• 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.

Governor Lynch vetoes HB1161

strangenh

strangenh

NES Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
8,854
Likes
6,702
Location
NH
Feedback: 37 / 0 / 0
http://www.wmur.com/news/24405275/detail.html
CONCORD, NH -- New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch has vetoed a bill that would have repealed the ability of cities and towns to license people who sell firearms.

Since 1991, cities and towns have been able to decide whether to require retailers who sell pistols, revolvers and firearms to obtain a local license.
Click to expand...
A bill actually revoking a law mostly unknown to chiefs of police (despite Lynch's weasel words to the contrary), the bill's primary purpose was to get rid of a completely unused (most towns admitted to having no idea how to license gun dealers) and redundant (federal law is already extremely heavy in that area) provision of the law that has been used of late solely to prosecute innocent people for advertising a handgun for sale in a manner that has been considered legal just about forever.

Lynch's weasel words on the subject:
http://www.governor.nh.gov/media/news/2010/072610-hb1161.htm

House Record 14 (2010):
Rep. David A Welch for Criminal Justice and Public Safety: This bill repeals RSA’s 159:8, 159:8a, 159:8b relative to the requirement of obtaining a local license to sell firearms at retail from the chief of police. During testimony, it appeared that many chiefs of police were not aware of the statute. Also, during the testimony it appeared that RSA 159:10 relative to sales without a license ought to be repealed as well. The amendment repeals RSA 159:10 as well. Vote 17-0.
Click to expand...
 
I guess the Liberal Anti sentiment in Mass is drifting northward..... Gotta Let Lynch remember the state motto...(Mostly the Free part).
 
WanMan99 said:
I guess the Liberal Anti sentiment in Mass is drifting northward..... Gotta Let Lynch remember the state motto...(Mostly the Free part).
Click to expand...

This isn't new, Lynch has vetoed a bunch of other stuff, too. Years ago I think there was a bill that would have made NH lose the permit requirement for concealed carry, and he vetoed that, too.

-Mike
 
drgrant said:
This isn't new, Lynch has vetoed a bunch of other stuff, too. Years ago I think there was a bill that would have made NH lose the permit requirement for concealed carry, and he vetoed that, too.
Click to expand...
Yep. This "it's liberal MA in NH" BS we hear every time we have a fight here over a gun law just astounds me. When the MA legislature is fighting with the governor over a veto override to eliminate all dealer licensing, all those "NH is just MA North" people can gimme a call and I'll buy 'em all a beer.
 
WanMan99 said:
I guess the Liberal Anti sentiment in Mass is drifting northward..... Gotta Let Lynch remember the state motto...(Mostly the Free part).
Click to expand...

In fact, although Massachusetts takes much of the blame for insurgent moonbattery, the demographic reality seems to be that folks trading down, home pricewise, to move from New Jersey are the biggest threat to the Granite State.

I have a clipping about that, but I can't lay my hands on it right now.
 
If enough moonbats move to the Granite State, Derek may have to move in with Jose or risk a headache of epic proportions!!!




theGringo said:
In fact, although Massachusetts takes much of the blame for insurgent moonbattery, the demographic reality seems to be that folks trading down, home pricewise, to move from New Jersey are the biggest threat to the Granite State.

I have a clipping about that, but I can't lay my hands on it right now.
Click to expand...
 
So you'd rather vote for someone who will rape you only on MWF instead of every day?

And people wonder why this country and state are going to hell and a hand-basket.
 
soloman02 said:
So you'd rather vote for someone who will rape you only on MWF instead of every day?

And people wonder why this country and state are going to hell and a hand-basket.
Click to expand...

No, I'd rather not piss my vote away. Might as well vote for James T. Kirk or John Gault.

And people wonder why Democrats keep getting elected.
 
Update:

House overrides Lynch's veto by a wide margin!

Senate fails to override by ONE VOTE.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bil...&txtsessionyear=2010&txtbillnumber=HB1161&q=1

[banghead]

So close. Anyone who says this is "MA North" needs to note that those votes represent almost 80% of the house, and 63% of the senate to override the governor on a bill to dismantle the state's firearms dealer licensing. We're just one change in senator (or governor) away.
 
So I am guessing if the next salvo of elections is successful, that whoever introduced this bill will re-introduce it in the next session?

This is an important bill, because I am guessing it would basically destroy the prosecutorial premises that caused that Batte guy to get dragged into court for selling a PPK by posting an ad in his store...

-Mike
 
drgrant said:
So I am guessing if the next salvo of elections is successful, that whoever introduced this bill will re-introduce it in the next session?

This is an important bill, because I am guessing it would basically destroy the prosecutorial premises that caused that Batte guy to get dragged into court for selling a PPK by posting an ad in his store...
Click to expand...
Correct on all counts, Sir!

At a minimum, even if they don't decide to push this one exactly as-is again, the blanket burden of proof for establishing the exceptions in that chapter (set by 1987's sec. 159:5-a ) needs to be (re-)removed or tailored so that non-violent exceptions or those related to the state of the mind of the defendant are the prosecution's responsibility to establish. The defense should not have the burden of proving it meets an exception that exists because the act in question is considered perfectly legal to do (as opposed to having to prove circumstances "justifying" an otherwise illegal act, like with murder in self-defense). Can you imagine having to "prove" you are the father of your child... after the state has arrested, charged, and indicted you for giving your own child a firearm under the clear language of section 159:12? That is but one example of crazy result that can be reached because of the blanket burden of proof shift carried out by 159-5a. Anyone who offers that there's no way that would happen, because no prosecutor would do such a thing can go have a nice sit-down chat with Mr. Batte.
 
Back
Top Bottom