-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS September Giveaway ***Smith & Wesson 22 Victory Series***
2022 NH Critical Gun Bills
- Thread starter design
- Start date
KBCraig
NES Member
The NH Senate passed HB1636 (unlicensed OHRV/snowmobile carry) today on a voice vote. Off to the governor.
And in typical "one step forward, two steps back" Senate fashion, they killed both cannabis legalization bills despite overwhelming popular support.
And in typical "one step forward, two steps back" Senate fashion, they killed both cannabis legalization bills despite overwhelming popular support.
DarthRevan
NES Member
Those risks are worth having if it means individual freedom.... Precrime shouldn't be a thing....
DarthRevan
NES Member
Live free but not high
correct him. they are now including guns where the serial has been altered or removed in the definition on ghost gun, that's why there has been such a dramatic increase, they changed the definition.
RE 629 and 1598, I have been beating the drum on other social media to get those passed(and I don't even smoke it). If only some folks would realize that there is a shitton of vocal single issue legal weed voters in the state. Failing to pass something will turn the purple to blue.
DarthRevan
NES Member
I’m also not a fan of using the state to sell it. Let people run their own.
I’m speaking out of ignorance of the actual bills but I thought I saw they were looking to use the same set up as liquor stores.
Yes and the fact all we are accomplishing without legalized weed is giving 100% of the business and taxes to Massachusetts, other states. They put the recreational shops right on our borders, it's already decriminalized here. I don't care who sells it, the state, private business, it's time. Get the votes, get the taxes, enough of the idiocy around it already.
I wouldn’t sell a glock to a 15 year old. My son who was known to be responsible, using mine? Sure. I wouldn’t sell a motorcycle to a 15 year old (who showed up alone) either.
I dunno, yes it's not a gun, but it can easily become one.
KBCraig
NES Member
I don't smoke either. I didn't support the state store model of 1598, but I fully supported 629, along with every other bill that let people grow their own, medical or recreational.
My personal position is that cannabis should have the same legal status as homegrown tomatoes.
I don't even care about the political aspects. It's just the right thing to do.
I agree with this position on MJ, but....
We live in the real world and we can't let the perfect get in the way of the good. MJ needs to be fully legalized, including recreational sales and personal growing. The issue seems to be coming down to who and how it's sold. I'm not a fan of state monopolies but we have to admit that the way NH is doing liquor is working. The cost is low, the availability and selection is high, and it provides the state money to keep our taxes lower. So I'm ok with it being the exception to the rule of state run businesses.
My big concern is that by doing nothing on MJ sales, we will pay the price in the next elections. We don't want another D controlled government.
So maybe, for now, we compromise. Allow personal growing, this has to happen, and let the state sell on the liquor model. Keep this from becoming a major point in the elections.
1598 wouldn't have created state run weed stores, but would have controlled every aspect of the selling and specifically funneled profits one way or the other. It was overly complicated and one of the senate's hangups is it would have state employees involved in something federally illegal. While the state model was the least preferred option, it would at least check the legalization block and get the infrastructure in place for when the feds actually get off their ass and legalize it. They should have simply legalized the selling of it and treat it like any other business or restaurant.
629 was the simple and painless home grow bill which from the 37 seconds of session I watched yesterday devolved into a think of the children from some chucklehead republican and a if you don't pass this you're racist from some chucklehead democrat. 629 would have hurt nobody and simply let residents do their own thing at home.
Last edited:
Here is the committee amendment for HB1178
Someone smarter than me is going to have to do the compare/contrast as I just went crosseyed doing it. I THINK the last line was the only thing added. "Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit the judicial branch from entering protective order information into law enforcement databases."
Senate Judiciary
April 27, 2022
2022-1845s
04/10
Amendment to HB 1178
Amend RSA 159-E:2 as inserted by section 1 of the bill by replacing it with the following:
159-E:2 Application. In light of the long-standing practice of cooperation between federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, nothing in this chapter shall prevent a state, county, or local official from cooperating with or rendering aid or assistance to federal officials in any circumstance where there is reasonable suspicion to believe that a person who is the subject of an investigation for violation of federal firearms law covered by RSA 159-E:1 also has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a violation of New Hampshire law or a violation of a federal law, regulation, order, or practice not covered by RSA 159-E:1. Nothing in this chapter shall prevent a state, county, or local official from providing authorized federal officials, upon their request, with official state, county, or local records that are available to the public or which constitute criminal history records maintained by an agency of state, county, or local government, or taking any other action necessary to fulfill or comply with the state’s obligations under the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact approved and ratified in RSA 106-B:14, III, provided that the provisions of this chapter shall not provide for the distribution of information required to be destroyed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 922(t)(2)(C). Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit the judicial branch from entering protective order information into law enforcement databases.
Someone smarter than me is going to have to do the compare/contrast as I just went crosseyed doing it. I THINK the last line was the only thing added. "Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit the judicial branch from entering protective order information into law enforcement databases."
Senate Judiciary
April 27, 2022
2022-1845s
04/10
Amendment to HB 1178
Amend RSA 159-E:2 as inserted by section 1 of the bill by replacing it with the following:
159-E:2 Application. In light of the long-standing practice of cooperation between federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, nothing in this chapter shall prevent a state, county, or local official from cooperating with or rendering aid or assistance to federal officials in any circumstance where there is reasonable suspicion to believe that a person who is the subject of an investigation for violation of federal firearms law covered by RSA 159-E:1 also has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a violation of New Hampshire law or a violation of a federal law, regulation, order, or practice not covered by RSA 159-E:1. Nothing in this chapter shall prevent a state, county, or local official from providing authorized federal officials, upon their request, with official state, county, or local records that are available to the public or which constitute criminal history records maintained by an agency of state, county, or local government, or taking any other action necessary to fulfill or comply with the state’s obligations under the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact approved and ratified in RSA 106-B:14, III, provided that the provisions of this chapter shall not provide for the distribution of information required to be destroyed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 922(t)(2)(C). Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit the judicial branch from entering protective order information into law enforcement databases.
Qwikdraw45
NES Member
Nah, just come visit our apartment complex near the Maine border. Everyone near us is smoking it - indoors or out in the parking lot. Annoying as hell, but NH might just as well legalize it.
I live a mile from the MA/NH border, guess what is 100 ft from the border. Harvest Moon: take a gander what they sell over there
. Very similar to the NH liquor store on the highway strategy. Yeah literally what was once a hiding in the car sorta thing, out back of the bar maybe, is now people passing a joint around next to cigarette smokers at the entrance to the bar. However it's treated legally, nobody seems to be concerned - the general public, likely a couple police in there out for the night, walks on by without a 2nd glance. Clearly nobody gives a shit anymore, I cannot understand why republican politicians fight it. It buys them as many votes as fighting established abortion law - a negative number.
KBCraig
NES Member
Umm...
1598 did literally seek to create state-run weed stores under NHLC.
I'm friends with the prime sponsor. He leaned on a bunch of us liberty types, and assured us that this was the bill that the governor supported, and would make it through the Senate with Sununu's support.
I didn't believe that, and now we see how it turned out.
When it comes to the perfect getting in the way of good enough, it's those who think they can perfectly centrally plan the market who are getting in the way.
We don't need the state to centrally plan anything. We don't need taxation. We don't need control. We need to let the market work, but most of all, we need to stop locking people up over growing, possessing, or using a plant.
I'm just going off of what the sponsor said/alluded to during one of the hour + long hearings where he was grilled on it. State administered, but not employees like the liquor stores. In his defense, he was getting slammed in those hearings and he pretty much said the opposite in another hearing. Just catching snippets here and there while I was working. Also in his defense, it sounds like he put A LOT of work into this bill. I'm tempted to drop him a note just in appreciation of the effort he put in.
Besides the anti marijuana bent in the Senate, they really didn't like the fact that state employees would be involved in something illegal so that is probably a non starter next year. I didn't see Sununu signing the state controlled aspect and adding a special tax is traditionally a non starter. It should be just like a pack of gum or maybe a pack of cigarettes at worst.
Regardless, the point is moot now and those single issue blue voters will continue to vote. Folks should browse the liberal social media and see how stirred up people have been. Heck, I might leave the box next to Guida's name blank this year as he is sounding like a boomer head in the sand support big government guy more and more and not just with this. One of the no votes in the Senate is going away with Hennessey not running next year.
*************************************************************************************
So anyways, on guns.
Do we know when Sununu is going to sign HB1636(OHRV carry)? I still think we did that wrong by specifying pistols and revolvers verses just firearms, but I'm sure that is more fish cop pressure-so annoying
It looks like HB1178 with its Senate amendment is being floored on 5/5. The amount of anti compared to supporters is annoying.
I'm still waiting on HB307 to show up. I haven't seen GOA beating the drum about it lately.
Last edited:
My personal MJ Bill; READ IT ALL BEFORE JUMPING ON ME
MJ will be legal for possession and use by anyone 18 or over, consistent with the limitations on the use of alcohol i.e. driving under the influence, operating heavy equipment, etc. Smoking of MJ will be subject to the same location limits currently in place for tobacco.
Sale of MJ will be through the NH system of liquor stores with taxes and regulation in line with those currently in place for liquor.
Growing of MJ for personal use, up to 6 plants, will be allowed subject to any local restrictions on growing plants, such as growing tomatoes for personal consumption. No one will be permitted to grow on behalf of another, growing for yourself is exactly that, growing for yourself. An individual may give away their excess production but the gift cannot be contingent on the purchase of any other item/service, nor can there be any expectation of a reciprocal "gift".
Commercial growing of MJ will be subject to current regulations regarding farming, with the addition that local municipalities must approve a security plan for the areas used for growing, processing, and storage.
---END---
This does not represent what I think should be done in an ideal world, but is instead is an attempt at presenting an idea that could actually more forward, and do so with as light a hand as possible. The shorter and simpler the refinement to current laws the better. I would also suggest a built in review timeline, say 8 years, where the legislature is required to review the effectiveness of the law, it's positive and negative outcomes, and either continue the laws existence or pass such minor changes as deemed necessary. Then repeat that process every 10 years.
MJ will be legal for possession and use by anyone 18 or over, consistent with the limitations on the use of alcohol i.e. driving under the influence, operating heavy equipment, etc. Smoking of MJ will be subject to the same location limits currently in place for tobacco.
Sale of MJ will be through the NH system of liquor stores with taxes and regulation in line with those currently in place for liquor.
Growing of MJ for personal use, up to 6 plants, will be allowed subject to any local restrictions on growing plants, such as growing tomatoes for personal consumption. No one will be permitted to grow on behalf of another, growing for yourself is exactly that, growing for yourself. An individual may give away their excess production but the gift cannot be contingent on the purchase of any other item/service, nor can there be any expectation of a reciprocal "gift".
Commercial growing of MJ will be subject to current regulations regarding farming, with the addition that local municipalities must approve a security plan for the areas used for growing, processing, and storage.
---END---
This does not represent what I think should be done in an ideal world, but is instead is an attempt at presenting an idea that could actually more forward, and do so with as light a hand as possible. The shorter and simpler the refinement to current laws the better. I would also suggest a built in review timeline, say 8 years, where the legislature is required to review the effectiveness of the law, it's positive and negative outcomes, and either continue the laws existence or pass such minor changes as deemed necessary. Then repeat that process every 10 years.
KBCraig
NES Member
Yes, we do need that. At least handguns will be consistent no matter what kind of vehicle, and rifles/shotguns will remain as they are now, and consistent no matter what kind of vehicle.
KBCraig
NES Member
do you really think legalizing LSD will have a chance, sounds like a dead bill before it even gets started. your friend is part of the problem
And the Senate is apparently out of touch with the reality of the world and NH.
Everyone in the House and Senate needs to stop being asholes about geting everything they want and giving nothing. You guys are setting us up for another Dem controlled legislature, stop being a bunch of F'ing babies and get this done.
I've posted about wanting to run for Rep, said I would when I moved to NH just had to wait out the residency requirement. As I waited I looked into the time requirements. It was clear I couldn't do the job right without time off of work, I'm not in a position to not work. So I had to back off running for Rep, the kidney disease didn't help.
So I'm relegated to being a constituent, voicing my opinion to the Legislature, Who are supposed to listen and not just say "well go file your own LSR". They are Representatives of the people and should be working for what the people want, not what they personally want, and certainly not get caught up in a dick measuring contest of "it's my way or not at all". Work it out, make it happen, stop the BS, and don't hand the Legislature to the Dems.
KBCraig
NES Member
It's not been mentioned in the calendar. I haven't heard anything. The pro-gun faction are eager to kill it. Hopefully it just dies a quiet death without being brought back, because we have some Republicans cheering the change.
5/12 is the last day to form a committee of conference.
And I never said you should or asked you too.
YOU made a dismiss statement regarding what the people clearly want, and my comments on the current Legislature driving the people to replace them with Dems. But I will offer one opinion right now, I don't think talking down to the people of NH, and not getting things done, is the way to keep the current Rep majority. And one prediction. Fail to get something done to move forward on the MJ issue and it will come up in the elections.
KBCraig
NES Member
In case you never noticed, I'm one (of several) NH reps who are 100% pro-freedom on guns, cannabis, property rights, and anything else you want to do that doesn't injure someone else or steal their money.
Your proposal was for liquor store sales and taxes for 18+ (which already failed for 21+). NHLC never wanted cannabis, and lowering the age will stiffen opposition. I oppose expanding government and creating new taxes.
I support the same legal status as homegrown tomatoes, but I also vote for moving the ball forward towards freedom. I didn't support 1598 because it would have enshrined state control without any increase in personal liberty. I enthusiastically supported 629, and other bills that allowed home-grown for therapeutic card holders.
I'm not talking down to the people of NH. I'm telling you that your proposal won't work.
I stand with the 74% of NH residents who want full freedom. The problem is not the House, it's the Senate, and they're ...uh... "inclined to listen to certain special interests", as a friend said earlier this evening.
I provided what I believed was a reasonable compromise that could pass the House and Senate, in fact I specifically stated it was not what I believed as ideal.
So I'll put the ball in your court, what do you think would, not should but would, pass both the House and the Senate? Because if you stick 100% to what you want, and they stick 100% to what they want, then NOTHING happens and we get that Dem controlled Legislature next term.
The "problem" isn't the Senate, or the House, it's BOTH, because we need them both to agree.
