• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

NH: Help stop local gun bans… Act Now!

design

design

Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
1,635
Likes
1,367
Feedback: 4 / 0 / 0
Help stop local gun bans…
by NHFC, Inc. on January 5, 2018

Lebanon, Milford, Manchester, Hillsborough County…. gun bans are coming to a city, town or county near where you live or work.


Despite the clear language in R.S.A. 159:26 that says:
” …the state of New Hampshire shall have authority and jurisdiction over the sale, purchase, ownership, use, possession, transportation, licensing, permitting, taxation, or other matter pertaining to firearms, firearms components, ammunition, firearms supplies, or knives in the state. Except as otherwise specifically provided by statute, no ordinance or regulation of a political subdivision may regulate the sale, purchase, ownership, use, possession, transportation, licensing, permitting, taxation, or other matter pertaining to firearms, firearms components, ammunition, or firearms supplies in the state.”

The above listed local jurisdictions are in fact regulating the use of firearms in violation of existing state law. To correct this injustice, NHFC Corporate Secretary and State Representative JR Hoell (R-Merrimack 23) has introduced HB 1749 which has 9 co-sponsors.

HB 1749 is scheduled for a public hearing on January 10, at 10 AM in the House Municipal and County Government Committee. Please make every effort to attend this hearing to show your support for this important legislation.

As you are no doubt aware, New Hampshire is made up of dozens of small towns and a few cities all within 10 counties. Even though our state is made up of small towns, we are NOT a “home rule state”. Cities and towns are limited as to what types of ordinances they can enact.

The reason firearms preemption was originally passed in 2003 was to protect traveling firearms owners from unknowingly breaking the law by crossing a town or city boundary line. Sadly, because R.S.A. 159:26 does not penalize those who violate it, rogue, anti-gun city and town officials have no reason to follow the law. HB 1749 changes the paradigm by adding much needed penalties. As a point of reference, Florida had a preemption law on its books from 1987 through 2011 that was largely ignored. That all changed in 2011 when the legislature added penalties. The local gun bans disappeared almost overnight! We need to see the same success here in New Hampshire.

Please plan to attend the scheduled public hearing on January 10. Please also click here for a list of the members of the House Municipal and County Government Committee.

I expect the taxpayer funded lobbyists from the anti-gun New Hampshire Municipal Association to oppose HB 1749. However, I am confident, that you the grassroots gun owner, can out speak, out organize and persuade the House Municipal and County Government Committee to vote this important legislation “ought to pass”. These municipal bureaucrats need to constantly be reminded who they work for. For example, the town owned property that they wish to ban guns from is actually owned by you, the local taxpayer. We need to make sure the committee is aware of this.

If you click on each members name you will see individual contact information. Or just click here to email all members of the Committee. Please be polite but firm when you inform the committee members of the importance of voting HB 1749 “ought to pass” without any amendments or changes.

This issue is of vital importance and I am urging you to please share this with all of your friends and family members. We need a strong turnout on Wednesday, January 10, 2018.

Thanks for your support!

In liberty,

Alan M. Rice
President – NHFC, Inc.


Help stop local gun bans…

If you would like to join NHFC:
 
Hearing was today:
Bill would let residents sue local officials over gun-related decisions

In case anyone is concerned about the PGNH anti-gun talking points:
Here is what the constitution states, something that has NOT been updated for over 200 years.

State Constitution - Form of Government
Established October 31, 1783 Effective June 2, 1784 As Subsequently Amended and in Force January 2007

Article 1. [Name of Body Politic.] The people inhabiting the territory formerly called the province of New Hampshire, do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other, to form themselves into a free, sovereign and independent body-politic, or state, by the name of the State of New Hampshire.

June 2, 1784

GENERAL COURT​

[Art.] 2. [Legislature, How Constituted.] The supreme legislative power, within this state, shall be vested in the senate and house of representatives, each of which shall have a negative on the other.

June 2, 1784
 
I think Manchester recently voted in a Dem Mayor.. I am sure she has her hands in this.. Could be wrong but I don't see her riding the pine when we all know her and Maura Healey are besties..

In case some did not know, Maura campaigned for her recently to ensure she gets elected. The State of NH should be very concerned as the cancer is spreading from Mass. It has started. I am sure Bloomberg also has his sites on NH.
 
Last edited:
In an interesting turn of events, PGNH and WDLNH opposed the bill, while NRA, GOA, GONH and NHFC supported the bill or versions there of.
The entire event was video taped.
 
design said:
In an interesting turn of events, PGNH and WDLNH opposed the bill, while NRA, GOA, GONH and NHFC supported the bill or versions there of.
The entire event was video taped.
Click to expand...

Sounds like retaliation for SB500...

And to add.. this is why we can't have nice things.
 
RadiCS said:
Sounds like retaliation for SB500...
Click to expand...

So how does attacking good legislation for pointing out flawed legislation help the gun owners??? Maybe we need to let those groups know that this is not helping our citizens.
 
We must stop local gun bans…
by NHFC, Inc. on January 20, 2018

A few weeks ago we told you about HB 1749, which was introduced by State Representative JR Hoell (R-Merrimack 23) and 9 co-sponsors. HB 1749 is intended to stop illegal local gun bans. The bill had a public hearing on January 10. During the hearing, lobbyists for the Municipal Association conceded what we have been saying for years, that local units of government may NOT regulate, restrict or tax firearms in any way.


That in and of itself is a small victory. However, to truly vanquish these local gun bans, we need the penalties that are contained in HB 1749 because some local officials, like anti-gun, Jeff Peavey who Chairs the Lebanon School Board and Mark Fougere, Chairman of the Milford Board of Selectmen remain defiant and have vowed to continue their illegal gun bans. Furthermore, the Manchester Board of Alderman has turned over management of the Southern New Hampshire University Arena to out of state anti-gun actors who also are remaining defiant and pushing to keep their illegal gun ban.

It is outrageous that these rogue, anti-gun officials are objecting to the penalties contained in HB 1749. The criminal code contains numerous penalties for corrupt public officials. I have some simple advice for these people: follow the law and you won’t be subject to any penalties!

The Municipal and County Government Committee has scheduled an executive session for 10 AM on Wednesday, January 24 to consider the fate of HB 1749. This is when they will debate the bill among themselves and vote on it. You don’t need to attend.

We have been informed that Representative Mark McLean (R-Hillsborough 44) intends to offer an amendment, 2018-0138h. We have asked our Counsel to review the amendment and it is a GOOD amendment which will make HB 1749 a BETTER bill. We are asking all NHFC members and supporters to contact the House Municipal and County Government Committee and urge them to replace HB 1749 with Representative McLean’s amendment, 2018-0138h and then vote the bill “ought to pass”

please click here for a committee roster. Please don’t wait, take action today!

Thanks for your support!

We must stop local gun bans…
 
design:

AT about the 45 minute mark Susan Olsen, legislative director of WDLNH, opposes the bill and lists 3 reasons. 1-law already exists to prevent locals from doing this (state pre-emption), 2 - gives over to the COURTS the right to decide if these acts are legal (bypassing the NH state Constitution and the legislative branch) and 3 - contains no severability clause.

I have not read this bill but my questions are:
Are her assertions correct? If not, why?
Why the heck are we looking to create a law to enforce a law that already exists?
 
PennyPincher,
1. The bill will create a new law to enforce the state pre-emption law. The issue is that the current law is not followed as there are no penalties. A law without penalties is useless and that is why we are seeing local gun bans. The bill was watered down the first time it was passed.

2. The bill tells the courts to issue an immediate injunction to stop these unconstitutional local bans. We can do this. We can direct a quote to do something.
3. There is no severability clause, but almost all NH statutes do not have severability clauses. In general this is a good idea and we can add one.

The amendment that was handed in is below:
159:26 Firearms, Ammunition, and Knives; Authority of the State.

I. To the extent consistent with federal law, the state of New Hampshire shall have authority and jurisdiction over the sale, purchase, ownership, use, possession, transportation, licensing, permitting, taxation, or other matter pertaining to firearms, firearms components, ammunition, firearms supplies, or knives in the state. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, all delegations of legislative authority shall be by statute and explicitly state the extent and limits of the jurisdiction or authority delegated. Except as otherwise specifically provided by statute, no ordinance or regulation of a political subdivision may regulate the sale, purchase, ownership, use, possession, transportation, licensing, permitting, taxation, or other matter pertaining to firearms, firearms components, ammunition, firearms supplies or knives in the state.

II. No public or private entity shall regulate the sale, use, or possession of the firearms, firearms components, ammunition, firearms supplies or knives on any property owned, whole or in part, by the state, political subdivision, committee, or other governmental unit thereof, unless explicitly authorized by statute.

III. Upon the effective date of this section, all ordinances and regulations of any political subdivision not authorized under paragraph I or regulation by any public or private entity not authorized under paragraph II relative to the sale, purchase, ownership, use, possession, transportation, licensing, permitting, taxation, or other matter pertaining to firearms, firearm components, ammunition, firearms supplies, or knives shall be null and void.

IV. Any person, entity, or organization whose member is aggrieved by the enactment or enforcement of an ordinance or regulation in violation of the terms set forth under paragraphs I or II, may file suit in the Superior Court having venue where the ordinance or regulation is being enacted or enforced against any such person, entity or organization. Upon such filing the Superior Court shall:


  1. Issue an immediate and permanent injunction against the person(s) and/or political subdivision(s) from enforcing the ordinance or regulation;
  2. Issue an order declaring the ordinance or regulation null and void;
  3. Order the person(s) or political subdivision(s) to reimburse the aggrieved person or entity who brought the action before the Superior Court for all reasonable attorney fees and costs associated with bringing suit for the violation of the terms under paragraphs I or II; and
  4. Award actual damages to the aggrieved person and/or entity, not exceeding $100,000; provided that the sanctions contained in subparagraphs C and D shall not apply to a good faith enforcement of an ordinance found unlawful under the provisions of paragraphs I or II.

V. If any person(s) or political subdivision(s) as described under paragraph I, or public or private entity(s) as described under paragraph II, shall knowingly violate the permanent injunction or enact or enforce any subsequent, equivalent ordinance or regulation, upon filing by an aggrieved person(s), entity(s) or organization(s) the Superior Court shall:


  1. Issue all such orders and awards as listed in paragraph IV; and
  2. Assess a civil fine up to $5,000 for each violation against the elected or appointed local government official(s) or administrative agency head under whose jurisdiction the violation(s) occurred.


VI. Except as required by applicable law, public funds shall not be used to defend or reimburse any person(s), political subdivision(s) found to have knowingly violated this section, nor shall any public funds be used to pay or reimburse any aggrieved person(s), entity(s) or organization(s) who filed suit.
 
design said:
In an interesting turn of events, PGNH and WDLNH opposed the bill, while NRA, GOA, GONH and NHFC supported the bill or versions there of.
The entire event was video taped.
Click to expand...
WDL opposed it from the beginning. JR's ("design") bill is unconstitutional and because there was no severability clause, when it went to court, would void NH's state pre-emption and made NH not better than New Jersey or New York. Even Gun Owners of New Hampshire opposed it as introduced.
 
design said:
This bill is still in play. At this point, the NRA, GOA and NHFC have public statements supporting HB1749. I have been told that GONH is also in support of this bill.

It is time to act if we want to pass this bill. Please see the alert from NRA below.

NRA-ILA | New Hampshire: Committee Soon to Consider Pro-Gun Legislation
Click to expand...
The Women's Defense League is not a fan of NH firearms owners - or anyone, for that matter - taking marching orders from DC-based organizations like Gun Owners of America.. As it's subsidiary, NHFC may be OK with being ordered around by out-of-states; it sure looks that way.
 
design said:
PennyPincher,
1. The bill will create a new law to enforce the state pre-emption law. The issue is that the current law is not followed as there are no penalties. A law without penalties is useless and that is why we are seeing local gun bans. The bill was watered down the first time it was passed.

2. The bill tells the courts to issue an immediate injunction to stop these unconstitutional local bans. We can do this. We can direct a quote to do something.
3. There is no severability clause, but almost all NH statutes do not have severability clauses. In general this is a good idea and we can add one.

The amendment that was handed in is below:
159:26 Firearms, Ammunition, and Knives; Authority of the State.

I. To the extent consistent with federal law, the state of New Hampshire shall have authority and jurisdiction over the sale, purchase, ownership, use, possession, transportation, licensing, permitting, taxation, or other matter pertaining to firearms, firearms components, ammunition, firearms supplies, or knives in the state. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, all delegations of legislative authority shall be by statute and explicitly state the extent and limits of the jurisdiction or authority delegated. Except as otherwise specifically provided by statute, no ordinance or regulation of a political subdivision may regulate the sale, purchase, ownership, use, possession, transportation, licensing, permitting, taxation, or other matter pertaining to firearms, firearms components, ammunition, firearms supplies or knives in the state.

II. No public or private entity shall regulate the sale, use, or possession of the firearms, firearms components, ammunition, firearms supplies or knives on any property owned, whole or in part, by the state, political subdivision, committee, or other governmental unit thereof, unless explicitly authorized by statute.

III. Upon the effective date of this section, all ordinances and regulations of any political subdivision not authorized under paragraph I or regulation by any public or private entity not authorized under paragraph II relative to the sale, purchase, ownership, use, possession, transportation, licensing, permitting, taxation, or other matter pertaining to firearms, firearm components, ammunition, firearms supplies, or knives shall be null and void.

IV. Any person, entity, or organization whose member is aggrieved by the enactment or enforcement of an ordinance or regulation in violation of the terms set forth under paragraphs I or II, may file suit in the Superior Court having venue where the ordinance or regulation is being enacted or enforced against any such person, entity or organization. Upon such filing the Superior Court shall:


  1. Issue an immediate and permanent injunction against the person(s) and/or political subdivision(s) from enforcing the ordinance or regulation;
  2. Issue an order declaring the ordinance or regulation null and void;
  3. Order the person(s) or political subdivision(s) to reimburse the aggrieved person or entity who brought the action before the Superior Court for all reasonable attorney fees and costs associated with bringing suit for the violation of the terms under paragraphs I or II; and
  4. Award actual damages to the aggrieved person and/or entity, not exceeding $100,000; provided that the sanctions contained in subparagraphs C and D shall not apply to a good faith enforcement of an ordinance found unlawful under the provisions of paragraphs I or II.

V. If any person(s) or political subdivision(s) as described under paragraph I, or public or private entity(s) as described under paragraph II, shall knowingly violate the permanent injunction or enact or enforce any subsequent, equivalent ordinance or regulation, upon filing by an aggrieved person(s), entity(s) or organization(s) the Superior Court shall:


  1. Issue all such orders and awards as listed in paragraph IV; and
  2. Assess a civil fine up to $5,000 for each violation against the elected or appointed local government official(s) or administrative agency head under whose jurisdiction the violation(s) occurred.


VI. Except as required by applicable law, public funds shall not be used to defend or reimburse any person(s), political subdivision(s) found to have knowingly violated this section, nor shall any public funds be used to pay or reimburse any aggrieved person(s), entity(s) or organization(s) who filed suit.
Click to expand...

If NHFC were so worried about lawless local government, it would amend the appropriate statute (NH RSA 31:104) to hold ALL local officials for violating ANY law.
 
In reviewing their website, it is clear that NHFC is not a general government over-watch group: instead, NHFC is strictly a firearms advocacy group and they care about protecting the rights of the NH firearms owners. There is no need to add this penalty to the municipal section that indemnifies public officials. This bill is about protecting the gun owners and belongs in the firearms statutes:

For reference: This is the section that Ms. Susan is referencing:

Liability for Damages Limited, Indemnification, Insurance
Section 31:104
31:104 Liability of Municipal Executives. – Notwithstanding any provisions of law to the contrary, no member of the governing board of any municipal corporation or political subdivision, no member of any other board, commission, or bureau of any municipal corporation or political subdivision created or existing pursuant to a statute or charter, and no chief executive officer of such municipal corporation or political subdivision, including but not limited to city councilors and aldermen, selectmen, county convention members, members of boards of adjustment, members of planning boards, school board members, mayors, city managers, town managers, county commissioners, regional planning commissioners, town and city health officers, overseers of public welfare, and school superintendents shall be held liable for civil damages for any vote, resolution, or decision made by said person acting in his or her official capacity in good faith and within the scope of his or her authority.
 
Here is the amendment that has broad support. Please let reps know that this is a critical bill that needs to be passed
 

Attachments

  • HB 1749 - 2018-0220h.pdf
    61.3 KB · Views: 10
The Exec session is on this bill tomorrow. Please contact the committee if you do not want local gun bans

-design
 
NRA, GOA, NHFC and GONH all rowing with the gun owners. I don't see any groups that are in opposition.
PS. the NRA did a physical letter in support of the bill to all house members today. I have seen a copy
 
Coyote33 said:
It would be FAR more productive if everyone could row in the same direction.
Click to expand...
That would be nice, but some seem to want to assist the Mom's Demand Action team...
MDA testified against this bill and so did some other groups.
 
The latest NRA alert:
NRA-ILA | New Hampshire Attorney General Opines on School Carry

The scope of New Hampshire’s permitless carry law expanded this week with reports that the state Attorney General’s office has determined that local school officials cannot prohibit firearms on school grounds.

Under New Hampshire law, the only places lawfully possessed firearms are prohibited are courtrooms. The state Legislature has reserved to itself the authority to regulate firearms, and all local regulations are preempted and should, therefore, be unenforceable.

When New Hampshire’s permitless carry law went into effect on February 22, 2017, it raised a question as to the law’s impact on the federal prohibition on firearms in schools and a surrounding 1,000 foot “school zone”. Federal law only provides a limited exemption to the prohibition if a person is licensed to possess a firearm or the firearm is unloaded and secured.

Last year, the state Attorney General’s office announced that local law enforcement lacked the authority to enforce federal law with regard to the school zone prohibition. Last week, Associate Attorney General Anne Edwards declared that school officials cannot prohibit firearms on school grounds because only the state Legislature has that authority. The decisions does not affect students, however, since state law grants school boards the authority to prohibit students from possessing firearms on school property.

Several towns have announced they will ignore the Attorney General’s opinion. In the interim, the New Hampshire legislature is considering HB 1749, which would impose a $5,000 penalty on any elected official who has violated the state’s firearms laws.
 
design said:
Several towns have announced they will ignore the Attorney General’s opinion. In the interim, the New Hampshire legislature is considering HB 1749, which would impose a $5,000 penalty on any elected official who has violated the state’s firearms laws.
Click to expand...

I asked in the other thread, but I don't think it was answered: doesn't New Hampshire have some form of mandamus?
 
NHFC just emailed out an alert on this bill and the critical nature of contacting your rep this weekend.

House leadership trying to stop progun reforms…



We have previously told you about HB 1749, which will provide an enforcement mechanism for the existing state law that prohibits cities, towns and counties from regulating, taxing or prohibiting the sale, ownership and use of firearms. The House Municipal and County Government Committee ignored your calls and emails and has recommended that HB 1749 be voted to interim study; which, in the second year of a legislative session usually means a certain death for a bill.



There has been a lot misinformation being spread about HB 1749: Let me be clear, HB 1749 does not grant any power to the legislature that it does not now have. It merely amends existing law (R.S.A. 159:26) that already prohibits cities, towns and counties from regulating firearms in any form by adding penalties to existing law. When a similar law was enacted in Florida, amending a 23 year old preemption law, no local official actually paid a penalty. The enactment of penalties encouraged compliance and that is the result we are expecting in New Hampshire.

On Wednesday, February 7, the entire House of Representatives will decide.... [More]
 

Similar threads

  • Poll
Local shooting and gunsmithing classes
Replies
0
Views
121
Darkslide
Darkslide
Help identify
Replies
4
Views
201
Taipan01
Taipan01
Now Dr Asking..
2 3
Replies
60
Views
2K
Broc
Broc
Local Dealers who Sell on Consignment Through GunBroker?
2
Replies
49
Views
1K
alan226
alan226
  • Locked
free gun cabinet, londonderry nh
Replies
3
Views
389
drgrant
drgrant
Back
Top Bottom