NH: Lawmakers to defy House chamber gun ban

atmay

NES Member
Rating - 100%
19   0   0
Joined
Nov 19, 2007
Messages
8,924
Likes
2,025
Location
Free 'murica
If I remember correctly the ban was not based on law but because the house could set "rules" on the use of the building.... eg, this ban isn't in RSA explicitly....
Yeah, this “ban” has no lawful basis outside of the House itself saying “these here are the rules for us”.

It’s kinda like the “no guns” signs in the mall...

ETA: but, of course, any of us little people found in violation can reasonably expect to get utterly and completely f***ed as a result.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
18,325
Likes
12,144
Yeah, this “ban” has no lawful basis outside of the House itself saying “these here are the rules for us”.

It’s kinda like the “no guns” signs in the mall...

ETA: but, of course, any of us little people found in violation can reasonably expect to get utterly and completely f***ed as a result.
The ban has no lawful basis for the house either.

The constitution allows the house to establish its own rules wrt process and punish folks that are disruptive

It does not allow for the house to ban concealed carry any more than they could ban people from wearing blue jeans
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
59   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
70,206
Likes
30,376
So, with that being given, whats the worst that could happen to the protesters? they could get escorted out?

-Mike
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lip

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
18,325
Likes
12,144
So, with that being given, whats the worst that could happen to the protesters? they could get escorted out?

-Mike

[Art.] 22. [House to Elect Speaker and Officers, Settle Rules of Proceedings, and Punish Misconduct.] The House of Representatives shall choose their own Speaker, appoint their own officers, and settle the rules of proceedings in their own House; and shall be judge of the returns, elections, and qualifications, of its members, as pointed out in this Constitution. They shall have authority to punish, by imprisonment, every person who shall be guilty of disrespect to the House, in its presence, by any disorderly and contemptuous behavior, or by threatening, or illtreating, any of its members; or by obstructing its deliberations; every person guilty of a breach of its privileges, in making arrests for debt, or by assaulting any member during his attendance at any session; in assaulting or disturbing any one of its officers in the execution of any order or procedure of the House; in assaulting any witness, or other person, ordered to attend, by and during his attendance of the House; or in rescuing any person arrested by order of the House, knowing them to be such.
June 2, 1784
Amended 1792 by adding that the House shall be judge of the returns, elections, and qualifications of its members.

[Art.] 23. [Senate and Executive Have Like Powers; Imprisonment Limited.] The Senate, Governor and Council, shall have the same powers in like cases; provided, that no imprisonment by either, for any offense, exceeds ten days.
June 2, 1784
Amended 1792 substituting "governor" for "president."
 

atmay

NES Member
Rating - 100%
19   0   0
Joined
Nov 19, 2007
Messages
8,924
Likes
2,025
Location
Free 'murica
The ban has no lawful basis for the house either.

The constitution allows the house to establish its own rules wrt process and punish folks that are disruptive

It does not allow for the house to ban concealed carry any more than they could ban people from wearing blue jeans
Given that the Constitution gives the House the power to punish, by imprisonment, anyone found guilty of “disrespect to the House”, I would say they do, in fact, have the lawful authority to ban firearms and blue jeans. All they have to do is say that showing up in denim is disrespectful, and BAM. You’re in jail.

Sounds an awful lot like a ban to me.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
18,325
Likes
12,144
Given that the Constitution gives the House the power to punish, by imprisonment, anyone found guilty of “disrespect to the House”, I would say they do, in fact, have the lawful authority to ban firearms and blue jeans. All they have to do is say that showing up in denim is disrespectful, and BAM. You’re in jail.

Sounds an awful lot like a ban to me.
Any attempt to ban blue jean would be baseless

Similarly for anyone CCW

You MIGHT be able to make an argument for someone open carrying a 91/30 in the gallery but........
 

atmay

NES Member
Rating - 100%
19   0   0
Joined
Nov 19, 2007
Messages
8,924
Likes
2,025
Location
Free 'murica
Any attempt to ban blue jean would be baseless

Similarly for anyone CCW

You MIGHT be able to make an argument for someone open carrying a 91/30 in the gallery but........

They have the authority to imprison anyone they find to be disrespectful, contemptuous, or disruptive. They get to decide what’s disrespectful, contemptuous, or disruptive.

See where this is going?

If they come out and say “no denim allowed”, and you wear your blue jeans anyway....guess what? You’ve just been disrespectful. And/or contemptuous. And now they have the lawful authority to imprison you.

Now substitute “firearms” for denim.

They might not have the lawful authority to directly ban firearms, or denim, but they sure as shit have a way to make it happen.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
18,325
Likes
12,144
They have the authority to imprison anyone they find to be disrespectful, contemptuous, or disruptive. They get to decide what’s disrespectful, contemptuous, or disruptive.

See where this is going?

If they come out and say “no denim allowed”, and you wear your blue jeans anyway....guess what? You’ve just been disrespectful. And/or contemptuous. And now they have the lawful authority to imprison you.

Now substitute “firearms” for denim.

They might not have the lawful authority to directly ban firearms, or denim, but they sure as shit have a way to make it happen.
They actually dont get to define societal values and accepted norms

Furthermore they could no more ban/consider a hidden tattoo underneath a shirt/sweater to be disruptive/disrespectful or contemptuous than they could a concealed handgun.

If its not visible/audible etc then its outside of their purview
 

atmay

NES Member
Rating - 100%
19   0   0
Joined
Nov 19, 2007
Messages
8,924
Likes
2,025
Location
Free 'murica
They actually dont get to define societal values and accepted norms

Furthermore they could no more ban/consider a hidden tattoo underneath a shirt/sweater to be disruptive/disrespectful or contemptuous than they could a concealed handgun.

If its not visible/audible etc then its outside of their purview
Sure thing, bud.

Good luck with that.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
18,325
Likes
12,144
Sure thing, bud.

Good luck with that.
The house could no more ban women (or men if thats your thing) from wearing a thong underneath other clothing than they can ban CCW because none of the above in any way shape or form constitutes a disruption, disrespect etc of the processes/business of the house

Now, if a person were to begin waving either of the above around then thats another story
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
8,704
Likes
1,493
Location
Central Ma.
Wow, what a POS ! My Lai?
"
Before and after debate Wednesday, some opponents of the ban vowed to independently ignore it if it passed, but Monday’s letter was the first concerted and public effort to do so.

In laying out their case, the representatives invoked the June 2017 shooting at a Congressional baseball practice in Alexandria, Va., in which a politically-motivated gunman took aim at Republican legislators, and critically wounded then-House Majority Whip Steve Scalise.

And they argued that while the House has the ability to pass rules, it “does not have the authority to strip Representatives of their rights.”

Any rule that does that, the lawmakers wrote, is a violation of lawmakers’ “natural rights” and should be ignored.

“There are times when the acts of a majority are so repugnant to the dignity of the individual that the act itself is cast asunder,” the representatives wrote. “The act removes itself from the realm of legitimate government authority and is to be ignored, if not openly held in disdain.”

But Shurtleff rejected the premise, declaring the House rule in line with other forms of gun restrictions.

“The Supreme Court’s already held under the Second Amendment that certain bodies have the right to ban firearms, including legislators and jails, courts and airplanes,” he said. “So that’s already been adjudicated and there’s already court decisions on that. We don’t really follow natural rights as an argument.”

In their letter, the representatives made reference to the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, in which hundreds of unarmed civilians were murdered by U.S. soldiers. The incident provided a teaching moment for disobeying “unlawful orders,” the New Hampshire lawmakers argued.

And they said their resistance to the rule was meant as a deterrent for would-be shooters. "
 

atmay

NES Member
Rating - 100%
19   0   0
Joined
Nov 19, 2007
Messages
8,924
Likes
2,025
Location
Free 'murica
The house could no more ban women (or men if thats your thing) from wearing a thong underneath other clothing than they can ban CCW because none of the above in any way shape or form constitutes a disruption, disrespect etc of the processes/business of the house

Now, if a person were to begin waving either of the above around then thats another story
You say they can’t, and yet they have.

Also, btw...they voted on adding a dress code two years ago.

With the NH Constitution being as vaguely written as it is, there really isn’t much of anything that is outside of their lawful authority to regulate via the House (or Senate) rules.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
18,325
Likes
12,144
You say they can’t, and yet they have.

Also, btw...they voted on adding a dress code two years ago.

With the NH Constitution being as vaguely written as it is, there really isn’t much of anything that is outside of their lawful authority to regulate via the House (or Senate) rules.
Just because you ran that stop sign this morning doesnt make it legal

The NH constitution isnt vague.....you're just being ignorant
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
3,960
Likes
1,529
Culture matters more than the law. Control the culture control who gets punished and for what. Remember that next time someone is telling you to be tolerant of non Christian, non American values.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
18,325
Likes
12,144
If it isn’t vague, then show me where it limits, or defines, what constitutes disrespect to the House.
They shall have authority to punish, by imprisonment, every person who shall be guilty of disrespect to the House, in its presence, by any disorderly and contemptuous behavior, or by threatening, or illtreating, any of its members; or by obstructing its deliberations",
This is where it becomes clear who didnt pay attention in school and who did......

Is english your second language or are you going to declare that the sky is green next?

Absent one of the above ACTIONS against one or more of its members OR an action that OBSTRUCTS the deliberation of the legislative body a person or persons cannot be found guilty of any of your percieved thought crimes.

A person who sits quietly in the gallery while wearing a thong under their pants/skirt or who similarly has a tatoo that is not visible can no more be found guilty of any of the above than a person who has a concealed handgun under clothing
 

atmay

NES Member
Rating - 100%
19   0   0
Joined
Nov 19, 2007
Messages
8,924
Likes
2,025
Location
Free 'murica
This is where it becomes clear who didnt pay attention in school and who did......

Is english your second language or are you going to declare that the sky is green next?

Absent one of the above ACTIONS against one or more of its members OR an action that OBSTRUCTS the deliberation of the legislative body a person or persons cannot be found guilty of any of your percieved thought crimes.

A person who sits quietly in the gallery while wearing a thong under their pants/skirt or who similarly has a tatoo that is not visible can no more be found guilty of any of the above than a person who has a concealed handgun under clothing
Look, dude. I’m not saying that banning thongs or jeans or guns is in any way effective, smart, or something they ought to be doing.

BUT, if they say something is against the rules, and you do it anyway, that is, by definition contemptuous behavior, which is disrespectful to the House, which is punishable by imprisonment, which means that basically whatever the hell they say is banned in there, is banned.


Will they know? Not unless you’re stupid about it. But that doesn’t change the fact that, like I said, they ultimately do have the lawful authority to do this.

ETA: good luck convincing the security guard that they didn’t have the lawful authority to ban firearms while he’s escorting you out, btw.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
18,325
Likes
12,144
Look, dude. I’m not saying that banning thongs or jeans or guns is in any way effective, smart, or something they ought to be doing.

BUT, if they say something is against the rules, and you do it anyway, that is, by definition contemptuous behavior, which is disrespectful to the House, which is punishable by imprisonment, which means that basically whatever the hell they say is banned in there, is banned.


Will they know? Not unless you’re stupid about it. But that doesn’t change the fact that, like I said, they ultimately do have the lawful authority to do this.

ETA: good luck convincing the security guard that they didn’t have the lawful authority to ban firearms while he’s escorting you out, btw.
None of the above is the question

The question revolves around whether or not the NH constitution grants the House the power/authority to ban firearms from the house floor/gallery and its clear that it doesnt

The NH Constitution doesnt even grant the House the power/auth to pass a BILL to do that.....

2A has equally clear language that affirms this......

[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.
December 1, 1982
Do you see any exceptions/language that provides for the legislature to contradict this?

Nope
 

atmay

NES Member
Rating - 100%
19   0   0
Joined
Nov 19, 2007
Messages
8,924
Likes
2,025
Location
Free 'murica
None of the above is the question

The question revolves around whether or not the NH constitution grants the House the power/authority to ban firearms from the house floor/gallery and its clear that it doesnt

The NH Constitution doesnt even grant the House the power/auth to pass a BILL to do that.....

2A has equally clear language that affirms this......



Do you see any exceptions/language that provides for the legislature to contradict this?

Nope

So, does 2a protect my right to wear a thong and blue jeans too? Or.....
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
18,325
Likes
12,144
So, does 2a protect my right to wear a thong and blue jeans too? Or.....
Only if your property requires defending.......

[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.
December 1, 1982
If YOU are wearing a thong I have a funny feeling that most would consider you surrendering them to a robber to be an offensive move..........
 

Dadstoys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
14,488
Likes
9,687
Location
North Shore
I don't think any lawmaker is being escorted out.
That would open a box of shit that no one wants to get into.
 

Bt74

NES Member
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Joined
Dec 12, 2010
Messages
3,269
Likes
1,648
Location
NH
Not a lawyer, but the vagueness of the rules would be considered "arbitrary and capricious" if challenged in court.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
187
Likes
50
Location
Manchester NH
One of the state reps who i think promised to keep carrying ... has reportedly now been banned from exercising his first amendment rights as well. But of course that is making the authoritarians look more and more like the bad guys.

From state rep John Burt's facebook post 1/17 roughly:

"Attention Pro Second Amendment folks. I need help. I need people with video cameras to help me. Please Share.

Anti Gun bills are coming to the House Criminal Justice committee and the Chair today has BANNED me from taking videos or photos from my seat. See video below.

I told him I will still take them. He went and brought the Speaker in to the committee which the Speaker said, If I keep taking pictures the committee can and will take a vote to remove me by force if needed.

The chair last term sat next to me and took several pictures. Picture 2 - 6 are the pictures I took this week. Many Reps takes pictures. This is to stop the Anti Gun bills from being posted on Youtube for the NH citizens to see. Please help me.

Do not get me wrong, I like the Chair and the Speaker but what they are doing is wrong. This is the first time I have ever heard of anyone being banned from taking a video or pictures at the NH State House.

Here is the video of the vote. Watch what Rep Welch said at minute 4:40. Thank you Michael Yakubovich for the video.
View: View: https://youtu.be/n8FUxkGGQoU
 

timbo

Navy Veteran
NES Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Dec 17, 2010
Messages
10,358
Likes
7,961
Location
Rt 3, NH
One of the state reps who i think promised to keep carrying ... has reportedly now been banned from exercising his first amendment rights as well. But of course that is making the authoritarians look more and more like the bad guys.

From state rep John Burt's facebook post 1/17 roughly:

"Attention Pro Second Amendment folks. I need help. I need people with video cameras to help me. Please Share.

Anti Gun bills are coming to the House Criminal Justice committee and the Chair today has BANNED me from taking videos or photos from my seat. See video below.

I told him I will still take them. He went and brought the Speaker in to the committee which the Speaker said, If I keep taking pictures the committee can and will take a vote to remove me by force if needed.

The chair last term sat next to me and took several pictures. Picture 2 - 6 are the pictures I took this week. Many Reps takes pictures. This is to stop the Anti Gun bills from being posted on Youtube for the NH citizens to see. Please help me.

Do not get me wrong, I like the Chair and the Speaker but what they are doing is wrong. This is the first time I have ever heard of anyone being banned from taking a video or pictures at the NH State House.

Here is the video of the vote. Watch what Rep Welch said at minute 4:40. Thank you Michael Yakubovich for the video.
View: View: https://youtu.be/n8FUxkGGQoU

I know Michael Yakubovich. He grew up under the Soviet Russian thumb. The prog/libs should not underestimate him. He knows what it's like to live in a communist society. We need a lot more of people like him in the house.
 
Top Bottom