Hirsch letter (draft) below. I don't expect that it will change anything, but I feel better 
Mr. Hirsch -
As a member of the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee I’m writing this in hopes that I can count on you for a vote of Ought To Pass to Senate Bill 116.
There are many people who refer to SB116 as “constitutional carry”. I agree with this statement, but also understand why many people believe otherwise. There are a number of people who argue that carrying a firearm “openly” is enough, and there is no need to allow someone to carry inconspicuously. Being able to carry openly meets the requirements of the US 2nd Amendment, as well as Part First, Art. 2A of the NH Constitution. In general, I do agree that being able to carry openly does meet the requirements of the US 2nd Amendment and Part First Art 2A of the NH constitution, however, it also constrains the person to not exercise this right while wearing a coat, or while driving a car. It also prevents someone who wishes to defend themselves from carrying their firearm in a purse, or backpack (legally, of course) as that would be defined as “non-open” carry. While it’s a bit of a silly stretch, let’s imagine what it would look like if we applied these same restrictions to another basic right, like free speech. People are welcome to assemble and have discussions, unless they are wearing coats, or jackets. Shirts and pants are fine. Perhaps a dress, but no jackets. that’s just too dangerous. And if we take freedom of the press, who often don’t speak, but write, or use some sort of technology to write, then carrying a pen, in the open, of course, is fine, but don’t put it in your pocket. Also no carrying of phones, tablet or computers inconspicuously. You must carry them exposed. Our rights do come with responsibility. Carrying an inconspicuous writing utensil implies an awesome responsibility in its care and, if necessary, its deployment. People who wish to inconspicuously carry writing utensils 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. After all, the pen is mightier than the sword (or, in modern vernacular, the computer is mightier than the firearm). Does this seem reasonable?
I’m sure that you’ve heard the argument from those who support SB116 that “criminals are going to have guns anyway, so we should just do away with this silly restriction”. While I’m actually a fan of getting rid of many malum prohibitum laws I’m not going to try to convince you of my stance on this. Let’s compromise and agree (for now) that criminals should not be allowed to carry weapons inconspicuously. Since RSA 159-3 and 3a are not impacted at all by SB116 that means that convicted felons and career criminals will still be excluded from owning or possessing a firearm. Even without RSA 159 there is still 18 U.S.C. 922(g) which says:
It shall be unlawful for any person—
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) who is a fugitive from justice;
(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien— (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26)));
(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
(8) who is subject to a court order that— (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate; (B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and (C) (i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
SB116 in no way impacts RSA 159-3 or does it impact the existing federal code on possession and ownership of firearms. Criminals still can’t have them. People who can legally possess a firearm (and carry it around with them openly) can wear a coat. Great!!
The argument that I’ve heard from Law Enforcement themselves (it should be noted that law enforcement members are not required to comply with the requirements of RSA 159-4 or RSA 159-3, for that matter) who are required to deal with citizens who may or may not be armed on a daily basis is that “they should know who is and isn’t armed”. While I’m not a law enforcement officer, 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 to law enforcement. If there is anyone to be fearful of it isn’t those that have a Pistol and Revolver License, it’s those without one. 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 much graver danger than approaching someone with a Pistol and Revolver License.
I’ll close by once again asking for your support of SB116 and for voting that the bill OTP as amended with the amendment made during the hearing last Tuesday. It is a common sense measure that allows citizens of the state to wear a coat. I appreciate your time.
nhpoke
![[party]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/021.gif "Party [party]")
