2022 NH Critical Gun Bills

AFAR/PFAR

NES Member
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
2,512
Likes
3,472
Location
Grafton & Coös Counties
The "problem" isn't the Senate, or the House, it's BOTH, because we need them both to agree.

It would be good to see a bipartisan bill with members from both bodies next year, because that would have meant people talked to each other. A problem there, is it is a lot of work for folks that essentially have to pay to be in office. I'm not complaining about that as I like it, but you see some of the effects. This being an election year, I would expect to see less cross coordination-I could be wrong on that, but that is my seat of the pants assumption.

In the meantime the libs continue to beat the drum on r/newhampshire(which has a pro liberty mod who takes tons of crap) and r/thegranitestate. Even the FSP's reddit had a post yesterday about which senator was most vulnerable over their anti green leafy plant stance.
 

AFAR/PFAR

NES Member
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
2,512
Likes
3,472
Location
Grafton & Coös Counties
Random commentary since I still have the Senate hearing playing.

Republican Senator Hennssey is wearing a mask. I don't think this illness has affected her votes, but it speaks to some issues.
 

KBCraig

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
16,241
Likes
15,218
Location
Granite State of Mind
So on the weed front, it looks like the House decided to kick the Senate in the junk and make them see it again.

They added the language of HB629 to SB299 and passed it all on a voice vote. See 1907h on the left.

Current Legislation Search

Now it goes back to the Senate to concur/nonconcur.
Not gun related, but they're pulling the same stuff. The House tabled SB400 today, and the Senate immediately amended a House bill to include the SB400 language.

As for HB307 (the preemption bill that the Senate screwed up), I was told it will be on the 5/12 schedule.
 

KBCraig

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
16,241
Likes
15,218
Location
Granite State of Mind
Impatiently waiting on the committee of conference reports on HBs 307 and 490.

Committee of Conference
There won't be one on HB307.

CoC reports have to be unanimous, and Sen. Carson wouldn't agree to putting "use" back in the bill.

I've heard that her house abuts public land, and she wants to be able to ban shooting there.
 

AFAR/PFAR

NES Member
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
2,512
Likes
3,472
Location
Grafton & Coös Counties
There won't be one on HB307.

CoC reports have to be unanimous, and Sen. Carson wouldn't agree to putting "use" back in the bill.

I've heard that her house abuts public land, and she wants to be able to ban shooting there.

I can't stand that person.

Not only what she puts into bills, but also her speaking in senate hearings/sessions. "as a history professor..." puke

She needs a real primary contender.
 

AFAR/PFAR

NES Member
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
2,512
Likes
3,472
Location
Grafton & Coös Counties
Ah, so I found the House commentary in the Calendar:

HB 307, relative to the state preemption of the regulation of firearms and ammunition. The House refused to accede to Senate on HB307. The Senate insisted on allowing municipalities to regulate the use of firearms on public property thus possibly placing the ability to hunt, target shoot and any other lawful use of firearms at risk. The House believes that the state’s current preemption law is stronger that what would have come out agreeing to the Senate version of this bill.
Rep. Daryl Abbas

HB 490, relative to the definitions of “game camera” and “hunting day,” relative to the use of game cameras, relative to the use of temporary tree stands or observation blinds, and relative to the definition of “firearm.” During the committee of conference the House and the Senate came to an agreement on an amendment, regarding the definition of firearm, not a single objection was voiced by anyone during the committee of conference on any aspect of the bill including the amendment, however a single member of the Committee of Conference has refused to sign off on the bill, thus it will not progress this year.
Rep. Tim Lang
 

42!

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
9,436
Likes
8,218
Reading this and this rereading the senate's amended version of the bill where they removed the written permission requirement for cameras by the house, HB490 needs to die entirely.

Game cameras pit hunters against landowners – New Hampshire Bulletin
An interesting issue, cameras. If I owned land suitable for hunting I wouldn't have an issue with people hunting on it as long as they were respectful, it might be nice if they offered a share, but I wouldn't require it. Same with asking permission. But cameras are a different matter, no I wouldn't want cameras on my land. So if there was no requirement to ask I would be left with a simple decision and unfortunately it would be no hunting/access for anyone without written permission.

Now I know that a respectful hunter would ask permission anyway, so the law wouldn't make any difference. And I'm not talking about public land, I'm talking about privately owned land.

But I would like to hear the other side. The position that a person should be allowed to place cameras on someone else's land without seeking permission. Keep in mind that it's impossible to prove what the purpose of the camera is.
 
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
9,992
Likes
4,372
Location
WNW of MHT
A friend is planning a bill that would simply redact all mention of marijuana/cannabis, psilocybin, and LSD from the RSAs.
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
I think he is merely suggesting purging the named substances from state law -- not trying to override the FDA's choice to put these into "Schedule I", just no longer call out these specific substances in the RSAs.


But I would like to hear the other side. The position that a person should be allowed to place cameras on someone else's land without seeking permission. Keep in mind that it's impossible to prove what the purpose of the camera is.

As mentioned at the hearing, "There are absentee landowners who are very difficult to contact"

Near me there are many lots which are not posted and which do not have a house, In one case, a friend tried to track down the owner and found the corporation listed on the tax rolls was dissolved decades ago, more often the owner of record is "XYZ Trust" with a PO Box listed for the tax bill and no other method of contact.

Perhaps a compromise would be to require a good faith effort to contact the owner (e.g. show that you sent a registered letter to the address on record)?
 
Last edited:

Reptile

NES Member
Rating - 100%
116   0   0
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
22,692
Likes
13,612
Reading this and this rereading the senate's amended version of the bill where they removed the written permission requirement for cameras by the house, HB490 needs to die entirely.

Game cameras pit hunters against landowners – New Hampshire Bulletin

An interesting issue, cameras. If I owned land suitable for hunting I wouldn't have an issue with people hunting on it as long as they were respectful, it might be nice if they offered a share, but I wouldn't require it. Same with asking permission. But cameras are a different matter, no I wouldn't want cameras on my land. So if there was no requirement to ask I would be left with a simple decision and unfortunately it would be no hunting/access for anyone without written permission.

Now I know that a respectful hunter would ask permission anyway, so the law wouldn't make any difference. And I'm not talking about public land, I'm talking about privately owned land.

But I would like to hear the other side. The position that a person should be allowed to place cameras on someone else's land without seeking permission. Keep in mind that it's impossible to prove what the purpose of the camera is.
That is insane. I would never let hunters on my land. To think they could legally plant cameras on my land is insane. I think I have the right to rub one out in the woods on my own property without a live feed going to some grizzled old man.

If I ever found a camera on my land he wont get it back.

If he comes over my house to get it...

SSS
 

AFAR/PFAR

NES Member
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
2,512
Likes
3,472
Location
Grafton & Coös Counties
But I would like to hear the other side. The position that a person should be allowed to place cameras on someone else's land without seeking permission. Keep in mind that it's impossible to prove what the purpose of the camera is.

That's the thing. As I'm reading the Senate's version it allows putting cameras up without permission.

On one hand it aligned cameras with hunting on the use of private property. For many people, cameras are part of hunting. I can certainly see their argument.

On the other, cameras have all sorts of uses and I like to think I'm free from observation on my own land. Don't judge me as I'm walking around naked smeared in biofreeze to beat the heat.

The respectful folks ask, but I think the end result of the Senate's version would be more posted property.

*For perspective, I am speaking of large lots which have an occupied house on it as this would be my situation.

As mentioned at the hearing, "There are absentee landowners who are very difficult to contact"

Near me there are many lots which are not posted and which do not have a house, In one case, a friend tried to track down the owner and found the corporation listed on the tax rolls was dissolved decades ago, more often the owner of record is "XYZ Trust" with a PO Box listed for the tax bill and no other method of contact.

Perhaps a compromise would be to require a good faith effort to contact the owner (e.g. show that you sent a registered letter to the address on record)?

and then there is this point with the absentee landowners, and there are many thousands of acres owned by absentees

This is where the Senate's version would help, but a compromise between House/Senate would respect owner's privacy while making it "easier" for hunters.

As a complete off topic, and only a seat of the pants AM assessment, their are likely several similiar inconsitancies in NH's F&G laws that could be looked at in future years. Streamlining and aligning laws so they are easier to remember and you don't need a book to reference.

Of course the point seems moot as the Senate did their "firearms" amendment which helped squash this.
 

teamRR

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2019
Messages
2,111
Likes
1,698
That is insane. I would never let hunters on my land. To think they could legally plant cameras on my land is insane. I think I have the right to rub one out in the woods on my own property without a live feed going to some grizzled old man.

If I ever found a camera on my land he wont get it back.

If he comes over my house to get it...

SSS

I certainly understand the camera part. Whether it had legal teeth or not I'd likely post "no game cameras" if I owned a piece of land where it may occur.

But the concept, as a hunter, sportsman, of allowing no one to utilize an idle piece of land I cannot get behind. Basically that's how many folks hunt, and fish too, in NH - in the outskirts of various pieces of private property.

Near me I see large pieces of private property, one instance the area is across the street from their home and is like 10+ acres of remote land abutting farm land, with wetlands passing through it - not a trail or soul goes out there, yet it's been posted consistently for the 30 years I have been old enough to recognize it. It is indeed the owners right but I see no reason for it. Other such areas you do not see this. IMO it's kinda bad manners just as a blanket statement to be posting property without a house on it.
 

DarthRevan

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Jan 8, 2014
Messages
7,898
Likes
7,785
Location
SE New Hampshire
I certainly understand the camera part. Whether it had legal teeth or not I'd likely post "no game cameras" if I owned a piece of land where it may occur.

But the concept, as a hunter, sportsman, of allowing no one to utilize an idle piece of land I cannot get behind. Basically that's how many folks hunt, and fish too, in NH - in the outskirts of various pieces of private property.

Near me I see large pieces of private property, one instance the area is across the street from their home and is like 10+ acres of remote land abutting farm land, with wetlands passing through it - not a trail or soul goes out there, yet it's been posted consistently for the 30 years I have been old enough to recognize it. It is indeed the owners right but I see no reason for it. Other such areas you do not see this. IMO it's kinda bad manners just as a blanket statement to be posting property without a house on it.
In short. f*** you it’s mine.
You don’t have to like it but you have to respect it.
 

KBCraig

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
16,241
Likes
15,218
Location
Granite State of Mind
HB490 started out as a "fair chase" bill. The intent was to make sure people weren't getting alerts on their phones that a deer was just spotted on their camera, and rushing out to shoot it.

That's about the most stupid thing ever, and all the hunters knew that deer aren't going to sit there and wait for you to jump in the truck and then walk into the woods. I haven't been deer hunting since 1984, and even I rolled my eyes when I heard that argument.

And then it got derailed, re-railed, sidetracked, morphed, and turned into something totally unrelated, and made placing game cams on land otherwise open to hunting almost impossible.

Landowners can allow hunting or not. Totally their right, and their choice. But if they allow hunting, they also allow what goes along with hunting, which means stands during the season, and also cams during the season.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Apr 25, 2018
Messages
2,014
Likes
3,121
Kevin, As you are aware, once a person places their property in "Current Use Recreation" they open it to Hunting, Fishing, Bird Watching, Hiking, Snowshoeing, and Cross Country Skiing. That is the deal when you file for that tax break.
 
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
9,992
Likes
4,372
Location
WNW of MHT
Allowing "Hunting" doesn't necessarily equate to allowing random strangers to install 24x7 surveillance equipment on your property. Compare the proposal with the current rules for baiting on land you do not own -- requires written landowner permission and also filing for a state permit with a map, and "Bait may not be placed less than 300 feet from a dwelling, public roadway, pathway, or trail"

Those are existing constraints on putting your hunting equipment (bait pile) on another person's land -- the distance from a dwelling in particular.
Kevin, As you are aware, once a person places their property in "Current Use Recreation" they open it to Hunting, Fishing, Bird Watching, Hiking, Snowshoeing, and Cross Country Skiing. That is the deal when you file for that tax break.
New Hampshire's "Current Use" program has an optional 20% additional discount for "Recreation", but only about half of current use landowners opt-in:

NHBR said:
Today, 3,008,456 acres — more than half the land area of the state — is enrolled in current use, and virtually half of it qualifies for the recreational discount. Forest land, with and without stewardship, covers 2,623,405 acres, or 87 percent, of the land in current use. The 204,353 acres of farmland account for 7 percent of the total, while 180,698 acres of unproductive land and wetland make up the balance.
 
Last edited:
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Apr 25, 2018
Messages
2,014
Likes
3,121
Allowing "Hunting" doesn't necessarily equate to allowing random strangers to install 24x7 surveillance equipment on your property. Compare the proposal with the current rules for baiting on land you do not own -- requires written landowner permission and also filing for a state permit with a map, and "Bait may not be placed less than 300 feet from a dwelling, public roadway, pathway, or trail"

New Hampshire's "Current Use" program has an optional 20% additional discount for "Recreation", but only about half of current use landowners opt-in:
Hey!! Did anyone say anything about baiting?
 
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
9,992
Likes
4,372
Location
WNW of MHT
Allowing "Hunting" doesn't necessarily equate to allowing random strangers to install 24x7 surveillance equipment on your property. Compare the proposal with the current rules for baiting on land you do not own...
"Current Use" program has an optional 20% additional discount for "Recreation",
Hey!! Did anyone say anything about baiting?
I quoted the baiting rules as an example of existing constraints on putting your hunting equipment (bait pile) on another person's land -- distance from a dwelling in particular seems apropos to game cameras.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Apr 25, 2018
Messages
2,014
Likes
3,121
I quoted the baiting rules as an example of existing constraints on putting your hunting equipment (bait pile) on another person's land -- distance from a dwelling in particular seems apropos to game cameras.
Nothing to do with the discussion on hand as it is already addressed in other law. So try to stay focused.
 

AFAR/PFAR

NES Member
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
2,512
Likes
3,472
Location
Grafton & Coös Counties
Nothing to do with the discussion on hand as it is already addressed in other law. So try to stay focused.

He isn't talking about baiting. It highlights inconsistencies within NH F&G laws while showing an example of where we have constraints that could be applied to game cameras and is 100% on topic.



******************************

Article NH Bulletin hits at what KBCraig mentioned.

The lone CoC member who didn't sign off on the report was the prime sponsor.

Game camera legislation fails ahead of deadline – New Hampshire Bulletin


Rep. Terry Roy, a Deerfield Republican, was the lone lawmaker who declined to sign off on the report. He was also the prime sponsor of the legislation. Roy said the bill began as a constituent request from a disabled hunter who wanted to use wireless game cameras, but through the legislative process the bill had changed to a point where he could no longer support it.

“In the end it ended up being not only unhelpful (to hunters), but hurtful,” said Roy.

Also note the incorrectly posted property in the article. Damn shame HB1108 never saw the light of day. Lots of incorrect throwing around use of "contact information" by F&G/LE during discussion of that bill-as we all know, contact information is not required by RSA 635:4 unless you count the name/address as contact info.
 
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
9,992
Likes
4,372
Location
WNW of MHT
Kevin, As you are aware, once a person places their property in "Current Use Recreation" they open it to Hunting, Fishing, Bird Watching, Hiking, Snowshoeing, and Cross Country Skiing. That is the deal when you file for that tax break.
"Recreational Discount" has nothing to do with the discussion on hand, try to stay focused.
 

teamRR

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2019
Messages
2,111
Likes
1,698
In short. f*** you it’s mine.
You don’t have to like it but you have to respect it.

Sure and you can hang a sign in your front lawn that's says you're an a**h*** if you want, but most people thankfully aren't and don't.

Seriously - yes it's your right but as a sportsman, if that's your only reason, it's lame.
 
Top Bottom