Two Anti-Gun Bills to be Heard in Concord on Monday! HB1635 & HB1654

[Airwolfe1]

From NRA-ILA

Two Anti-Gun Bills to be Heard in Concord on Monday!

Please Stand-Up and Make Your Voices Heard!

On Monday, January 11, two dangerous anti-freedom bills will be considered in Concord.

Simply stated, House Bill 1654 and House Bill 1635 would infringe upon our Second Amendment rights by outlawing the possession of firearms in state or town buildings, including state-operated rest areas, the university system/community college system of New Hampshire, the State House complex, etc.

HB1654 will be heard at 1:00 p.m. by the House Legislative Administration Committee and HB1635 will be heard at 2:00 p.m. by the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee. Both hearings will be held in room LOB 210-211.

If you would like to attend these hearings and show your support for the Second Amendment, Gun Owners of New Hampshire (GO-NH) will provide shuttle service to and from the hearing beginning at 12:00 p.m. until around 4:00 p.m. Please arrive and park at the Concord Ice Arena located at 15 Loudon Road in Concord (directly across from the Concord Post Office on Loudon Road). GO-NH will pay for parking at the arena but donations to offset the cost are welcome.

Please contact the members of the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee and the House Legislative Administration Committee TODAY and respectfully urge them to oppose these bills. Contact information for the committees can be found by clicking here and here.

Call, write, e-mail or FAX the commitee members ASAP and try to attend the public hearing on Monday! I sent a pdf copy of "Gun Facts" to all committee members, but I don't know if they receive attachments. I like to think it would shed some light about the dismal failure of gun free zones.

 

[DadaOrwell]

Dems plot metal detectors at NH state house

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSuBIlyfGwo

 

[cavalri]

Have there been any decisions made regarding these bills? Have the committees voted on them yet?

 

[cavalri]

Well, I guess I answered my own questions.

The latest as of January 29:

HB1654 has been voted Inexpedient to Legislate, which means it's dead.

HB1635 has a public hearing on February 2 on a proposed amendment to the bill. Bill status is here.

 

[Nemi]

HB1654 has been voted Inexpedient to Legislate, which means it's dead.

Not exactly. The unanimous ITL committee vote placed the bill on the consent calendar, a group of bills whose recommendations will be voted on together in a voice vote (no roll call) with no debate. Any legislator can pull any bill off the consent calendar for debate on the floor if he or she chooses, however, opening the door for additional motions, etc. on the individual bill in question.

Yes, one would hope HB1654 stays on the consent calendar, but I don't think that's likely. The (slight) consolation is that if it *is* pulled off the consent calendar, we'll have access to a roll-call vote for future reference.

HB1635 has a public hearing on February 2 on a proposed amendment to the bill. Bill status is here.

While this hearing is listed on the House calendar, the text of the amendment is not (you'll have to pick up a copy at the Sergeant-At-Arms office). The gist, however, is detailed fairly well in this article:

http://sentinelsource.com/articles/2010/01/31/news/local/free/id_388525.txt

The Sentinel is notorious for pulling its free articles quickly, so if they've done that by the time you click the link and you'd like text of the article, I can post it here if need be.

 

[strangenh]

While this hearing is listed on the House calendar, the text of the amendment is not (you'll have to pick up a copy at the Sergeant-At-Arms office). The gist, however, is detailed fairly well in this article:

http://sentinelsource.com/articles/2010/01/31/news/local/free/id_388525.txt

So the gist is that the state house officers will have power of arrest?

State Rep. Daniel A. Eaton, D-Stoddard, is proposing giving the half dozen or so unarmed, legislative security officers in the Statehouse complex the power to detain people until police arrive — even people who violate a newly reinstituted ban on carrying weapons into the buildings.

So they're going to tack that onto a bill that prohibits carrying weapons into any state facility? Hmm. Quality lawmaking at its best. Another reason to urge my reps to vote ITL on HB1635.

 

[Nemi]

So the gist is that the state house officers will have power of arrest?

No, just the power to detain until one of the troopers arrives. Eaton would like to see the guards armed at some point, but that isn't included in this bill.

So they're going to tack that onto a bill that prohibits carrying weapons into any state facility?

No, fortunately. The original bill was appalling. The proposed amendment strikes all of the original text, including the part that would have made it a class B felony to open-carry in all state-owned "places."

I won't see the proposed amendment until I arrive in Concord tomorrow morning, so I don't know whether the amendment gives security power to detain for *any* crime or for *certain* crimes. The committee member I contacted said security would be able to detain for felonies only, which doesn't make much sense to me at all.

I talked with Eaton a week or so ago up in Concord, and thanked him for coming over to "our side" in the second vote on the weapons ban rule, though I was somewhat hesitant about his indication to handle the issue of weapons in the State House through legislation. He doesn't want metal detectors (HB1654) or to restrict open-carry (the original HB1635) or to ban guns outright (weapons ban rule), and when I asked if having more troopers assigned to the State House security detail was a feasible middle ground (if, in fact, there are legislators with a bona fide concern), he said no ... NHSP is down nine positions until 2011 at least. He wants the existing staff to be able to enforce the existing rules ... even before the complex-wide weapons ban rule was reinstated, weapons were prohibited from the House gallery and the floor. The HCR 6 hearing last March has served as "justification" for the sponsors of these two bills, but if the existing rules had been enforced, I highly doubt the situation would have escalated to the point that it did.

Hmm. Quality lawmaking at its best.

A side note: Eaton is a native, like me. I find it interesting that all four New Hampshire natives voting on either of these bills (or the weapons rule) voted against. Further, the linked article makes it sound like Burridge may try to bring his bill again, despite the fact that his constituency is vocally opposed to it. In the hearings for both of these bills, a total of ~160 people testified against, with only the three sponsors testifying in favor. That Burridge is disregarding his constituency so blatantly has upset me to the point of considering a run for his seat, and I'm no politico ... but I will be, if I'm pushed.

 

[strangenh]

So the gist is that the state house officers will have power of arrest?

No, just the power to detain until one of the troopers arrives. Eaton would like to see the guards armed at some point, but that isn't included in this bill.

Not my area but I think the weight of federal law does not support such a neat line between forcible detainment by state 'officers' and 'arrest.' Will the state house officers be able to use force to stop a person who asks, "am I under arrest?" from leaving when the answer is, "no?" Will anything the person says before the troopers arrive be able to be used against them in a court of law? What a constitutional can of worms they are opening.

Glad to hear the original text has been completely removed, but this "amendment" should be ITL. This really does smack of amateur hour by this subset of "lawmakers" in Concord. There is a reason you can't have your cake and eat it too when it comes to creating security zones enforced by state officers.

 

[Nemi]

I won't see the proposed amendment until I arrive in Concord tomorrow morning ...

I stand corrected: it's now posted over at the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance forum. Direct link to PDF file: http://forum.nhliberty.org/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2797.0;attach=392

Not my area but I think the weight of federal law does not support such a neat line between forcible detainment by state 'officers' and 'arrest.' Will the state house officers be able to use force to stop a person who asks, "am I under arrest?" from leaving when the answer is, "no?" Will anything the person says before the troopers arrive be able to be used against them in a court of law? What a constitutional can of worms they are opening.

Excellent questions. I don't know. Eaton compares this to the power bestowed upon a mall cop, but I don't know the answers to your questions in the case of a mall cop, either. I think I'll write to Eaton and ask.

 

[strangenh]

Yes, I think it may be more complicated than that. A mall cop is not acting on behalf of the state. It may be a moot point but I think the question needs to be raised - I'm not a NH atty and not a crim law/crim procedure practitioner so Penny Dean may be a good person to tap.

 

[Nemi]

Yes, I think it may be more complicated than that. A mall cop is not acting on behalf of the state. It may be a moot point but I think the question needs to be raised - I'm not a NH atty and not a crim law/crim procedure practitioner so Penny Dean may be a good person to tap.

Yes. Penny's fanastic. Sent her a mail as soon as the hearing notice went up, so she's aware. I'll let you know what/when I hear back.

 

[Nemi]

I'll let you know what/when I hear back.

Friendly acknowledgment, but no answers.

I will be attending the hearing tomorrow, so if anyone has questions or points they'd like raised, feel free to let me know.

 

[Nemi]

Update: 1654 remained on the consent calendar and the ITL recommendation was adopted.

 

[strangenh]

Update: 1654 remained on the consent calendar and the ITL recommendation was adopted.

02/03/2010 H Removed from Consent Calendar (Rep Winters)

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bil...&txtsessionyear=2010&txtbillnumber=HB1654&q=1



02/03/2010 H Inexpedient to Legislate: MA RC 300-35

 

[Nemi]

02/03/2010 H Removed from Consent Calendar (Rep Winters)

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bil...&txtsessionyear=2010&txtbillnumber=HB1654&q=1



02/03/2010 H Inexpedient to Legislate: MA RC 300-35

Interesting! We (obviously) didn't see that happen ... and I didn't hear Winters pull it off. Huh. Anyone have any idea what article was read?

Very glad to have a roll call on it, though! Thanks!

 

[cavalri]

Outstanding. One down, one to go.

 

[strangenh]

HB1635 is in executive session [STRIKE]this morning[/STRIKE] on the 16th. Let's hope the myriad issues - in passing legislation empowering the legislature to run its own pseudo-police force able to detain citizens seeking redress, absent the various controls on the executive, and beyond the boundaries provided in the separation of powers - gives the committee sufficient pause to let the underlying non-issue go already. 200+ years of it not being an issue with only 10 in which an administrative ban was in place at all, and suddenly they need their own private police force?

ETA: Looks like they've canceled today's session and rescheduled to the 16th.

 

[grady]

Any idea what they were trying to hammer out in the subcommittee work session? I couldn't attend so I'd be interested to know whether the bill as introduced (ban on carry in public buildings) still has any life, or whether they're focusing on the amendment, which is essentially an entirely different bill.

 

[strangenh]

HB1635 is on the docket to come to the floor today.

The committee recommended HB1635 be ITL, on a 13-2 vote.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/caljourns/calendars/2010/houcal2010_21.html

HB 1635-FN, prohibiting the open carrying of a firearm in a public building. INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.

Rep. Stanley E Stevens for Criminal Justice and Public Safety: This bill would have made a class B felony for openly carrying a firearm, or any other deadly weapon as defined in RSA 625:11V. The aforementioned statute defines deadly weapon as “any firearm, knife or other substance or thing which, in the manner it is used, intended to be used, or threatened to be used, is known to be capable of producing death or serious bodily injury.” The U.S. Constitution and the N.H. Constitution permit the carrying of firearms. The only restriction is found in statutory law that no person can carry such a weapon concealed without first obtaining a license to do so. This proposed law is a clear violation of constitutional law. Further, it would be applied against a person carrying a jackknife in a case that is worn in the open. Vote 13-2.

The details of the rollcall vote are not posted. It would be interesting to have a record of which two legislators voted to support a bill the majority saw as a "clear violation of constitutional law." I can guess one easily, though.

 

[caboose84]

HB1635 was voted by the House as ITL 256 to 33.

Here is the roll call http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bil...xtbillnumber=hb1635&ddlsponsors=&q=1&lsr=2196

So you can see which 33 lawmakers opposed our rights.