NH Alert: SB116. Still on the Gov's desk. ***Vetoed***

Oh my. I read things like that and I wonder how these people function in life. Take one example:

Supporters of such legislation are often the same people who argue that New Hampshire is a very safe state so we do not need, for example, expanded background checks that close loopholes in existing laws governing certain gun sales. Are these same people now saying that New Hampshire should start eliminating gun laws until we reach some kind of safety threshold?
Click to expand...

First - there are no "loopholes" - but lets just repeat that so we can register your gun. Second, he conflated two issues, threw in an experiment and somehow made sense of the result. This bill has nothing to do with background checks other than the fact that one is done each time you buy a firearm. We don't NEED expanded background checks because they are already being done, we don't NEED gun laws because criminals don't care about the law - or if they are compliant with their conceal carry license.

The BS of the police needing to know if the guy at the traffic stop or home has a gun is exceedingly dumb. If they don't assume there could be one, then that could be their last mistake.

There are no rights without responsibilities. Carrying a concealed weapon implies an awesome responsibility in its care and, if necessary, its deployment. People who wish to conceal carry should honor that right and responsibility with the acquisition of a permit.
Click to expand...

Yes, because $10 and a piece of paper guarantee's that bad things won't happen. This guy is a lost cause. He is the kind of liberal that will refuse to hear anything you say to him, it simply won't make any sense in his way of thinking.
 
Brin747 said:
There is so much fail in this response from my esteemed local rep, I get a headache just reading it...

"Thank you for contacting me, Brian.
I have heard from constituents on both sides of this issue.
This is what I submitted recently as my position on the matter.

New Hampshire legislators will soon decide whether or not to repeal the requirement to have a permit before carrying a concealed handgun. This decision must be made with thoughtful consideration, for much is at stake.

Supporters of such legislation are often the same people who argue that New Hampshire is a very safe state so we do not need, for example, expanded background checks that close loopholes in existing laws governing certain gun sales. Are these same people now saying that New Hampshire should start eliminating gun laws until we reach some kind of safety threshold?

I have repeatedly heard the argument that criminals will always have their guns. This argument makes for good sound bites, but little logic. Criminals are criminals because they break laws. Should we abandon all laws because some people break them?

I spoke with a few police officers who say they see no problem with conceal carry permits for two important reasons. Before handling a traffic stop, for example, an officer can run a license plate to see if the driver might be carrying a weapon. They told me that most permit holders disclose their gun possession immediately, but having that information before approaching the vehicle provides the officer with important data -- especially if the driver is not so forthright.

Before answering a house call, an officer could discover whether or not a gun is likely on the premises. If such a call involves domestic violence or a similar hostile situation, awareness of the presence of firearms could save lives. Clearly, conceal carry permits, as well as background checks provide important information in the interest of public safety. And ten dollars every seven years is much less than I spend on registering my dog. I do so in the interest of public safety, and I value my dog who is certainly part of my right to pursue happiness.

There are no rights without responsibilities. Carrying a concealed weapon implies an awesome responsibility in its care and, if necessary, its deployment. People who wish to conceal carry should honor that right and responsibility with the acquisition of a permit. It is an act of somber recognition that the safety of all of us is just as important as an individual right. I will be voting against any attempt to repeal conceal carry permits and urge my fellow legislators to do the same. It is simply the right thing to do.

Regards,

Geoffrey Hirsch
Representative District 6
Henniker & Bradford
Committee: Criminal Justice and Public Safety"
Click to expand...
I believe those might be MDA or CSGV talking points. Probably would not be hard to look up.
 
Is it just me or is it silly for ANY police officer to have their guard down enough to not assume that every situation or encounter contains a gun until proven otherwise?
 
Video by Bill Alleman up. At the end I couldn't hear the names well. I gave it my best guess. Unless otherwise noted, each speaker supported the bill.
Sen. Jeb Bradley speaks first.
Rep. Jim McConnell @ 10:50
Rep. AL Baldasaro​ 13:00
Rep. Wayne Burton 19:35 (opposed)
Rep. Joe Hannon​ 25:20
Chief David Goldstein 33:05 (opposed)
Ralph Demicco 39:30
Anthony Nino​ 43:00
Ian Underwood 48:50
Jody Underwood​ 56:35
David Mullens 1:00:45
Amy Moore 1:03:35 (opposed -Moms Demand)
Susan Olsen​ 1:08:25
Elma (Eva?) Turgeon 1:15:10 (opposed - Moms Demand)
Alan Rice 1:18:10
Ed Cutler 1:28:35
Kevin Bloom​ 1:41:45
Sue Newman 1:43:00 (opposed)
Jan Schmidt? 1:48:40 (opposed)
Kimberly Morin​ 1:51:40
Harrison De Bree​ 2:00:00
Roy Sargent 2:02:45
Darryl Perry 2:04:38
David Love 2:08:25
Bob Clegg​ 2:14:00
Erica Layon​ 2:18:35
Chris Cantwell 2:23:20 (open carrying revolver lol)
Matt McLiberty​ 2:30:30
Michelle Levell​ 2:35:20
Joel Weinrebe​ 2:37:45
Sylvia Gale? 2:44:05 (opposed)
Ian Freeman 2:47:20
Zandra Rice Hawkins 2:51:00 (opposed - GSP)
Rep. Katherine Prudhomme O'Brien 2:57:25
Rep. Jr Hoell​ 3:00:25
Karin Vermouth? 3:09:40
Something Luger? 3:12:20

[video=youtube_share;CajrEcCiueM]http://youtu.be/CajrEcCiueM[/video]

And skip to 1:26:15 to hear Rep. Mangipudi state she doesn't believe in the right to self defense at all.
 
Last edited:
Also,

My "hans blix" letter to the Mayor and city councilors of Franklin regarding their police chief testifying in uniform.

I copied the two state reps for Franklin as well. [smile]

Hello Mayor Merrifield and Council members of Franklin,

I would like to bring an important issue to your attention.

During the House of Representatives hearing yesterday on Senate bill 116 I heard Franklin Police Chief David Goldstein testify before the Criminal Justice and Public Safety committee.

I noticed that he was testifying on behalf of the New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of Police. Yet he came dressed in full uniform implying he is representing the city of Franklin and that his positions are the city of Franklins. Since he was in full uniform I can only assume he was paid to testify.

Do you, the elected city officials approve of the chief testifying before a house committee on taxpayer dime for someone else? I know I wouldn’t. I know the taxpayers wouldn’t. They want him out patrolling the streets while on duty and not denying pistol revolver licenses for motor vehicle violations.

Did he take a Franklin police cruiser with him? How many miles did he rack up on the cruiser unnecessarily by driving to Concord and back? How much money was spent on gas? Again, he was not there on town business, he stated in his public testimony he was representing the chiefs association which last I checked is a private organization.

He testified at another criminal justice hearing back in February, also in full uniform. Sounds like there is a pattern of the chief doing business in Concord for other private organizations on the city of Franklin’s dollar. If I were a mayor or city councilor I would not tolerate this behavior. The chief has every right to testify in Concord, but unless he is testifying on behalf of the city, he should not be doing so in uniform on the city’s dime.

Consider the above the next time the chief’s contract comes up.

Best Regards,

soloman02
Click to expand...
 
Harrison, that's a lot of assuming in your letter. You'll look like a fool if he was there on his day off, and in his private car. Stick with what you know.
 
frenchman said:
Harrison, that's a lot of assuming in your letter. You'll look like a fool if he was there on his day off, and in his private car. Stick with what you know.
Click to expand...

dgrafton said:
Yes, but he was in uniform. A uniform provided by the town of Franklin.
Click to expand...

Wearing a uniform is much like branding a new soap product with the Johnson & Johnson trademark symbol, or a new PC with the Windows and IntelInside logos.

He was deliberately giving the impression that he was there in an official capacity and by virtue of being an officer, was somehow better edjumacated than the rest of us.

Had he stood up in an ordinary outfit and introduced himself, adding that he is the chief of etc., he still would have been incorrect in his statements, but he would not be defrauding his employer and the people he is charged with protecting.
 
dgrafton said:
Yes, but he was in uniform. A uniform provided by the town of Franklin.
Click to expand...
That's an assption as well. How do you figure he doesn't have uniforms he acquired on his own dime? I'm just trying to save Solo fr getting embarrassed. Not trying to stir the pot here.
 
RadiCS said:
I can't wait for their response!
Click to expand...

One of the reps I copied responded.

Quite an interesting observation. I too have noted him there in full uniform and had not given it a thought. Now, I find it interesting.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily expect a personal response with these emails. But it may well spur action or at the very least a "grilling" of the Chief by the mayor. If it causes the chief to show up in civilian clothes at the next hearing my mission has been accomplished.

- - - Updated - - -

frenchman said:
That's an assption as well. How do you figure he doesn't have uniforms he acquired on his own dime? I'm just trying to save Solo fr getting embarrassed. Not trying to stir the pot here.
Click to expand...

I made that assumption in the email, I clearly stated I was assuming. The goal is to make the Mayor aware and for him and the council members to start asking questions.

The mere act of them asking questions is a good thing.
 
Yes he was good but I think most of the reps didn't want to listen. I wonder if he shortened his speeches if it would help at the hearings.
 
Rumor has it that Hassan has her eyes set on a congressional seat.

Not allowing this law to pass (whether she signs it or just let's it become law by waiting), assuming it gets thorough the legislature, would give her a black eye in that regard.

- - - Updated - - -

Was there testimony by one of the LEO's that indicated that the licenses stayed "local" to the department and that the department has to be called to verify? I believe that to be the case, but I haven't been able to find anything indicating that.
 
Before handling a traffic stop, for example, an officer can run a license plate to see if the driver might be carrying a weapon. They told me that most permit holders disclose their gun possession immediately, but having that information before approaching the vehicle provides the officer with important data – especially if the driver is not so forthright.
Click to expand...

Well not only is that not the case now, or at least is not suppose to be the case, that is a great example of why there should NOT be permits/licenses. Of course I'm seeing that from a perspective where people have rights, he is seeing it through the perspective that cops should be treated as gods.
 
I'm working on a "letter" to him and address this, even from the LEO perspective. Not complete or well formed yet...

The other argument that I’ve heard is from Law Enforcement themselves (they, that of course are not required to comply with the requirements of RSA 159-4 or RSA 159-3, for that matter, they can be “career criminals”) who are required to deal with citizens who may or may not be armed on a daily basis. The argument is that “they should know who is and isn’t armed”. While I’m not a law enforcement office, my argument is exactly the opposite. Those of us willing to submit to a Pistol and Revolver License to legally carry a firearm are significantly less of a danger than someone who is otherwise unknown. The state of NH has no laws related to letting an officer know whether or not a person is carrying a firearm and an officer who relies on a “records check” to see if a person that they are approaching is carrying a firearm is putting themselves in danger.
Click to expand...
 
What kills me is the fact that Hirsch beat out Mark Lindsley, our previous rep who is a retired Police Officer, Marine, and a solid pro-gun guy.

Hirsch is a big government leftist who always knows what's good for you better than you do. That smug letter he put in the Concord Monitor is verbatim the answer I got to my email to him about this bill. I have emailed him some follow up questions, I won't hold my breath waiting for a response. This form letter was the first response I have ever gotten from him.
 

Similar threads

Amber Alert Chicopee
2
Replies
42
Views
986
Garys
Garys
An interesting take on guns from the other side.
Replies
17
Views
717
MAGA99
MAGA99
Gunsmith near Derry NH
Replies
8
Views
267
Matt_SERE
Matt_SERE
Today is 6/13/24 and I still.......
Replies
18
Views
863
dhuze
dhuze
1911 Smith in southern NH
Replies
2
Views
252
Twigg
Twigg
Back
Top Bottom