> Editorial: Clearer, not broader, gun law is needed
>
>
http://www.concordmonitor.com/opinion/13798270-95/editorial-clearer-not-broader-gun-law-is-needed
>
> Friday, October 3, 2014
> (Published in print: Friday, October 3, 2014)
The recent dispute over questions and wording on the state’s gun license application may seem like an obscure bit of bureaucratic wrangling. But upon a closer reading, it’s difficult to avoid feeling sorry for police departments across the state put into a difficult position by an unclear state law.
And it’s difficult to avoid feeling dismay at the absolutism of activists who seem to feel the government should have no say whatsoever in regulating who carries concealed weapons.
The argument began over the state asking extra questions on the state’s gun license form. In a recent revision, three were added: Had the resident had a license before? Had they been told they couldn’t possess a firearm by a state or federal agency? Was the resident barred by federal law from owning a gun?
Gun rights advocates were not happy. The questions went too far, they claimed, and the state swiftly backtracked. The form was revised again and reissued.
But that wasn’t the end of things. Advocates raised questions about language on the back of the form, claiming that simply printing the text of the New Hampshire law on firearms permits wasn’t enough – that the state needed to make clear that simply owning a gun was sufficient for a license. They took issue with other parts of the application too, such as a section asking for references.
What’s the end game here? Ask Dunbarton Rep. JR Hoell, who told the Monitor that he wanted to pass a “constitutional carry” bill that would remove the state from the equation entirely. If a person could buy a gun, he or she could carry it, no questions asked.
This absolutism is dismaying. Given the recent spate of mass shootings, not to mention the toll of accidental deaths from firearms, common-sense restrictions on owning and carrying guns just make sense.
It’s important to note that this isn’t a constitutional question. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the right of states to impose certain limits on Second Amendment rights. Just as the right to free speech does not allow someone to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater, so the right to bear arms doesn’t allow someone to carry any weapon wherever he or she likes, in whatever manner he or she likes.
Hoell is right in one respect. Lawmakers should take up this matter in the new legislative session. But they should not try broaden the availability of concealed weapons. Instead, they should fix the state’s toothless firearms statute, which asks local officials to decide whether someone is a “suitable person to be licensed.” That language should be defined and clarified.
No one is going to take away guns or deny permits to law-abiding citizens, most certainly not in New Hampshire. A simple form and basic screening process are not brazen infringements of liberty. Indeed, they serve to preserve and protect the freedom and safety of everyone.