeliverable. I'll have to look and see why when the morning dust settles...
 
(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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom