NH: SB500, Giving control of our firearms definition to Congress

Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
1,631
Likes
1,365
Feedback: 4 / 0 / 0
Guys,
Heads up. Although the sponsors have been good in the past, [they sponsored Constitutional Carry last year], they seem to have lost their way, or were given some really BAD advice. Maybe a polite phone call to them to remind them that this is a horrible idea:

SENATE BILL 500
AN ACT amending references to firearms terminology.
SPONSORS: Sen. Avard, Dist 12; Sen. Bradley, Dist 3
COMMITTEE: Judiciary
-----------------------------------------------------------------

AN ACT amending references to firearms terminology.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 Pistols and Revolvers. Amend RSA 159:12, II(a) to read as follows:

(a) Fathers, mothers, grandparents, guardians, administrators or executors who give a pistol or revolver to their children or wards or to heirs to an estate.

2 Protection of Persons From Domestic Violence; Definitions. Amend RSA 173-B:1, XI to read as follows:

XI. "Firearm'' [means any weapon, including a starter gun, which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by force of gunpowder] shall have the meaning set forth in 18 U.S.C. section 921.

....



For reference: 18 U.S. Code § 921 - Definitions
 
I believe that categorizing the proposed change as good, bad, or indifferent is something that is going to really defined with more context than what was provided in the original post.
 
Never yield control of state statutes to the federal government. They could include in the definition of "firearms" magazines that are over 10 rounds and instantly, you need a background check to buy a simple magazine.
Included is the link to the current paragraph on 18USC921.

There are other issues with this bill as well
 
It seems NHFC has published an alert on this with contact information:
-design


Dear Gun Owner,

Last night the NHFC Board of Directors reorganized the leadership of our organization. I am honored and humbled that they have asked me to serve as NHFC President. I promise you, the grassroots gun owner, that my resolve will never weaken and I will never stop fighting for your Second Amendment Civil Right to be armed.

I am proud that I will be assisted by two very capable Vice Presidents:

First Vice President Paul Marquis, a life long gun owner, reloader and professional engineer. As his schedule permits, Paul will be joining me in Concord to testify before legislative hearings.

Second Vice President Kirk Beswick. Kirk is also a lifelong gun owner with a strong commitment to protecting Second Amendment Civil Rights. Kirk will be actively visiting firearms dealers to promote NHFC. If he visits your shop please extend every courtesy to him.

I am glad that we have reorganized NHFC; I will need the extra help, because yesterday I learned that two friends have been severely mislead and are now sponsoring legislation that directly attacks the rights of gun owners. While I do not know who might be pushing this bill, the two sponsors need to hear from us about the significant (possibly) unintended consequences of SB 500. Senator Kevin Avard (R-12) and Senator Jeb Bradley (R-3) need to be told that SB 500 is truly a "wolf in sheep's clothing" that will harm firearms civil rights in New Hampshire and must be defeated. SB 500 was obviously written by someone who lacks any sort of appreciation for New Hampshire's unique culture of individual freedom and liberty.

SB 500 attempts to force New Hampshire to adopt the definition of a firearm that is found in Federal Law. Using this definition will make New Hampshire law more not less restrictive. The Federal definition includes, frames, receivers and silencers, items that are clearly not functioning firearms! Dealers and manufacturers, who are Federally licensed must adhere to and follow these definitions. There is absolutely no reason to foist these restrictive definitions upon law abiding firearms owners and give certain anti-gun law enforcement agencies another way to abuse people. (Remember Ashley Neeley; the mom who was arrested by Manchester police for an act that was not a crime?) I can think of countless ways an anti-gun Fish and Game Conservation Officer could abuse people who have a non functioning rifle receiver and a loaded magazine in their car or even the saddle bag of a motorcycle. I won't print them here, I don't want to give them any ideas.

Furthermore, by modifying the language in the possessory gun ban found in R.S.A. 207:7, if enacted into law, SB 500 will make it far more difficult to repeal the ban on the carrying of loaded rifles and shotguns in motor vehicles. We have been trying to repeal this gun ban for quite some time, stopping SB 500 is now part of that plan. For more information, click here and here. The last thing we need is to modify an anti-gun law that should be repealed.

SB 500 is so poorly written that it even bans convicted felons from hunting with a bow and arrow. There is no need for this. Those who have paid their debt to society carry a mark as a felon for life and cannot own or possess a firearm. However, under current state and federal law, they can pursue wild game during archery season. I really don't understand why the sponsors of SB 500 want to further penalize those who may have made a single mistake and have been released from prison.

In short, SB 500 contains absolutely no redeeming qualities and must be defeated.

Please, do not wait, contact Senator Kevin Avard and demand that he withdraw SB 500 at once. There is still time, before the 2018 Senate session begins to withdraw the bill. Click here to email Senator Avard or call him at (603) 318-4031 or (603) 271-4151. Then, please contact Senator Jeb Bradley and deliver the same message,

Click here to email Senator Bradley or call him at (603) 387-2365 or (603) 271-2609.

I am pleased to inform you that I was recently appointed New Hampshire Field Representative for Gun Owners of America. I am proud to say that GOA will be working hand in hand with NHFC to stop gun control (like SB 500) and hopefully, to pass good solid pro-gun reform bills like Rep. Hoell's pre-emption bill. Having a strong national partner brings countless benefits to NHFC and our members and supporters.

By now most of you have probably received your paper renewal letter. Please don't forget to send in your 2018 dues. Or, if you prefer, it is quick and easy to renew online by clicking here. If you are not a member, please consider joining NHFC, the only no compromise firearms civil rights organization in New Hampshire by clicking here.

Thanks for your support!

In liberty,
Alan Rice
 
The statement that SB500 contains no redeeming qualities ignores numerous points in the proposed bill which it makes that are beneficial for gun owners. SB500 proposes to allow individuals without a firearms hunting license to carry a firearm for defensive purposes while bow hunting (unless the individual is prohibited from possessing a firearm under state or federal law), proposes to change the current law which allows denial of a hunting license to individuals who are suspected of being not suitable a carry a firearm to allowing such denial instead if it appears that the applicant is prohibited by state or federal law from possessing a firearm, it proposes adding beneficial language to RSA 159:12, it proposes repealing RSA 214:18, and it proposes amendments to RSA 207:7.

The part that so many people seem upset about is about the definition of a firearm as it pertains to domestic abuse prevention situations. This is not a general let the feds define state law situation. In some (not all, but some) possession of firearms is already prohibited under the federal (Lautenberg) law. It would make sense for the definitions of what an individual is prohibited from possessing to line up, if for no reason than to protect an individual from putting himself at risk for federal prosecution or putting a law enforcement agency at risk of a civil action by an aggrieved person for seizing something which an individual is prohibited from possessing under federal but not state law.

It's really important for people engaging in activism to review proposed bills and the context of their provisions- so they don't fight against a good bill that proposes to do several things to benefit them while doing nothing to harm them.
 
The statement that SB500 contains no redeeming qualities ignores numerous points in the proposed bill which it makes that are beneficial for gun owners. SB500 proposes to allow individuals without a firearms hunting license to carry a firearm for defensive purposes while bow hunting (unless the individual is prohibited from possessing a firearm under state or federal law), proposes to change the current law which allows denial of a hunting license to individuals who are suspected of being not suitable a carry a firearm to allowing such denial instead if it appears that the applicant is prohibited by state or federal law from possessing a firearm, it proposes adding beneficial language to RSA 159:12, it proposes repealing RSA 214:18, and it proposes amendments to RSA 207:7.

Yes, the bill might have been written with the intent to be pro-gun, but it has several bad consequences (intended or not, they really are bad consequences). The most significant is the above-discussed federal "firearm" definition, which would not only cause our laws to change any time that federal law changes, but has repercussions throughout the RSAs (some currently anti-gun, some pro-gun, but whatever the case, clearly not thought through). For example, it effectively criminalizes air-gun taking of vermin (even with high-power air guns); probably not an intended outcome. Looking at the bill, it obviously had some pro-gun positions cleaning up some of the items left unchanged by the con carry change to Sec. 159, and seeks to reach a compromise on loaded long-arms in/on vehicles, but the side consequences are significant - it still leaves a circumstantial crime in place (a mere possessory offense as stated above) rather than removing the whole prohibition, and it definitely messes up hunting licenses by tying even non-firearm hunting to federal non-PP status. Obviously, it also tries to replace the undefined "gun" in the RSAs with "firearm," which is a good impetus in two of the circumstances, especially if we keep our current RSA firearm definition, but makes no sense in the third (where the kinds of guns are stated). If we want to change our (pretty darned good, frankly) definition of firearm to track more closely the federal, we could do that with specific wording and make sure we check each use of "firearm" throughout the RSAs to make sure it makes sense, rather than just making reference to federal law. Keep in mind the federal definition of "firearm" includes suppressors and the "receiver"/serialized part, which NH doesn't really regulate today. Should we start? Did the authors intend us to start?

In short, well-intentioned or not, it's a hodgepodge that has real negative consequences along with creating a number of unintended incoherencies even as it tries to fix some things. It would have been better to leave "firearm" as-is, remove 207:7-II and -III entirely (it's already illegal in 207:7-I to hunt from a vehicle; why do we need a law criminalizing mere circumstances, a law that has been retconned as a "safety" measure even though it's clearly a hunting provision?), and address the other items individually.


The part that so many people seem upset about is about the definition of a firearm as it pertains to domestic abuse prevention situations. This is not a general let the feds define state law situation. In some (not all, but some) possession of firearms is already prohibited under the federal (Lautenberg) law. It would make sense for the definitions of what an individual is prohibited from possessing to line up, if for no reason than to protect an individual from putting himself at risk for federal prosecution or putting a law enforcement agency at risk of a civil action by an aggrieved person for seizing something which an individual is prohibited from possessing under federal but not state law.

It's really important for people engaging in activism to review proposed bills and the context of their provisions- so they don't fight against a good bill that proposes to do several things to benefit them while doing nothing to harm them.

The bill needs an overhaul to do what it allegedly intends, and there are other bills doing most of the specific things, just better.
 
Last edited:
In addition to the issues listed above. There is another major issue. For those that understand "opportunity costs", it applies here as well. There is only so much time and energy that we have personally, and now we need to use some of this time and/or energy to fix a bad bill instead of focusing on getting the known good ones passed. This is not the time to divert resources to mediocre bills.

Burt has in a bill to correct ATVs and Snowmobiles, there is a bill in to address F&G overstepping it's bounds and there is a loop-hole cleanup and enhancement to the state wide preemption law. There are some others that are also worth fighting for.
-Design
 
NHFC has posted another alert on this.
First, it is never a good idea to tie state law to federal law. Federal law can change, we here in New Hampshire might not like that change. However, once the federal definitions change, New Hampshire gun owners would be bound by that change in definitions. Right now, today, federal law defines firearms to include frames, receivers, silencers and even STARTER GUNS! None of these items can fire live ammunition, but yet federal law includes these items in the definition of a firearm.

Now, to be clear, we must follow federal law but that means New Hampshire based dealers cannot sell firearms to prohibited persons and private citizens cannot modify firearms in a manner that would violate any law, New Hampshire or federal. However, following the law does not mean linking New Hampshire law to federal law.

SB 500 also changes some of the words in the misdemeanor domestic violence gun ban. We have been pretty clear in our opposition to this arguably unconstitutional gun ban. For many years, we have said that we would like to see the only gun ban that is triggered by a misdemeanor and not a felony repealed. Thus, it makes no sense to modify the words and make it easier to prosecute people when our true goal is a full repeal.

The possessory gun ban found in R.S.A. 207:7 should also be repealed. .....
.... [More]
 
The part that so many people seem upset about is about the definition of a firearm as it pertains to domestic abuse prevention situations. This is not a general let the feds define state law situation. In some (not all, but some) possession of firearms is already prohibited under the federal (Lautenberg) law. It would make sense for the definitions of what an individual is prohibited from possessing to line up, if for no reason than to protect an individual from putting himself at risk for federal prosecution or putting a law enforcement agency at risk of a civil action by an aggrieved person for seizing something which an individual is prohibited from possessing under federal but not state law.

Not sure if serious, making something "more illegal" at the state level does not immunize someone from federal prosecution. I fail to see
how this "protects" anyone. LOL, you protect people by enabling prosecution by an entity (the state) which is 100x more likely to prosecute.. some "protection".

Also, were supposed to cry if a PD steals guns from someone and then gets sued by the victim? Not to mention, since when does that
ever happen? (a PD getting successfully sued for damages WRT an unlawful confiscation. ) Let me get out the worlds smallest violin for that police department....

I also think that generally, tethering a states law to federal bullshit in any way shape or form, is a really, really bad
idea. It essentially is ceding the power to the federal government to modify NH's state laws by proxy, without obtaining consent of the
citizens of said state. Even just by itself, that's an inherently bad idea.

-Mike
 
Someone has mentioned that various gun groups are supporting this bill. I have not seen any groups coming out in favor of this legislation. Is this a rumor?
 
Someone has mentioned that various gun groups are supporting this bill. I have not seen any groups coming out in favor of this legislation. Is this a rumor?
According to a couple of very shrill individuals (whom you have encountered on Facebook), WDLNH, Pro-Gun NH, and GONH are supportive, and only the hateful NHFC is blocking "progress".

I wasn't even aware that Pro-Gun NH and GONH still existed in any meaningful form. Nothing against them, but NHFC is the gun rights organization in NH. If the others have different opinions, they don't publicize them.

One of those shrill individuals actually claims that we should be thankful for federal laws, because they make it legal to carry in school zones. lolwhut???
 
I wasn't even aware that Pro-Gun NH and GONH still existed in any meaningful form. Nothing against them, but NHFC is the gun rights organization in NH. If the others have different opinions, they don't publicize them.
I agree. GONH seems barely functional, and PGNH is simply gone. Whether they support it or not, this bill needs help or simply to be bypassed by the bills that do what it purports to do. There is really zero reason to tie the entire RSA definition of firearm to federal definitions. We use it differently in a lot of places, with the effect strongly dependent on our definition of firearm.
 
The statement that SB500 contains no redeeming qualities ignores numerous points in the proposed bill which it makes that are beneficial for gun owners. SB500 proposes to allow individuals without a firearms hunting license to carry a firearm for defensive purposes while bow hunting (unless the individual is prohibited from possessing a firearm under state or federal law), proposes to change the current law which allows denial of a hunting license to individuals who are suspected of being not suitable a carry a firearm to allowing such denial instead if it appears that the applicant is prohibited by state or federal law from possessing a firearm, it proposes adding beneficial language to RSA 159:12, it proposes repealing RSA 214:18, and it proposes amendments to RSA 207:7.

The part that so many people seem upset about is about the definition of a firearm as it pertains to domestic abuse prevention situations. This is not a general let the feds define state law situation. In some (not all, but some) possession of firearms is already prohibited under the federal (Lautenberg) law. It would make sense for the definitions of what an individual is prohibited from possessing to line up, if for no reason than to protect an individual from putting himself at risk for federal prosecution or putting a law enforcement agency at risk of a civil action by an aggrieved person for seizing something which an individual is prohibited from possessing under federal but not state law.

It's really important for people engaging in activism to review proposed bills and the context of their provisions- so they don't fight against a good bill that proposes to do several things to benefit them while doing nothing to harm them.


Here's the truth - the New Hampshire Firearms Coalition has never introduced legislation to change - MUCH LESS REPEAL - either NH RSA 642:3-a (V)(b) or NH RSA 173-B:1.

"Firearm" is already defined in NH statute to read:
642:3-a Taking a Firearm From a Law Enforcement Officer. –
V. In this section:
(a) "Firearm'' has the meaning given that term in section 921 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
(b) "Law enforcement officer'' means law enforcement officer as defined in RSA 630:1, II.
Source. 1999, 166:1, eff. Jan. 1, 2000.

Current statute reads:
Section 173-B:1
XI. 2 Protection of Persons From Domestic Violence; Definitions. "Firearm'' means any weapon, including a starter gun, which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by force of gunpowder.

The New Hampshire Firearms Coalition says that NH RSA 173-B:1 is a "misdemeanor domestic violence gun ban. "
173-B:4 Temporary Relief. –
I. Upon a showing of an immediate and present danger of abuse, the court may enter temporary orders to protect the plaintiff with or without actual notice to defendant....Such temporary relief may direct the defendant to relinquish to a peace officer any and all firearms and ammunition in the control, ownership, or possession of the defendant, or any other person on behalf of the defendant for the duration of the protective order.

SB 500 would amend NH RSA 173-B:1 to read:
Section 173-B:1
XI. 2 Protection of Persons From Domestic Violence; Definitions. Amend RSA 173-B:1, XI to read as follows:
XI. "Firearm'' [means any weapon, including a starter gun, which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by force of gunpowder] shall have the meaning set forth in 18 U.S.C. section 921.

The current federal definition reads:

18 USC 921 (a)(3) The term “firearm” means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.

The New Hampshire Firearms Coalition says "We have been pretty clear in our opposition to this arguably unconstitutional gun ban. For many years, we have said that we would like to see the only gun ban that is triggered by a misdemeanor and not a felony repealed. Thus, it makes no sense to modify the words and make it easier to prosecute people when our true goal is a full repeal."

REPEAT: The New Hampshire Firearms Coalition has never introduced legislation to change, must less repeal, either NH RSA 642:3-a (V)(b) or NH RSA 173-B:1.

 
Here's the truth - the New Hampshire Firearms Coalition has never introduced legislation to change - MUCH LESS REPEAL - either NH RSA 642:3-a (V)(b) or NH RSA 173-B:1.

"Firearm" is already defined in NH statute to read:
642:3-a Taking a Firearm From a Law Enforcement Officer. –
V. In this section:
(a) "Firearm'' has the meaning given that term in section 921 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
(b) "Law enforcement officer'' means law enforcement officer as defined in RSA 630:1, II.
Source. 1999, 166:1, eff. Jan. 1, 2000.

Current statute reads:
Section 173-B:1
XI. 2 Protection of Persons From Domestic Violence; Definitions. "Firearm'' means any weapon, including a starter gun, which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by force of gunpowder.

The New Hampshire Firearms Coalition says that NH RSA 173-B:1 is a "misdemeanor domestic violence gun ban. "
173-B:4 Temporary Relief. –
I. Upon a showing of an immediate and present danger of abuse, the court may enter temporary orders to protect the plaintiff with or without actual notice to defendant....Such temporary relief may direct the defendant to relinquish to a peace officer any and all firearms and ammunition in the control, ownership, or possession of the defendant, or any other person on behalf of the defendant for the duration of the protective order.

SB 500 would amend NH RSA 173-B:1 to read:
Section 173-B:1
XI. 2 Protection of Persons From Domestic Violence; Definitions. Amend RSA 173-B:1, XI to read as follows:
XI. "Firearm'' [means any weapon, including a starter gun, which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by force of gunpowder] shall have the meaning set forth in 18 U.S.C. section 921.

The current federal definition reads:

18 USC 921 (a)(3) The term “firearm” means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.

The New Hampshire Firearms Coalition says "We have been pretty clear in our opposition to this arguably unconstitutional gun ban. For many years, we have said that we would like to see the only gun ban that is triggered by a misdemeanor and not a felony repealed. Thus, it makes no sense to modify the words and make it easier to prosecute people when our true goal is a full repeal."

REPEAT: The New Hampshire Firearms Coalition has never introduced legislation to change, must less repeal, either NH RSA 642:3-a (V)(b) or NH RSA 173-B:1.
I never suggested that the New Hampshire Firearms Coalition proposed any legislation to repeal or change either of those two statutes. Iclaim to have no affiliation with that group and was challening the ideas of other posts in the spirit that I understand this forum to embody. I am not sure why your post suggests that I did. What I did do is discuss various points of the bill in context of the point which poster design posted (which was attributed to Alan Rice) that there was nothing of redeeming value to gun owners in SB500.

I stand by my previous assertion that SB500 contains several provisions which could be helpful to gun owners- though I acknowledge other posters who claim that some of those proposed provisions should go farther. I also assert that the provision regarding redfining the term firearm in RSA 173-B:1 is not a boogeyman provision and could stand to maintain a degree of coherence both in terms of other state and federal statutes but also removes potential questions that could be faced based on practical application.
 
Not asserting anything; merely suggesting that sometimes, doing one's homework has value. I figure if folks misrepresent big things, they'll misrepresent little things.
 
the government should have nothing to do with anything firearms related. The second amendment is our right and not for the government to control or define or otherwise amend.
 
the government should have nothing to do with anything firearms related. The second amendment is our right and not for the government to control or define or otherwise amend.
The second amendment is not a "right", it codifies a natural, pre-existing right.
 
Here's the truth - the New Hampshire Firearms Coalition has never introduced legislation to change - MUCH LESS REPEAL - either NH RSA 642:3-a (V)(b) or NH RSA 173-B:1.

"Firearm" is already defined in NH statute to read:
642:3-a Taking a Firearm From a Law Enforcement Officer. –
V. In this section:
(a) "Firearm'' has the meaning given that term in section 921 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
(b) "Law enforcement officer'' means law enforcement officer as defined in RSA 630:1, II.
Source. 1999, 166:1, eff. Jan. 1, 2000.

Current statute reads:
Section 173-B:1
XI. 2 Protection of Persons From Domestic Violence; Definitions. "Firearm'' means any weapon, including a starter gun, which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by force of gunpowder.

The New Hampshire Firearms Coalition says that NH RSA 173-B:1 is a "misdemeanor domestic violence gun ban. "
173-B:4 Temporary Relief. –
I. Upon a showing of an immediate and present danger of abuse, the court may enter temporary orders to protect the plaintiff with or without actual notice to defendant....Such temporary relief may direct the defendant to relinquish to a peace officer any and all firearms and ammunition in the control, ownership, or possession of the defendant, or any other person on behalf of the defendant for the duration of the protective order.

SB 500 would amend NH RSA 173-B:1 to read:
Section 173-B:1
XI. 2 Protection of Persons From Domestic Violence; Definitions. Amend RSA 173-B:1, XI to read as follows:
XI. "Firearm'' [means any weapon, including a starter gun, which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by force of gunpowder] shall have the meaning set forth in 18 U.S.C. section 921.

The current federal definition reads:

18 USC 921 (a)(3) The term “firearm” means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.

The New Hampshire Firearms Coalition says "We have been pretty clear in our opposition to this arguably unconstitutional gun ban. For many years, we have said that we would like to see the only gun ban that is triggered by a misdemeanor and not a felony repealed. Thus, it makes no sense to modify the words and make it easier to prosecute people when our true goal is a full repeal."

REPEAT: The New Hampshire Firearms Coalition has never introduced legislation to change, must less repeal, either NH RSA 642:3-a (V)(b) or NH RSA 173-B:1.

And here is the real truth: Neither GONH or PGNH have done anything to modify those statutes in the last two decades either.

Another truth: Sometimes a goal is a long term goal that us subject to a hierarchy of importance. There is only so much time a legislator can devote to a bill and some bills need more help than others to pass. And some issues are more important than others. Con Carry has been considered more important than MANY other gun issues for a long time. It is important to not bite off more than you can chew.

What is more important: limiting city and town overreach on prohibiting guns or repealing one section of NH statute (642:3-a (V)(b)) that has no effect on other statutes and is not a pressing issue?


A member here who gained freedom by leaving Mordor for NH sent a check to GONH 2-3 YEARS ago now when he came to NH. GONH cashed said check. To my knowledge he never received ANY communication from GONH after this. I believe he even tried contacting them and was unable to get a hold of anyone. GONH might "exist" in that they have a website but that is seemingly the only way in which they exist. PGNH is the same, a defunct website is all that exists.
 
And here is the real truth: Neither GONH or PGNH have done anything to modify those statutes in the last two decades either.

Another truth: Sometimes a goal is a long term goal that us subject to a hierarchy of importance. There is only so much time a legislator can devote to a bill and some bills need more help than others to pass. And some issues are more important than others. Con Carry has been considered more important than MANY other gun issues for a long time. It is important to not bite off more than you can chew.

What is more important: limiting city and town overreach on prohibiting guns or repealing one section of NH statute (642:3-a (V)(b)) that has no effect on other statutes and is not a pressing issue?


A member here who gained freedom by leaving Mordor for NH sent a check to GONH 2-3 YEARS ago now when he came to NH. GONH cashed said check. To my knowledge he never received ANY communication from GONH after this. I believe he even tried contacting them and was unable to get a hold of anyone. GONH might "exist" in that they have a website but that is seemingly the only way in which they exist. PGNH is the same, a defunct website is all that exists.

Your "Help the NHLA when you shop on Amazon: http://amazon.nhliberty.org/" tag gave you away. If we don't see each other at the hearing, you have a nice day.
 
so a natural, pre-existing right is not a right?
I said the second amendment codifies a natural, pre-existing right.

right
[rahyt]
noun
18. a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral:

amendment
[uh-mend-muh nt]
noun
1.the act of amending or the state of being amended.
2. an alteration of or addition to a motion, bill, constitution, etc.
3.a change made by correction, addition, or deletion:
 
It seems GOA wrote an alert about this bill and the Woodburn Semi-auto ban as well...


Don't Let Compromising Republicans Enact Gun Control in Concord

Dear Supporter,

Now that a Republican state Senate, House and Governor have made New Hampshire a Constitutional Carry state, you would think that we wouldn't have to worry that every media-generated copycat shooting would produce another call for gun control.

Unfortunately, that is not the case.

As we speak, two major anti-gun initiatives are expected to receive hearings within the next few weeks.

Senate Bill 492-FN: A Blank Check to Ban Magazines, Pistol Grips and More

Not surprisingly, the usual coalition of anti-gunners moved quickly to exploit the victims of the Las Vegas shooting. Their bill is Senate Bill 492-FN.

Their bill purports to ban "bump stocks." But, like counterpart legislation introduced in the U.S. Senate by Dianne Feinstein, this bill's intent is to ban a wide range of guns and gun accessories.

At its core, the bill would retroactively ban simple POSSESSION of anything constituting "a trigger activating device [which] ... increases the rate of fire of [a] firearm."

So... What is a "trigger activating device"? It's not defined in this bill, or anywhere else. But, while we don't know what a "trigger activating device" is, we do know what it's NOT.

It's NOT something that pulls the trigger because, in the case of an actual "bump stock," it's the finger of the shooter that pulls the trigger -- in an action which is accelerated by the gun's own recoil.

Okay, then. What sorts of things "increase the rate of fire of [a] firearm"?

Certainly, a polished bolt, a match trigger, a high-capacity magazine -- even a scope, a tripod, or a pistol grip -- allow a firearm to be fired at an increased rate.

And the problem is this: With this bill's deliberately broad overreach, we would only know what percent of New Hampshire gun owners are criminals after the prosecutions begin.

Remember the "armor piercing bullet" ban which was only supposed to apply to handgun ammo? And remember how the popular 7N6 RIFLE ammo was banned because an exotic handgun was able to fire it?

Well, we would be idiots if we fell in this same trap in connection with Senate Bill 492-FN's deliberately deceptive definitions.

Senate Bill 500: Forget About Deregulating Suppressors in NH

This bill was introduced at the behest of a "gun group" by Republican Senators Kevin Avard (Dist-12) and Jeb Bradley (Dist-3). Senate Bill 500 is a bill with a bunch of problems.


pistolandsilencer.jpg


But the central problem is this: Currently, New Hampshire law, in section 173-B:1, defines "firearm" to be "any weapon, including a starter gun, which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by force of gunpowder."

Senate Bill 500 would replace this definition with the federal definition in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3). If it does this, in addition to the weapon itself, New Hampshire's definition of firearm would be newly amended to include "the frame or receiver of any such weapon, ... any firearm muffler or firearm silencer, or ... any destructive device..."

We are making major strides toward removing suppressors from federal regulation under the NFA and under the 1968 Act. So why would we take a step backwards and newly bring suppressors within the scope of New Hampshire firearms regulation?

Senate Bill 500 also makes tinkering changes with respect to guns in vehicles. Under the bill, you can have a loaded rifle or shotgun in your stationary vehicle, but if you forget that you have a loaded gun -- and drive your vehicle down the road -- you're a criminal.

We at GOA would like to repeal the prohibition on loaded rifles and shotguns in cars, and these half-measures will make that effort much more difficult.

Special Attention Needed for Senate Judiciary Committee Members

Our local partners at the New Hampshire Firearms Coalition have issued a few alerts on SB 492-FN and SB 500.

They are asking all pro-gun activists to contact the members of the New Hampshire Senate Judiciary Committee and tell Senators that both bills cannot be fixed with amendments.

Urge these Senators to vote SB 492-FN and SB 500 "inexpedient to legislate" without any delay.

Please click here for the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Then click on each Senators name for their contact information.

One Final Comment: Let's Stick to the Facts

We are working hard to deregulate suppressors under federal law, and we are making progress.

We oppose Senate Bill 500 because, among other things, it opens up the prospect of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. That is, we could win an historic battle at the federal level, taking suppressors out of the National Firearms Act, only to have suppressors newly regulated as a matter of New Hampshire state law because of SB 500.

Aside from that, we see no benefit to New Hampshire or the Second Amendment by tying NH law to the federal definition.

Nevertheless, we are being opposed by a New Hampshire gun group which is affiliated with the draftsman of Senate Bill 500.

Which is fine. Friends can differ.

But what is not fine is that this gun group seems to have a Standard Operating Procedure which calls for hurling slime at pro-gun advocates who disagree with them.
goasalanrice.png


They did this to GOA's Legislative Counsel when they opposed us in 2007 and pushed for the passage of the Veterans Disarmament Act. They did this, in 2014, to our Executive Director Emeritus, when they pushed for New Hampshire to send more names to NICS.

And they're doing it again to our New Hampshire Representative, Alan Rice, who has been fighting for Second Amendment rights for close to 30 years. Contrary to their misrepresentations, I have only known Alan to be a tireless fighter for gun owners.

Frankly, we're getting a little tired of these backstabbing tactics.

If this group can't debate on the merits, it needs to be repudiated by Granite State pro-gun advocates on both sides of this debate.

Other than these ad hominem attacks, I have not seen any sort of an explanation from them as to why SB 500 is supposedly good for gun owners.

So please urge your legislator, Sen. Kevin Cavanaugh (D), to oppose SB-492-FN and SB 500.

In Liberty,

Erich Pratt
Executive Director

P.S. Urge your legislator, Sen. Kevin Cavanaugh (D), to oppose SB-492-FN and SB 500. If you believe at all that the Senator assigned to you by our Legislative Action Center is incorrect, you can always get the absolute correct match here. Finally, if you're not a member of Gun Owners of America, please consider joining GOA here for $20.
 
NH's Constitutional Carry law, 2017's SB 12, got the nearly 100 year-old, discriminatory phrase "suitable person" repealed and replaced with "not prohibited by state of federal law" for persons choosing to apply for licenses to discretely carry a firearm loaded.

2018's NH SB 500 would repeal giving that same unfettered discretion to the Commissioner of Fish and Game to determine who is and who is not "suitable" to have a license. In it's opposition to the bill, the New Hampshire Firearms Coalition and it's parent, Gun Owners of America, must want that discretion to continue for Fish and Game to in law.

Here's the existing statute. SB 500 corrects it.

NH RSA 214:17 Refusing Licenses; Appeal. – The executive director and his agents shall refuse to issue any license to hunt if it appears that the applicant is not a suitable person to carry firearms. Any person who has been refused a license by an agent shall have the right of appeal to the executive director, whose decision, given after hearing, shall be final. Any attempt to secure a license from another agency, after having been refused by an agency and before appealing to the executive director, and any attempt to secure a license from any source in the same year that the executive director, on appeal, has decided that the applicant is not a suitable person to carry firearms, shall be a violation of the provisions of this chapter.

Source. 1935, 124:7. RL 247:9.
 
Back
Top Bottom