New Gun Related LSRs (Requests to have a bill drawn up)

[AFAR/PFAR]

Here is another fun one. More equal animals and all...

HB 1017 establishing criminal penalties for harming or threatening to harm an essential worker.

I thought harming or threatening folks was already illegal. Now we want to add another layer of penalties to a 12 page list of people: Exhibit A

Don't threaten a florist, cause NH wants to make that a felony.

 

[AFAR/PFAR]

Looks like the Senate added their LSRs. I didn't see much that was crazy other than some standard reeing about abortion, a minimum wage thing, and a affirmative action scholarship fund.

This might be interesting to attempt to fix the out of state student voter issue although "residency" may need to be redefined:



Completely separate, the Coös county town of Whitefield went full Karen and decided to ban fireworks without a permit. Their permit costs $5 and is only valid for the specific day that is placed on the permit. You need to show a receipt proving you purchased the fireworks in NH. Even worse is instead of doing it at a town meeting, their three person BoS just arbitrarily voted on it.


4 October minutes discussing it

25 October minutes banning it

Permit application explaining fines $250 second offense, $500 third offense

WTF Whitefield? I would almost understand it if it went out on town meeting or by vote, but for the BoS to add that restriction on their own is dirty.

*I don't live or own property in Whitefield. Was on their page for a different reason and saw this.

 

[AFAR/PFAR]

So now 121 of the 876 LSRs have bill #s assigned and available to view.

Warning--ANTI GUN BILL-needs to be shot down

HB1096 AN ACT prohibiting open carrying or display of a deadly weapon within 100 feet of a polling place.

Two other interesting ones:
HB1091 AN ACT relative to search warrants for individuals engaged in fish and game activities.

Looks like it may limit fish cop powers. If true, I approve.

HB1007 AN ACT relative to qualifications for office.

I can't tell if this is folks still screeching about that January 6 nonsense or something useful.

HB1108 AN ACT relative to the prescribed manner of posting land.

As a property owner, I support this. Especially the removal of the name/address

 

[AHM]

So now 121 of the 876 LSRs have bill #s assigned and available to view.

Warning--ANTI GUN BILL-needs to be shot down

HB1096 AN ACT prohibiting open carrying or display of a deadly weapon within 100 feet of a polling place.

What you tolerate, you validate. What you put up with, you DESERVE!

Spoiler

Two other interesting ones:

HB1091 AN ACT relative to search warrants for individuals engaged in fish and game activities.

Looks like it may limit fish cop powers. If true, I approve.

Yep, since PC requires more proof than RAS.

HB1007 AN ACT relative to qualifications for office.

I can't tell if this is folks still screeching about that January 6 nonsense or something useful.

What is the burden of proof?
What are the accused's due process rights for disenfranchisement?
How many femtoseconds will it take a Donk-majority legislature to disqualify all Republican candidates?

HB1108 AN ACT relative to the prescribed manner of posting land.

What is the penalty for applying purple paint to someone else's property?

 

[AFAR/PFAR]

HB1178 AN ACT prohibiting the state from enforcing any federal statute, regulation, or Presidential Executive Order that restricts or regulates the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Let's try this one again.

Sponsors from both bodies.

SPONSORS: Rep. Burt, Hills. 39; Rep. Stapleton, Sull. 5; Rep. Hopper, Hills. 2; Rep. Silber, Belk. 2; Rep. Nunez, Hills. 37; Rep. True, Rock. 4; Rep. Hill, Merr. 3; Rep. Kelsey, Hills. 7; Rep. Folsom, Graf. 11; Rep. Kofalt, Hills. 4; Sen. Avard, Dist 12; Sen. Ricciardi, Dist 9

 

[AFAR/PFAR]

301 Bill texts available.

This looks like a positive bill: HB1281 AN ACT relative to access to firearms confiscated from a person who is subject to a protective order.

Allows the subject of a protective order(who has had his firearms seized) to designate someone to pick them up and hold them.

 

[AFAR/PFAR]

Not a fan of this one:
HB1166 AN ACT requiring certain voters to declare a party affiliation prior to a state primary election and requiring candidates to be members of political parties for a certain amount of time prior to an election in which such candidates seek office.

Basically a bunch of Rs want to eliminate undeclared/independent voters and sign every voter up for incessant political spam calls and mailings.

SPONSORS: Rep. Love, Rock. 6; Rep. Potucek, Rock. 6; Rep. Yakubovich, Merr. 24; Rep. Thomas, Rock. 5

If this passes, I guess I'm not voting in primaries anymore.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Not a fan of this one:
HB1166 AN ACT requiring certain voters to declare a party affiliation prior to a state primary election and requiring candidates to be members of political parties for a certain amount of time prior to an election in which such candidates seek office.

Basically a bunch of Rs want to eliminate undeclared/independent voters and sign every voter up for incessant political spam calls and mailings.

SPONSORS: Rep. Love, Rock. 6; Rep. Potucek, Rock. 6; Rep. Yakubovich, Merr. 24; Rep. Thomas, Rock. 5

If this passes, I guess I'm not voting in primaries anymore.

I would think this would be unconsititutional as it would deprive ~50% of registered voters the right to vote. I've been undeclared/independent since 1972 and will never affiliate with a party, they all suck!

 

[AFAR/PFAR]

I would think this would be unconsititutional as it would deprive ~50% of registered voters the right to vote. I've been undeclared/independent since 1972 and will never affiliate with a party, they all suck!

The longest I'm affiliated with a party is on a primary day for about 15 minutes of voting and then unaffiliating myself.

On the face of it, this is just intended to harass the voting population by placing additional hurdles in front of a voter before voting.

To flat out say that a registered voter can't vote in a primary is questionable at best.

 

[KBCraig]

I would think this would be unconsititutional as it would deprive ~50% of registered voters the right to vote. I've been undeclared/independent since 1972 and will never affiliate with a party, they all suck!

This is only for primaries.

You don't have a right to vote in a primary if you're not a party member. I don't think there should be any government elections involved when parties choose their candidates.

I sponsored a bill to slash the requirements for party status on the general ballot.

 

[AFAR/PFAR]

The requirement to be a party member 120 days prior to vote in primaries is a non starter for me. I may write more emails and make more calls against this one than I do for gun bills.

Primaries are typically the only elections I enjoy. If I don't like the winning candidate, I have no problems leaving that spot blank in the general.

ETA: 326 bill texts up now.

 

[AFAR/PFAR]

394 bill texts available.

HB1310 AN ACT prohibiting the discharge of a firearm in the direction of a building, livestock, or pets.

lol f*** no

I can see a long way.

Isn't it already illegal to recklessly endanger someone or their property?

If we're going to do something like this modify the language in the first paragraph.

I will give him props for protecting ranges by specifying while hunting. Good on him there.

 

[AFAR/PFAR]

Another anti bill

HB1151 AN ACT prohibiting the display of a deadly weapon at a parade, funeral procession, picket line, march, rally, vigil, or demonstration.

 

[KBCraig]

Another anti bill

HB1151 AN ACT prohibiting the display of a deadly weapon at a parade, funeral procession, picket line, march, rally, vigil, or demonstration.

Paul Berch is proud of that one.

Even though he's a lawyer, he can't define what "at" means.

 

[AFAR/PFAR]

Paul Berch is proud of that one.

Even though he's a lawyers, he can't define what "at" means.

Expanding it to people driving by is amusing as well.

I love the little "rights preserved" in 159:31. Hey we preserved your rights by limiting them.

garbage

 

[AFAR/PFAR]

Ok, we'll drop it to 90 days.....if a person hasnt pulled their head out of their arse 90 days before a PRIMARY then they can take a flying leap

This same day registration for general elections needs to go to along with permitting "out of state" students....if they're "out of state" then they can vote absentee in the state they live in

If it's anything more than zero seconds, it is attempting to suppress the independent vote.

Despite always voting R, I personally refuse to be labeled an R. It violates the concept of not standing out/drawing attention to oneself and provides people a reason to target you. That and both parties suck.

No matter-one less trip to the polling place I guess.

On the student vote part, I'm still reading through HB1203, but given the D sponsors it is likely a way to increase student voters.

I'm waiting on the bill text on this. Looks like a back door way to start fixing the issue.

 

[AFAR/PFAR]

Here's the thing

The primary is a voting opportunity for people who are members of the party

If you spend the entirety of the year as unafiliated with a party except for 5 minutes to vote well, you're not really a member of the party....you're just trying to influence who the party chooses to be their candidate.

Oh absolutely no disagreement with that. I and many others just refuse to join a political party.

 

[tuna]

If it's anything more than zero seconds, it is attempting to suppress the independent vote.

Despite always voting R, I personally refuse to be labeled an R. It violates the concept of not standing out/drawing attention to oneself and provides people a reason to target you. That and both parties suck.

No matter-one less trip to the polling place I guess.

It isn't suppressing the independent vote. You're just not invited. It prevents someone from voting for the most retarded candidate in the opposite party, to better the chance of their own party. The primary isn't for the independent, it's for those who have chosen a party. Continue to be independent, vote for who you want in the general, but it keeps both sides from saying they're independent when they're only out to screw the other guy.

 

[AFAR/PFAR]

It isn't suppressing the independent vote. You're just not invited. It prevents someone from voting for the most retarded candidate in the opposite party, to better the chance of their own party. The primary isn't for the independent, it's for those who have chosen a party. Continue to be independent, vote for who you want in the general, but it keeps both sides from saying they're independent when they're only out to screw the other guy.

Good way of putting it.

***
So for you party members-don't f*** it up. If you do, then not only will I miss the primary due to me not being registered with a party, but I'll also skip the general.

 

[42!]

Instead of complaining and trying to shunt personal responsibility.....you could always join the herd party and be part of the solution a sheeple

FIFY

 

[AFAR/PFAR]

Instead of complaining and trying to shunt personal responsibility.....you could always join the party and be part of the solution

The parties suck.

 

[AFAR/PFAR]

True statement but failing to participate means you're guaranteed to be served a crap sandwich......

Not being involved is like complaining that you didnt win the lotttery.....without bothering to notice you didnt bother to buy a ticket

I used to be involved and participate as an undeclared voter. Not only here, but in other states. I guess that is no longer wanted.

A bit disappointing for the fun aspect, but in the end it is easier for me.

Also not trying to disrespect those who are party members, so please don't think I'm poking at anyone who is involved.

 

[Len-2A Training]

I used to be involved and participate as an undeclared voter. Not only here, but in other states. I guess that is no longer wanted.

A bit disappointing for the fun aspect, but in the end it is easier for me.

Also not trying to disrespect those who are party members, so please don't think I'm poking at anyone who is involved.

Like you, as an independent/unenrolled voter I worked on 3 Rep. AG campaigns where the party didn't even support the candidates. So one can still be involved without declaring a party. I saw the inside workings of both parties back in the 1968 presidential campaign and the politics was so dirty (and yes, the media covered it up) that there is no way I can in good conscience participate in such shenanigans.

 

[Len-2A Training]

There are things a person can do in a small town....volunteer to be a poll challenger or run for supervisor of checklist

There are tons of things you can do from a legislative perspective that are invaluable....showing up to hearings, testifying, etc etc....super important stuff

But short of joining a party, showing up at meetings and pushing issues/etc it has little effect on WHO gets elected because its the party that essentially decides who the candidates are that will get support/not get support at higher level offices.

Yes, and the party can refuse to fund and support the (AG) candidate even after he won the primary. I saw it first hand in MA. No thanks!!

 

[AFAR/PFAR]

I'm waiting for Mike Rowe to do an episode of Dirty Jobs related to politics.

Would anyone survive...

but anyways, if I'm not complaining about something, I'm dead

Regardless of which way this bill goes, I'm not joining a party.

 

[omega42]

This is only for primaries.

You don't have a right to vote in a primary if you're not a party member. I don't think there should be any government elections involved when parties choose their candidates.

I sponsored a bill to slash the requirements for party status on the general ballot.

I disagree with the italicized part and agree with the bold. I pay for the primaries, I damn well have a right to vote in them. The parties should chose their candidates without any taxpayer funds.

It isn't suppressing the independent vote. You're just not invited. It prevents someone from voting for the most retarded candidate in the opposite party, to better the chance of their own party. The primary isn't for the independent, it's for those who have chosen a party. Continue to be independent, vote for who you want in the general, but it keeps both sides from saying they're independent when they're only out to screw the other guy.

See above on the cost of primaries. Strawman argument intentionally disregarded.

The answer to this is simple. Let the parties chose whomever they want as candidates without tax subsidies. Have a preliminary election open to all voters to downselect to two candidates who face off in the final election regardless of their party affiliation.

 

[42!]

I disagree with the italicized part and agree with the bold. I pay for the primaries, I damn well have a right to vote in them. The parties should chose their candidates without any taxpayer funds.



See above on the cost of primaries. Strawman argument intentionally disregarded.

The answer to this is simple. Let the parties chose whomever they want as candidates without tax subsidies. Have a preliminary election open to all voters to downselect to two candidates who face off in the final election regardless of their party affiliation.

Why have parties on the ballot at all, these are not gov organizations and they should not be getting special treatment. Set the conditions to get on the ballot, anyone who meets them gets on the ballot, no R or D or any other designation. If a party wants to promote a particular person fine, if they want to run their own vote to narrow the field fine.

 

[AHM]

Instead of complaining and trying to shunt personal responsibility.....you could always join the party and be part of the solution get on their mailing list for interminable donation requests

FTFY.

Why have parties on the ballot at all, these are not gov organizations and they should not be getting special treatment. Set the conditions to get on the ballot, anyone who meets them gets on the ballot, no R or D or any other designation. ...

Uh, because the people who belong to political parties
are the ones that get elected to the legislatures
who write election statutes?

(Or was that one of those "rhetorical questions" I hear so much about?)

 

[42!]

FTFY.


Uh, because the people who belong to political parties
are the ones that get elected to the legislatures
who write election statutes?

(Or was that one of those "rhetorical questions" I hear so much about?)

Actually it was a statement not a question at all, hence the "." at the end and not a "?" (excuse me while a channel a grammar nazi)

 

[Len-2A Training]

Naw....never give to the party.....only give to candidates you support

I did that a few times. It still resulted in getting unwanted Emails and snailmails from the party as well as other candidates in far-away states.