Proposed Legislation - NH

Joined
Mar 31, 2005
Messages
3,613
Likes
816
Location
Epping,NH
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
HEARINGS SCHEDULED JANUARY 9, 2008 in LOB Room 301 1:30 pm

PLEASE SEND A REPRESENTATIVE TO THIS HEARING !

HB 1474-FN relative to construction and operation of shooting ranges (see page 2 herein)
HB 1476 relative to shooting ranges (see page 3 herein)

Under current New Hampshire law, with certain conditions, shooting ranges are exempt from fees under the hazardous waste cleanup funds fees pursuant to R.S.A. 147-B:8, (see 147-B:9 V), and planning and zoning of shooting ranges is governed under R.S.A. 676:4.
New Hampshire R.S.A. 159-B currently provides protection for ranges from noise complaints, New Hampshire R.S.A. 159: 26 provides that only the state (not cities or towns) can regulate enumerated matters pertaining to firearms. If HB 1474 were to become law, towns and city governments would have authority over your range, and this law would implicitly provide yet another method of "temporarily suspend[ding] activities under paragraph I (*II of HB 1474) until "the facility to correct the condition or to adopt alternative, environmentally compliant
procedures".

As the law is now, there is no provision under the law for closing down a shooting range because of "safety" (whatever that means) issues. Both NH 1476 and HB 1474 would provide a law that could do just that. HB 1474 provides a mechanism to potentially cost shooting ranges tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees defending against "safety" hazards requiring expert testimony about what is or isn’t "safe" and allowing anti-gun plaintiff’s to put the issue before a jury, as the "safety" issue. HB 1474 would also have the "county sheriff or the sheriff’s designee to inspect the range to ensure that the design and construction of the facility is appropriate for its intended use…" County sheriff’s are not experts in range design and construction, and surely should not be wielding this amount of power pertaining to shooting ranges.

HB 1476, albeit much shorter is arguably much more dangerous, if passed, HB 1476 would allow the
implementation of as yet unknown "nationally recognized safety standards" (EPA, NRA, DES, OSHA, Handgun Control? Who decides?) to be forced on New Hampshire shooting clubs. Currently, common sense and compliance with zoning and planning laws pursuant to R.S.A. 676:4 is required. If HB 1476 is allowed to become law how long will shooters have to wait before these "nationally recognized safety standards" are identified, and can the shooting community afford to build a range that is "safe" enough?

HB 1476 seeks to amend R.S.A. 159-B by inserting after section 4 the following new section, "159-B:4-a Closure Prohibited. No state agency or municipality shall close or permanently suspend the operation of a shooting range that is designed, constructed, and operated in compliance with nationally recognized safety standards for shooting and training activities without the written consent of the owners of the shooting range."

HB 1474-FN – AS INTRODUCED 08-2476

05/04 AN ACT relative to the construction and operation of shooting ranges.

SPONSORS: Rep. Baldasaro, Rock 3; Rep. Bedrick, Rock 4; Rep. Hutchinson, Rock 3; Rep. Welch, Rock 8; Sen.Kenney, Dist 3; Sen. Clegg, Dist 14; Sen. Letourneau, Dist 19

COMMITTEE: Municipal and County Government

Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]

Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.

AN ACT relative to the construction and operation of shooting ranges.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 New Sections; Construction and Operation of Shooting Ranges. Amend RSA 159-B by inserting after section 2
the following new sections:

159-B:2-a Operation of Shooting Ranges.
I. No political subdivision of the state, nor any agency or court shall enjoin, suspend, stop, or interfere with the operation of an existing shooting range established prior to the effective date of this section unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the shooting range willfully:
(a) Demonstrated a consistent and ongoing pattern of operation which has created a demonstrable safety hazard to individuals using the facility;
(b) Demonstrated a consistent and ongoing pattern of operation which has created a demonstrable safety hazard to individuals using the facilities and activities on adjacent property or on adjacent public rights of way; or (c) Conducted activities which have created a demonstrable environmental hazards known to be harmful to the public safety and has been given 60 to 90 days to correct the offending issue, and has not done so. II. The suspension of operations of a shooting range shall only be for the period of time necessary for the facility
to correct the condition or to adopt alternative, environmentally compliant procedures. In no case shall the basis for a temporary suspension of activities under paragraph I be grounds for permanent closure of the facility.

159-B:2-b New Construction of Shooting Range.
I. Construction of a shooting range shall be permitted by special exception to the zoning ordinance of any municipality in this state provided that the shooting range complies with nationally recognized design standards
and specifications for shooting ranges and the proposed design is consistent with the type of arms training to be provided.

II. The county sheriff or the sheriff’s designee shall inspect the shooting range to ensure that the design and construction of the facility is appropriate for its intended use and shall issue a certification authorizing the operation and use of the shooting range. The municipality may charge a fee not to exceed $500 for inspection and certification of the shooting range.

2 Definition of Shooting Range. Amend RSA 159-B:8, II to read as follows:

II. "Shooting range" shall mean a property or properties, or portions thereof, designed and operated for persons using rifles, shotguns, pistols, revolvers, or blackpowder weapons; archery; air rifles; silhouettes; skeet ranges; trap ranges; or other similar facilities.

3 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.
LBAO


HB 1476 – AS INTRODUCED
08-2477 -05/01 HOUSE BILL 1476

AN ACT relative to shooting ranges.
SPONSORS: Rep. Baldasaro, Rock 3; Rep. Hutchinson, Rock 3; Rep. Bedrick, Rock 4; Rep. Villeneuve, Hills
18; Sen. Clegg, Dist 14; Sen. Letourneau, Dist 19; Sen. Kenney, Dist 3

COMMITTEE: Municipal and County Government
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]

Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.

AN ACT relative to shooting ranges.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 New Section; Shooting Range; Closure Prohibited. Amend RSA 159-B by inserting after section 4 the following new section:

159-B:4-a Closure Prohibited. No state agency or municipality shall close or permanently suspend the operation of a shooting range that is designed, constructed, and operated in compliance with nationally recognized safety standards for shooting and training activities without the written consent of the owners of the shooting range.

2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.
 
Last edited:
Wow....very insidious, dangerous legislation !!! Let's hope the turn out to the hearing is as packed as it was for the proposed changes to the LTC laws....

It's a never ending battle protecting freedoms and preventing NH from turning into Mass. !!

I forwarded this info to one of the main officers at the sportsmans club I belong to in Nashua - he was unaware of this, and his response after reading it was that he will try to get there and testify. The fact that he was unaware of it makes me nervous that this is some more sneaky nasty legislation they are trying to slip through with little publicity and notice.......

Spread the Word....Alert the Club Officers at the NH Sportsmans club and Range you belong to....
 
I really don't know why some Pro-RKBA groups are upset about these bills. They were developed by pro-RKBA people in an effort to prevent future harassment and closing of NH ranges such as happened to Lone Pine. In any event, since the bills were originally introduced a member of GO-NH, which had originally supported the legislation, discovered problems in the particular phrasing of the bills. Dave Wheeler attended the meeting this week where Rep. Baldasaro and Rep. Bedrick agreed to ask the Municipal & County Gov't Committee to kill the bill. Almost without exception, when the sponsors of a bill ask to have it killed, the committee kills the bill.

Here's an open letter from former legislator Paul Mirski, a leader of the House Republican Alliance and one of the best friends of the Second Amendment in the legislature. He currently serves on the board of the NH Wildlife Federation and he was one of the architects of the bills in question.

To Whom It May Concern,

Whoever wrote the "URGENT ALERT - 2008 RANGE CLOSURE ACT" which I've just received, somehow missed the purpose of both bills. The author may have jumped to the conclusion that these two bills were bad for Second Amendment interests because often, legislation filed concerning gun issues is indeed in opposition to Second Amendment rights. In this case however, these two bills were proposed by the most fervent champions of the Second Amendment in the NH House. The were also endorsed by the Board of the New Hampshire Wildlife Federation, on which I serve as a Director and which, as you well know, is a fervent defender of th e inte rests of sportsmen and sportswomen and of devotees of shooting sports.

Since you will be meeting with some of the folks who have expressed opposition to HB1474 and HB1476 you need to know that HB1474 and HB1476 were filed to preempt closure if existing ranges and to preempt towns and cities from preventing the construction of new shooting ranges. Both bills were filed to remedy the harassment of shooting ranges as happened at Lone Pine, in Hollis. If the authors of the "URGENT ALERT," had carefully read the language of the two bills they would have seen that they are intended to accomplish exactly these goals. Certainly some language could be tinkered with but in no way could anyone make the claim that either of these bills were designed to shut down the operation of existing ranges or to prevent the construction of shooting ranges. Furthermore, how could one look at the list of sponsors and arrive at such a conclusion?

Specifically, HB1474 was first desig ned to inoculate existing ranges from being forced to close. The noise business having to do with ranges is covered in current statute so these bills were intended to prevent other sorts of assaults on the operation of existing ranges. If passed, the best opponents of a shooting ranges could hope for would be only a temporary closing and then, only if whatever was going on at the range could be interpreted as hazardous to public health and safety which is for any range operation a necessary concern. To reopen, all an affected existing range, closed temporarily , would have to do is to modify its operational procedures to end the hazardous practice. If HB1474 were to pass, no existing range could be permanently closed. Because no existing range could be permanently closed, passage of HB1474 would diminish if not end altogether, the sort of harassment which Lone Pine suffered.

Secondly, passage of HB1474 would guarantee that new shooting ranges wo uld be able to be constructed in any town in NH - preempting towns from enacting ordinances which would prohibit the construction of shooting ranges. Because of liability and insurance issues, no new range planned in the USA could get away with a construction program which did not reflect best practices in shooting range construction. Safety concerns would be paramount. HB1474 leaves the choice of which shooting range standards would be used up to the prospective range developer - and not the Sheriff or Town where the range would be planned to be constructed.. There are a number of nationally recognized organizations which provide guidelines for laying out shooting ranges. Because chief's of police are usually subject to political pressure, the County Sheriff, an elected official, is given the review and authorization authority and paid the fee for the inspection of a new range for conformance with the national design standards which the range developer selected. This provision removes approval authority from towns and cities and provides uniformity in the application of the law wherever a range might be constructed in any given county. Note especially, that review authority concerning standards was NOT given to any agency of the state.

In some parts of the state, local, club owned shooting ranges are more intensively used by local firearms instructors for programs meant to benefit law enforcement, than by local sportsmen. The cost to construct ranges these days is expensive. There is a huge public safety benefit to insuring that existing ranges remain open and to insuring that communities cannot prohibit the construction of new facilities for training law enforcement in the use of arms.

RE: HB1476

Because no law can be applied retroactively, no existing shooting range can be forced to upgrade its facilities to comply with whatever range standard anyone in government would like to se e in place. So much for closure of ranges in existence at the time of passage of HB1476. Since all future ranges, if for no other reason than for insurance purposes, will be constructed according to one set of safety standards or another, what HB1476 essentially accomplishes is further prohibition of closure of any future range which employs appropriate standards.

Also note, that if these bills would actually have empowered towns to shut down ranges, why does the NH Municipal Association think that they have done exactly the opposite?

Read the Municipal Association opposition to these bills:

Bills Would Exempt Shooting Ranges from Local Regulation

On Wednesday, January 9, beginning at 1:30 p.m., in LOB Room 301, the House Municipal and County Government Committee will hear two bills that would dramatically limit cities' and towns' ability to regulate the establishment and operation of shooting ranges. The first bill, HB 1474, would require that construction of a
shooting range be "permitted by special exception to the zoning ordinance of any municipality in this state," provided only that the
shooting range complies with "nationally recognized design standards and specifications for shooting ranges" and that the proposed design is consistent with the type of arms training
to be provided.

As with other legislative proposals to control local zoning matters, this one is full of problems. First is the obvious question of why shooting ranges should enjoy such exalted status that all principles of planning and zoning should be ignored to accommodate them. Second, it is unclear whether shooting ranges would have to
be allowed in every zoning district in a municipality, or whether the municipality could choose one or more districts to allow them.
Third, the bill's effort to dictate the special exception criteria is inconsistent with existing law, which provides that special exception criteria are to be contained in the zoning ordinance.
The bill also prohibits any municipality from suspending or interfering with the operation of an existing shooting range unless there is "clear and convincing evidence" that the shooting range
willfully created a demonstrable safety hazard or a demonstrable environmental hazard. Thus, a shooting range could violate zoning ordinances, noise ordinances, and nuisance laws with impunity; and even safety or environmental hazards would not be the basis for suspending operations unless they were created "willfully."

A second bill, HB 1476, would prohibit a municipality from closing or permanently suspending the operation of a shooting range that is "designed, constructed, and operated in compliance with nationally recognized safety standards for shooting and training activities"
without the written consent of the owners of the shooting range. This, obviously, raises some of the same concerns as HB 1474.

Please contact members of the Municipal and County Government Committee to express your strong opposition to these bills.

Ken
 
Sad to say that the pro-gun proponents have probably lost some allies over this issue. One of our Board members went to the hearing at the request of Go-NH. As the legislation was withdrawn he didn't testify. This was the email I received earlier today.

The trip today was not needed, the sponsors of the bills requested they be
withdrawn and as a result the committee Itl'd the bills. It is unfortunate
that the NH Firearms Coalition chose to put nasty comments on their web page
in regards to these legislators. They actually sponsored the bills at the
request of a third statewide gun owner group and several clubs. I spoke with
one of these legislators, who said that he is so upset about the negative
response that he will never again sponsor a pro-gun bill.
 
... divided we fall.

If each of the 3 pro-gun organizations insist that firearms ownership, carry and use be practiced only in the manner they see fit, then the lowest common denominator wins - which is usually no gain for 2ndA supporters or even some loss.

The words are: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." How sides can divide over these bills does not make any sense to me. Too much time and effort is spent sniping between gun-rights supporters - they end up supporting their own egos at the expense of the 2ndA.

Overall, the balance remains positive, but I sense it's been drifting unfavorably over the last decade.
 
[...] Sad to say that the pro-gun proponents have probably lost some allies over this issue. [...]
I spoke with one of these legislators, who said that he is so upset about the negative response that he will never again sponsor a pro-gun bill.
Can you find out which legislator that was? I think it's important to let him know that - while the particular piece of legislation was viewed as seriously flawed by some proponents - we, meaning the gun-issue-watching voters of NH, still appreciate him coming out and will be sure to lend our voices in support of him so long as he remains in support of us, our sharper-tongued members notwithstanding.
 
I'll see our Board member next week. I would hope many would express that opinion but apparently he was extremely upset about being attacked in print when he was doing what firearm's groups asked him to do in the first place.

Sometimes we are our own worst enemy.
 
It's a sad reflection of the fact that 90% of legislation put forth these days is anti-gun. I think most people assume the worse. Maybe the bills will be re-introduced with clearer wording so as to remove any ambiguity.
 
Back
Top Bottom