NH: call these senators before Tues Jan 14

[shemdogg]

From GOA:

Anti-gun Bill to Have Hearing on Tuesday
Please show up to counter gun control proposals!

The New Hampshire "Bloomberg faction" has made no secret of their strategy: If they can't immediately ban most guns, as Bloomberg's New York has, at least they will pass a "placeholder bill" which will take away as many gun rights as New Hampshire politics will allow.

The anti-gun bill they have selected is Senate Bill 244, sponsored by anti-gun state Senator David Watters.

The Watters bill would require that the names of large numbers of Granite Staters be sent to the FBI gun-ban blacklist -- the NICS system.

Up until now, New Hampshire has been loath to send these names to NICS because of privacy concerns and potential violations of federal privacy regulations under the Health Insurance Portability and Acccountability Act (HIPAA). A recent article on HIPAA by GOA's General Counsel can be seen here.

Senate Bill 244 would set aside any personal privacy considerations.

Aside from that, Senate Bill 244 would strip law-abiding Granite Staters of their constitutional rights, without due process, for petty reasons, such as the appointment of a guardian under RSA 464-A.

Our General Counsel has personal experience with RSA 464-A, when his mother had all of her rights taken away in a "star chamber" ex parte proceeding in the basement of Concord Hospital without the benefit of counsel, notice to the family, or any spokesman for his mother or her family.

The hospital's doctor told our General Counsel that they didn't care what his mother or her family wanted concerning her care. She was held against her will for four weeks until the family could schedule a hearing in the Probate Court.

Although RSA 464-A purports to give "victims" due process rights, it is, in fact, widely viewed in legal circles as a joke.

An individual who has his or her rights taken away pursuant to RSA 464-A supposedly has the right to an attorney, but, in fact, that right is regularly waived, even for people deemed incompetent (who wouldn't seem to be capable of waiving their rights).

The proceeding is an ex parte proceeding in which neither the victim nor his or her family has any representation or right to attend. It is conducted in places like the basement of Concord Hospital, and is widely viewed in legal circles as a "star chamber" or a "joke."

Now, on the basis of this "kangaroo court," you or your relatives could lose all of your gun rights. And guess what? If you want to get them back, you will have to plunk down thousands of dollars and bring an action in court.

Our General Counsel spent over five thousand dollars just to terminate his mother's involuntary guardianship.

It's bad enough that anti-family bureaucrats are stripping Granite Staters of their rights without due process. We don't need to extend this constitutional abomination to abolishing gun rights protected by the Second Amendment.

SEE A SHRINK, LOSE YOUR GUNS.

One more thing: Senate Bill 244 would allow a psychiatrist to take away your gun rights, without an order from any court, by involuntarily committing you under RSA 135-C:34-45 based on his subjective opinion on whether you pose a “danger.”

Given the fact that psychiatrists already have broad powers to commit individuals on an emergency basis, this provision could be easily abused to permanently disarm police, firemen and veterans with PTSD -- plus even women with post-partum depression.

ACTION: Show up at the State House on Tuesday, January 14, at 9:00 am. Sign up to testify against Senate Bill 244. In addition, share this alert with your friends and neighbors.

LOCATION: 107 N Main St, Concord, NH 03301, Room 100, Senate Judiciary Committee.

FOR CALLS AND EMAILS: Tell Senators on the Judiciary Committee to OPPOSE SB 244!

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sharon Carson:
(603) 434-2489
[email protected]

Vice Chair Senator Bette Lasky:
(603) 888-5557 or (603) 315-1924
[email protected]

Senator David Boutin:
(603) 203-5391
[email protected]
[email protected]


Senator Sam Cataldo:
(603) 859-1089
[email protected]


Senator Donna Soucy:
(603) 271-4151
[email protected]

Telephone calls to officials are always most preferable than emails, but if you insist on emailing, be sure to use your rep's name in your salutation. That way your message will get more attention. Also provide your name and address. Anonymous email is seldom appreciated.

In Liberty,

Shem

 

[shemdogg]

If you of them is your senator then you should mention that you're a constituent.

 

[mikem317]

I'd like to think this gets the "inexpedient to legislate" death. I wonder if "design" can comment (yes, I know he's a rep but I don't know of any NH Senators that regularly post on NES.)

 

[snd1t]

There are a lot of issues with the bill

First, it further codifies into law the NICS process....no constitutional basis for fed gun control....never has been.

Second, it claims to provide a means of appealing/getting a person off the NICS list but it doesn't....it simply relies on the Fed NICS process and any mechanism that exists which is ALREADY fundamentally flawed

Third, there are massive privacy issues beyond the HIPPA Issue, and they know it,,,,,they have included language that excempts judicial personel from accountability

IX. Except in the case of willful misconduct or gross negligence, no judicial branch employee shall be held civilly or criminally liable on the basis of the accuracy, availability, or unavailability of any information reported or required to be reported pursuant to this section.

Fourth will be huge cost to implement.....how many more gov employees do we need to fund along with the cost of benefits and retirement

Fifth it WILL result in people avoiding treatment for fear of putting their rights in jeparody

Sixth.....if these people are so dangerous that they cannot be trusted with an inanimate object then why is it limited to firearms? Why not chainsaws, knives, kitchen utensils, atv's. sticks. stones and 2x4's........if these people are soooo dangerous then why are they not locked up.......clearly this is not a public safety issue at all.

Its a bad idea and a bad bill

Hopefully folks will show up to the hearing Tuesday, January 14, at 9:00 a.m., the NH Senate Room 100

- - - Updated - - -

Finally

The WORST part about this bill is that PGNH seems to support it.

http://www.pgnh.org/surprise_sb_244_the_mental_health_gun_bill_isn_t_what_you_think_it_is_maybe

 

[shemdogg]

PGNH link now dead

 

[strangenh]

Page is still up - looks like they removed a blank space that was probably messing up copy/paste.

http://www.pgnh.org/surprise_sb_244_the_mental_health_gun_bill_isn_t_what_you_think_it_is_maybe

They have some interesting points; nuance is always big with PGNH and we're foolish to just dismiss them when they disagree with other groups. HOWEVER, while I'd be all for setting some lines on this issue with regard to creating a mechanism to get people OFF the disqualified list (there really isn't one now)... that would only be the case IF we had a majority pro-gun house this year. We likely don't, and this bill will not get turned into something good.

Oppose it. This isn't a "gun" issue - it's a liberty and privacy issue.

 

[soloman02]

I talked to PGNH and NHFC today at the show about a different issue but this bill was mentioned.

I can definitively say that PGNH and NHFC hate each other.

Which frankly to me, is a big ****ing problem.

I see language referencing specific federal law. Frankly, bills referencing federal law are always bad news IMHO.

For comparison, here is the current law on background checks. You will notice it does not explicitly reference federal law which is how things should be written.

159-D:1
Sale of Firearms; Criminal History Record and Protective Order Check. – The department of safety may become the point of contact for the federal government for the purposes of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

Source. 1999, 336:1, eff. Nov. 3, 1999.


Section 159-D:2
159-D:2 Confidentiality. –
I. If the department of safety conducts criminal background checks under RSA 159-D:1, any records containing information pertaining to a potential buyer or transferee who is not found to be prohibited from receipt or transfer of a firearm by reason of state or federal law, which are created by the department of safety to conduct the criminal background check, shall be confidential and may not be disclosed by the department or any officers or employees to any person or to another agency. The department shall destroy any such records after it communicates the corresponding approval number to the licensee and, in any event, such records shall be destroyed within one day after the day of the receipt of the licensee's request.
II. The department shall retain records containing any information pertaining to a potential buyer or transferee who is prohibited from receipt or transfer of a firearm for 3 years.
III. Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, the department may maintain only a log of dates of requests for criminal background checks and unique approval numbers corresponding to such dates for an indefinite period.
IV. Nothing in this section shall be construed to allow the department to maintain records containing the names of licensees who receive unique approval numbers or to maintain records of firearm transactions, including the names or other identification of licensees and potential buyers or transferees, including persons not otherwise prohibited by law from the receipt or possession of firearms.

Source. 1999, 336:1, eff. Nov. 3, 1999.

Section 159-D:3
159-D:3 Penalties for Attempts to Purchase Firearms Illegally. – A person who completes and signs an application for purchase of a firearm and who knows that such purchase is illegal because he or she is subject to a protective order shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor for a first offense and a class B felony for a second or subsequent offense.

Source. 2000, 152:1, eff. Jan. 1, 2001.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XII/159-D/159-D-mrg.htm

 

[shemdogg]

i'm with you solomon

 

[design]

GOA alert on this:

Gun Owners of America
GOA Responds to Issues Raised by Semi-Supporters of the Anti-gun SB 244

Recently, we alerted you to the New Hampshire anti-gun bill which poses the greatest threat of actually moving in 2014.

We asked you to testify against Senate Bill 244 on Tuesday morning, at 9:00 a.m., at the State House. Our previous alert can be read here.

Other gun groups have joined us to oppose this legislation as well.

But one group has issued a statement which we will charitably characterize as an "On one hand...on the other hand" analysis. There are a number of points in this analysis which we need to address. Please forgive us if this gets a little technical.

We agree with the group that "on the surface this is a terrible bill." But some of the other points are misleading and need to be dealt with:

MISLEADING POINT #1: "[SB 244] does not create disqualifiers..."

RESPONSE: There are millions of American gun owners who could potentially lose their gun rights under the ATF's expansive interpretation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g) and the NICS Improvement Act of 2008, contained at 27 CFR 478.11 and 27 CFR 478.32.

Let's start with everyone with Alzheimer's. Our General Counsel's 88-year-old mother had Alzheimer's and had a guardian appointed under RSA 464-A in a "star chamber proceeding." Under SB 244, she would have automatically had her gun rights stripped without any due process -- and had her name sent to the FBI gun-ban blacklist.

And, while no one has been able to identify any "danger of gun violence" posed by people with Alzheimer's, many of them do have very large and valuable gun collections which they would like to pass on to their children.

Similarly, under the emergency provisions of RSA 135C, an individual being treated by a private psychiatrist can be committed, on an emergency basis, as a result of a subjective diagnosis with no due process whatsoever. Such an individual, if he had any remaining gun rights, would presumably automatically have those gun rights taken away. And, yes, the involuntary commitment standard contained at RSA 135C:34, which is explicitly incorporated by SB 244, is applicable to an involuntary commitment without a court order under RSA 135C-27.(1)

That ATF's unconstitutional and non-statutory interpretation of federal law would currently allow some of this in theory does not diminish the fact that SB 244 would, for the first time, mandate it in practice.

One final point: Gun Owners of America is working to overturn or defund any effort by the Obama administration to partially repeal federal health privacy laws (HIPAA). This last thing we need is for New Hampshire to repeal HIPAA by fiat.

MISLEADING POINT #2: Unless SB 244 is passed, a "buyer is now subject to ten years in prison [for purchasing a gun, even if he is not in NICS], and the FFL can lose his license."

This has been scaled back from an earlier allegation that the FFL could be imprisoned -- an allegation that is false because of language added by our General Counsel as part of 1986 McClure-Volkmer law.

RESPONSE: First of all, under McClure-Volkmer (18 U.S.C. 924(a)(2)), a prohibited person transaction is not criminal unless committed "knowingly."

Second, a person does not become a prohibited person under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4) unless he is "adjudicated" or "committed."

So a person is not currently subject to a gun ban because he has Alzheimer's, or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, or Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder. He is not a prohibited person because he arrives unconscious at a hospital and the hospital appoints a guardian. And because a commitment under RSA 135C can be made, in certain emergency cases, by a private psychiatrist, he is not a prohibited person because he is committed under this provision. In fact, it is unlawful to send RSA 135C names to NICS if only a private psychiatrist is involved.

Rather, these individuals become prohibited persons because SB 244 makes them so. Thus, in the absence of SB 244, many people with RSA 464-A guardians and persons with private RSA 135C commitments can say on the 4473 -- and, in fact, MUST say -- that the answer is “no” when asked if they have ever been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution.

MISLEADING POINT #3: "SB 244 creates, for the first time, a relief mechanism..."

RESPONSE: We went through this sham with the "relief" provisions of the Veterans Disarmament Act (AKA the NICS Improvement Act of 2008). It turns out that the biggest pro-gun lawyer in New Hampshire would charge a MINIMUM of $10,000 for the restoration of rights.

Veterans can't afford this. And the people who would be victimized by SB 244 can't afford this. This procedure is MEANINGLESS.

MISLEADING POINT #4: If we don't pass gun control, we'll get even worse gun control.

RESPONSE: This is delusional. Every time gun groups have tried to buy off anti-gun groups by passing "gun control lite," it (1) strengthened the anti-gun movement, (2) dispirited the pro-gun movement, and (3) served as nothing but a platform for the next demand for gun control, which frequently came immediately after our capitulation.

When we defeated every single word of gun control, as we did after Columbine, the result was a decade of relative peace for our movement -- and a perceived strength which allowed us to do things like repeal the semi-auto ban.

FAUX ATTEMPTS TO PROTECT GUN OWNERS’ RIGHTS

Finally, some parties are trying to float a sell-out amendment to try to fool legislators into supporting this bill.

The sell-out amendment makes tiny changes in the procedure for restoring the rights which this bill unconstitutionally takes from you.

But the sell-out amendment does not:

* Reverse provisions in this bill which could strip tens of thousands of Granite Staters of their constitutional rights without any due process whatsoever;

* Nor does it reverse the provisions in this bill which allow a psychiatrist to strip you of your gun rights without an order from any court -- but rather, strips you of your rights based on a subjective assessment.

The sell-out amendment is an insult to pro-gun advocates in New Hampshire, and needs to be opposed at all costs.

ACTION: As we encouraged you a few days ago, please show up at the State House on Tuesday, January 14, at 9:00 am. And sign up to testify against Senate Bill 244.

You can see our previous alert -- at http://www.gunowners.org/state1112014.htm -- to get the address of the state house, plus email addresses and phone numbers for members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

----------

(1) An RSA 135C:27 commitment can be made by a private psychiatrist without a court order. Although you don't have to go through RSA 135C:34-45 procedures anew in order to commit a person without due process under RSA 135C:27, you have to have gone through them at some point in the past. Therefore, it is our fear that a commitment without due process by a private psychiatrist under RSA 135C:27 would be interpreted to be "pursuant to RSA 135C-34-45." This means that your guns could be taken away under this provision with no due process."

 

[design]

NHFC alert:
http://www.nhfc-ontarget.org/2014/0...g-to-pass-a-new-gun-ban-sb-244-action-needed/

Here is just a portion, I recommend that you read the entire alert.
http://www.nhfc-ontarget.org/2014/0...g-to-pass-a-new-gun-ban-sb-244-action-needed/


.....
You see, while the disqualifiers are currently in federal law, it is the states and their 50 different criminal justice systems and mental health systems that determine if a person’s name is submitted to the NICS database. Those determinations are made based upon an individual state’s definition of mentally incompetent or similar. Click here to see how you can help.

Even if you go to a private shrink and that shrink thinks you are “incompetent” or “violent” or “unable to manage your own affairs” then guess what, the shrink can involuntary commit you to a mental institution. That standard, contained at RSA 135C:34, which is explicitly incorporated by SB 244, is applicable to an involuntary commitment without a court order under RSA 135C-27. This is known as an involuntary emergency admission or IEA.
- See more at:

http://www.nhfc-ontarget.org/2014/0...an-sb-244-action-needed/#sthash.6XZU3FtV.dpuf
....

 

[shemdogg]

Last day

 

[RadiCS]

I emailed him last week... I will call his office today.

 

[japollner]

There are a lot of issues with the bill

First, it further codifies into law the NICS process....no constitutional basis for fed gun control....never has been.

Second, it claims to provide a means of appealing/getting a person off the NICS list but it doesn't....it simply relies on the Fed NICS process and any mechanism that exists which is ALREADY fundamentally flawed

Third, there are massive privacy issues beyond the HIPPA Issue, and they know it,,,,,they have included language that excempts judicial personel from accountability



Fourth will be huge cost to implement.....how many more gov employees do we need to fund along with the cost of benefits and retirement

Fifth it WILL result in people avoiding treatment for fear of putting their rights in jeparody

Sixth.....if these people are so dangerous that they cannot be trusted with an inanimate object then why is it limited to firearms? Why not chainsaws, knives, kitchen utensils, atv's. sticks. stones and 2x4's........if these people are soooo dangerous then why are they not locked up.......clearly this is not a public safety issue at all.

Its a bad idea and a bad bill

Hopefully folks will show up to the hearing [/FONT]Tuesday, January 14, at 9:00 a.m., the NH Senate Room 100

- - - Updated - - -

Finally

The WORST part about this bill is that PGNH seems to support it.

http://www.pgnh.org/surprise_sb_244_the_mental_health_gun_bill_isn_t_what_you_think_it_is_maybe

With regard to your "third". It has nothing to do with HIPPA. This is looking at a court designation of mental illness, such as an insanity plea, or if someone is judged incompetent to stand trial.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SubieGuy4]

This scares the crap out of me. Been so proud to be in NH where there's been no attempt at anything. While the intent of this bill seems innocent enough its the beginning of a slippery and inevitable slope. I said as much in my emails to all the listed legislators.

 

[design]

The latest regarding this bill, please call the Senators or show up tomorrow:

All of the NH and most of the National Gun groups seem opposed with one sitting on the fence:
Clearly opposed:
Gun Owners of America,
Gun Owners of NH,
NH Firearms Coalition,
Second Amendment Sisters,
National Association of Gun Rights,

Sitting on the fence: NRA (according to one group and the prime sponsor, the NRA is actually supporting this bill.
NRA statement: "stakeholders to voice comments or concerns to this proposal".

From Sen. Waters: (A candidate that the NRA graded "C" in 2012)

From: [email protected]
To: [name withheld]
Sent: 1/10/2014
Subj: RE: SENATE BILL 244



Thanks for your message. It is important to see what this bill actually
is, since there has been some confusion with another bill. I am and have
always been a supporter of Second Amendment rights. [REALLY, I am and have always been... Check your voting record Senator, even the NRA gave you a "C" and they grade on a curve!]
This bill has been drafted with the input and guidance of the NRA and the NSSF.
Sincerely,


Sen. David H. Watters
District 4
603-271-8567

For the record, the bold and underline are mine and the inset text in color just needed to be added to clarify the outright lie!

-Design

 

[soloman02]

The latest regarding this bill, please call the Senators or show up tomorrow:

All of the NH and most of the National Gun groups seem opposed with one sitting on the fence:
Clearly opposed:
Gun Owners of America,
Gun Owners of NH,
NH Firearms Coalition,
Second Amendment Sisters,
National Association of Gun Rights,

Sitting on the fence: NRA (according to one group and the prime sponsor, the NRA is actually supporting this bill.
NRA statement: "stakeholders to voice comments or concerns to this proposal".

From Sen. Waters: (A candidate that the NRA graded "C" in 2012)

From: [email protected]
To: [name withheld]
Sent: 1/10/2014
Subj: RE: SENATE BILL 244



Thanks for your message. It is important to see what this bill actually
is, since there has been some confusion with another bill. I am and have
always been a supporter of Second Amendment rights. [REALLY, I am and have always been... Check your voting record Senator, even the NRA gave you a "C" and they grade on a curve!]
This bill has been drafted with the input and guidance of the NRA and the NSSF.
Sincerely,


Sen. David H. Watters
District 4
603-271-8567

For the record, the bold and underline are mine and the inset text in color just needed to be added to clarify the outright lie!

-Design

You forgot to mention that PGNH for some bizarre reason is supporting this... Yet, GONH the NRA affiliate is against it even though the NRA seems to be on the fence? You can't make this shit up.

 

[strangenh]

You forgot to mention that PGNH for some bizarre reason is supporting this... Yet, GONH the NRA affiliate is against it even though the NRA seems to be on the fence? You can't make this shit up.

It's not bizarre - they know NH law better than GOA and they think they have an amendment that will net improve things for NH gun rights (the 'get off the list' process which doesn't exist today). And the NRA is on the fence but NRA's own legislative action group supports it with something like the proposed amendment.

All that said, this is not an R-controlled house year and I think their amendment attempts will fail or be co-opted (or time wasted and no bill passed despite spending political capital and time) so I still strongly oppose it.

Nevertheless, we shouldn't all be simplistic children and go "it talks about federal law O NOEZ" every time we see a bill reference federal law. There are superb opportunities to in effect hack federal law at the state level and we shouldn't be naive or dismissive about them. Someday perhaps with a solid supermajority, we can... oh wait, no we can't because ALL the groups will shoot down EVEN CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY unless it meets exactly each of their conflicting criteria.

This **** has to stop.

 

[WatchCityCPA]

It's not bizarre - they know NH law better than GOA and they think they have an amendment that will net improve things for NH gun rights (the 'get off the list' process which doesn't exist today). And the NRA is on the fence but NRA's own legislative action group supports it with something like the proposed amendment.


All that said, this is not an R-controlled house year and I think their amendment attempts will fail or be co-opted (or time wasted and no bill passed despite spending political capital and time) so I still strongly oppose it.


Nevertheless, we shouldn't all be simplistic children and go "it talks about federal law O NOEZ" every time we see a bill reference federal law. There are superb opportunities to in effect hack federal law at the state level and we shouldn't be naive or dismissive about them. Someday perhaps with a solid supermajority, we can... oh wait, no we can't because ALL the groups will shoot down EVEN CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY unless it meets exactly each of their conflicting criteria.


This **** has to stop.

I have been at the hearing and came out of it convinced that Pro-Gun NH is not a gun rights group - it is Evan Nappen's Business Development/Marketing arm.


They got to testify early since they were in support of the bill, and Nappen plus a minion spent about 20-25 minutes testifying (with a room full of people waiting their turn to talk and asked to be very short when they were called up).


The first words of the minion was to introduce Nappen as the greatest firearms attorney in the country (I kid you not - I felt like jumping up and asking the minion what drugs he was on), and Nappen did not object at the introduction. Now, one can argue that Nappen is one of the better or even the best NH firearms attorneys (depending on who you ask), but nationally? Just off the top of my mind, SAF's Alan Gottlieb comes to mind as a slightly more relevant firearms rights legal eagle on the national stage...


During his testimony, he repeated multiple times how he only charges a flat rate of 1,000 to expunge a criminal conviction (which is not what a person fighting an involuntary commitment would have to fight, but why worry about relevancy? just drive some business while testifying...), versus "other Concord lawyers" who charge ten times that much... to the point where committee members started cracking jokes about getting legal services for free from him.


He stated that there is no problem if people are wrongly stripped of their rights because there is an appeal process that could restore their rights... skipping over the expense and uncertainty of legal appeals (or even worse, NICS appeals).


Yes, the ammemdment would solve an existing legal issue in NH - but why would one support a horrible bill with on good ammendment? Just support the ammendment as a separate law... like NH house reps will do.


He argued that NH sending mental health info to NICS would just be complying with federal law... but seemed unaware that federal law does not force a state to send that info - it merely allows them to.


He argued that the reversal of an incorrect NICS entry is no big deal - lawyers that dealt with those matters strongly disagree.


I am sure that PGNH did some good work in the past... but a friend that stabs me in the back only once in a while is still no friend of mine.


Of course, your mileage might vary - but I'm done with PGNH.

EDIT:

Posting the NHFC response to PGNH's statement below for more background.

 

[WatchCityCPA]

The below is the second half of an NHFC email related to SB244 that I received yesterday:

January 13, 2014
MEMORANDUM

FROM: Michael Hammond, Dunbarton, New Hampshire
(For information purposes – General Counsel to Gun Owners of America)
RE: Response to the Response to our Opposition to Anti-Gun Legislation, S.B. 244

S. B. 244 is an anti-gun bill. Various groups have explained, at length, what is wrong with it.

We have tried to avoid turning this into an attack on other groups by name. But one other group is persisting in its attacks on us and our opposition to S.B. 244 -- and is trying to defend this indefensible bill.

The following are our responses to their most recent misrepresentations:

MISREPRESENTATION #1: Opposition to S.B. 244 by a variety of groups is "typical over-the-top "the sky is falling"" opposition.

RESPONSE: I've been pretty much near the center of national pro-gun strategy for about 35 years. I killed the RICOization of firearms in 1981, negotiated and managed McClure-Volkmer for Jim McClure, led the opposition to post-Columbine "gun control lite," drafted legislation creating the armed pilots program, the ban on a Brady Law gun tax, and the ban on a Brady Law gun registration scheme. Most recently, the New York Times Magazine has credited me (through GOA) with squashing another group's efforts to pass Toomey-Manchin. And these are only a tiny few of dozens of other legislative initiatives.

If there is one thing I have learned in that time, it's that, if proposed legislation can be abused in the hands of anti-gun officials, it probably will be abused. Barack Obama has no problem ignoring the clear language of statute (see, e.g., 18 U.S.C. 923(g)). He has no problem exploiting the tiniest loopholes to do things like banning shotgun importation. To pass bills which contain foreseeable loopholes is the height of folly.

MISREPRESENTATION #2: GOA refuses to mention that certain other groups support this anti-gun bill.

RESPONSE: At least one of those groups did a notorious photo-op at the White House with Bill Clinton in support of his anti-gun agenda. But GOA has agreed not to blast other groups by name, just because we believe they are supporting anti-gun legislation.

I think our record speaks for itself: Other groups tried to pass 90% of Bill Clinton's anti-gun agenda, which we succeeded in killing. Other groups negotiated with Chuck Schumer to pass the Veterans Disarmament Act (AKA the NICS Improvement Act of 2008) in the expectation that this would stop further calls for gun control. Other groups tried to broker a deal on Manchin-Toomey.

We opposed all of these, and believe history has vindicated us.

MISREPRESENTATION #3: "... at no time does GOA say SB 244 DOES create disqualifiers..." [sic]

RESPONSE: This is just not true. Let's start with my mother with Alzheimer's who had a guardian appointed pursuant to RSA 464-A. Although BATF's unconstitutional and statutorily unsupported regulations lay the theoretical groundwork for turning her into a prohibited person, it is S.B. 244 which accomplishes that.

Ditto, police and firemen with PTSD, seniors with Alzheimer's, people who have been diagnosed with ADHD, etc.

Guardianship and involuntary commitment are a theoretical issue for those who attack us, but we have had personal experience with these statutes.

In fact, supplying names to NICS of persons who should not be and are not otherwise covered by 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4) does turn them into prohibited persons.

People without experience would not know this, but, regularly, we get e-mails from people who are not, in our opinion, prohibited persons under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4), but who are now prohibited from purchasing guns, getting concealed carry licenses, and so forth, because a state overinterpreted this section and, in our opinion, illegally sent their names to NICS. This is exactly what S.B. 244 would do.

MISSTATEMENT #4: "... if you're disqualified, you're disqualified whether or not the dealer is told so by NICS..." [sic]

RESPONSE: This may be true with respect to felony convictions, but it's not true with respect to MOST 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4) issues. 150,000-175,000 veterans have been made prohibited persons PRECISELY BECAUSE THEIR NAMES HAVE BEEN SENT TO NICS. They were not prohibited persons because they had a traumatic experience in Baghdad, or because they consulted a VA counselor. Rather, what made them prohibited persons was when that counselor sent their names to NICS.

MISSTATEMENT #5: Says our attacker: "Good luck with" assuming the courts will enforce 18 U.S.C. 924(a)(2).

RESPONSE: I do assume the courts will enforce the law. This is why I -- personally -- wrote the law this way. And, if you want to know why there are almost no 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4) prosecutions (or, for that matter, other 18 U.S.C. 922(g) prosecutions), this is why.

MISSTATEMENT #6: "But if a person is wrongfully denied under NICS when their records don’t show a judicial disqualifier under federal law, there is now a simple appeal process to reverse the NICS entry."

RESPONSE: It is hard to believe that the writer has ever attempted to correct an erroneous NICS entry, much less attempted to do that in a case where there is legal ambiguity.

We receive complaints with regularity from people who try to invoke the Brady Law rights, only to be brushed off by the FBI.

Furthermore, we have discussed this issue with the state's top pro-gun attorney, and it would take $10,000 for a gun owner with such a grievance to walk through her door. [And, incidentally, lest our attackers have any doubt about who the state's top pro-gun attorney is, we are talking about the counsel to the New Hampshire NRA affiliate.]

MISSTATEMENT #7: "Pro-Gun New Hampshire’s General Counsel, attorney Evan F. Nappen, currently charges approximately one-tenth that amount to restore rights for those with CRIMINAL convictions under New Hampshire annulment statutes, which we hope will be mirrored for mental health disqualifiers in the relief portion of SB 244, if properly amended."

RESPONSE: You know, don't you, that the expungement of a criminal conviction is fairly clear-cut, compared to the dueling psychiatrists you may confront when removing an 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4) disqualifier?

MISSTATEMENT #8: " the effect of SB 244 is just to comply with federal gun laws already on the books."

RESPONSE: That's what the VA says as well. But sending my mother with Alzheimer's to the FBI's gun-ban blacklist is not "just complying with federal law."

MISSTATEMENT #9: "[Our attackers] suppor[t] an amendment that makes large, comprehensive, and critically necessary changes that will, if adopted, allow for relief which currently does not exist in New Hampshire, to finally help thousands of people who otherwise could not have their rights restored."

RESPONSE: P.S.: That relief has not been needed because, up until now, New Hampshire has not been faced with a proposed law which would potentially send the names of tens of thousands of its citizens to the FBI on the pretext of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4).

MISSTATEMENT #10: "[Under (U.S. v. Rehlander and U.S. v. Small ), three-day emergency commitments under RSA 135-C:27 are not lawful disqualifiers under federal gun law..."

RESPONSE: I assume this is a different U.S. v. Small from the one I'm familiar with, because it really doesn't say that at all.

But you understand, right, that, even if that were true, passing a statute saying they are changes all of that. As for declaring this statute unconstitutional under Heller, even an incompetent attorney would understand that, due to dictum on page 54 of Heller, that decision has been determined to be inapplicable to virtually every anti-gun statute that was challenged under it.

MISSTATEMENT #11: "Most people think that the NRA has some pretty good lawyers."

RESPONSE: You know, right, that I was an attorney for the NRA and was their go-to attorney in the Senate for over a decade? (We left amicably so I could run for Congress.)

SUMMARY: I appreciate that Mr. Nappen feels I do "some" wonderful work. Among the "wonderful" things I have done is to draft an alert encouraging our members to fund one of Mr. Nappen's lawsuits, even after he had launched a nasty attack on me. I would hope that he would, belatedly, realize that I come at this with a lot more legislative experience than anyone he knows.

 

[soloman02]

Here is the video of the hearing yesterday:

[video=youtube_share;SC0xko9LK1U]http://youtu.be/SC0xko9LK1U[/video]


Now I have had criticism of NHFC for hating on PGNH because I currently hold no allegiances and just want to see good 2A bills pass and bad 2A bills fail. In the past this meant criticizing all the groups when they didn't agree on something. NHFC did lambast Nappen when I talked to them at the gun show claiming Nappen had "created bad case law." Last I checked, the win against Streeter in Newton isn't bad case law and the person working the booth didn't cite what bad case law had been created. If such case law in fact exists, someone had better let me know because I have only heard good things about Nappen with regard to his winning licensing cases.

However. After this report by WatchCityCPA, who attended the committee meeting (I haven't watched the video I posted above), I am now having to question PGNH entirely, especially with respect to Nappen hawking his "fee" for annulment, which by the way, can be done by yourself if you do some reading and following of instructions (I know someone who did 2 himself with no issues).

For my own interests and curiosity, can someone give me (or point me to) an unbiased explanation (including a time frame) of how the hell we got three gun groups in NH?

I didn't become as informed and active about local NH issues until I joined NES. As near as I can tell, all three groups were formed long before that. Unfortunately, the internet has not been very helpful in regards to information on these groups and why we have three of them!

 

[WatchCityCPA]

I'm new here, but my understanding is that the split is due to:

Nappen wanting his own group (PGNH)
NRA affiliate (GONH)
Group independent from the NRA (and affiliated with GoA) (NHFC)

Personally, I like NHFC more than GONH (reflecting my ambiguous feelings towards the NRA and my respect for GoA), but that's just me.

And I'd rather have competition in lobbying just like I like competition in the market... what if PGNH was the ONLY group? The legislature could point to their position as proof that people "support SB244".

And watch the hearings - the only non politician/lawyer lobbyist that supports the bill is the very last speaker... a woman from Portsmouth who gave some epic testimony.

EDIT: I forgot to give GONH props for occasionally disagreeing withe the NRA - they did it in the past and did it at these hearings... NRA is neutral on this bill while GONH is strongly opposed. I do not know of any other NRA affiliate that took a public stance against the NRA.

 

[soloman02]

I'm new here, but my understanding is that the split is due to:

Nappen wanting his own group (PGNH)
NRA affiliate (GONH)
Group independent from the NRA (and affiliated with GoA) (NHFC)

Personally, I like NHFC more than GONH (reflecting my ambiguous feelings towards the NRA and my respect for GoA), but that's just me.

And I'd rather have competition in lobbying just like I like competition in the market... what if PGNH was the ONLY group? The legislature could point to their position as proof that people "support SB244".

And watch the hearings - the only non politician/lawyer lobbyist that supports the bill is the very last speaker... a woman from Portsmouth who gave some epic testimony.

Don't get me wrong, I like what I've seen from NHFC. But they seem like a newcomer to me. Maybe that's because I never heard of them until the last couple years so they seem new.

 

[strangenh]

Now, one can argue that Nappen is one of the better or even the best NH firearms attorneys (depending on who you ask), but nationally? Just off the top of my mind, SAF's Alan Gottlieb comes to mind as a slightly more relevant firearms rights legal eagle on the national stage...

Gottleib isn't an attorney. He is a MLM entrepreneur who turned to 2A activism and has really knocked several out of the park. But he isn't a lawyer. Perhaps you were thinking of Gura?

Yes, the ammemdment would solve an existing legal issue in NH - but why would one support a horrible bill with on good ammendment? Just support the ammendment as a separate law... like NH house reps will do.

Right, but not in this session. It wouldn't pass on its own. PGNH is very pragmatic but I wish they'd wait for better chances rather than trying to ride in with an amendment to a bad bill. However, please note that when we DID have better chances, the other groups blew crap up right along with PGNH. So maybe this is the only place they think we can make improvements. Heck some groups attacked the law repealing almost all knife law in the state because it didn't go far enough and they didn't like the sponsor.

Of course, your mileage might vary - but I'm done with PGNH.

All of the NH groups have screwed us. Don't become a simpleton who thinks this group good, that group bad. Some screwed us by pushing for mediocre legislation. Some by opposing good legislation because it wasn't their idea of perfect and then blowing the finish.

Seriously. ALL of them. Having good ideals doesn't make one a friend if they keep f'n us over on principle. That's just someone preserving their halo at our expense.

They all suck at this point. You can't even get them to sit down together. That means any sensible pro-2A person tries to work with all of them. Because they are all well-intentioned and they are all territorial to a fault.

 

[strangenh]

I'm new here, but my understanding is that the split is due to:

Nappen wanting his own group (PGNH)
NRA affiliate (GONH)
Group independent from the NRA (and affiliated with GoA) (NHFC)

That's not it. One can't even comment on what actually happened without people jumping in and turning a thread to **** - that is how bad relations are. See the PGNH "about" page for the raw basics. But anyhow Nappen isn't the reason for the PGNH-GONH split. NHFC has its own history. Each group has its pet "firearms lawyer" and disdains the others' lawyers and that, good sir, should tell you tons.

 

[WatchCityCPA]

Gottleib isn't an attorney. He is a MLM entrepreneur who turned to 2A activism and has really knocked several out of the park. But he isn't a lawyer. Perhaps you were thinking of Gura?

Right, but not in this session. It wouldn't pass on its own. PGNH is very pragmatic but I wish they'd wait for better chances rather than trying to ride in with an amendment to a bad bill. However, please note that when we DID have better chances, the other groups blew crap up right along with PGNH. So maybe this is the only place they think we can make improvements. Heck some groups attacked the law repealing almost all knife law in the state because it didn't go far enough and they didn't like the sponsor.



All of the NH groups have screwed us. Don't become a simpleton who thinks this group good, that group bad. Some screwed us by pushing for mediocre legislation. Some by opposing good legislation because it wasn't their idea of perfect and then blowing the finish.

Seriously. ALL of them. Having good ideals doesn't make one a friend if they keep f'n us over on principle. That's just someone preserving their halo at our expense.

They all suck at this point. You can't even get them to sit down together. That means any sensible pro-2A person tries to work with all of them. Because they are all well-intentioned and they are all territorial to a fault.

Thank you for an informative post.

Yes, I got the wrong Alan G. Was thinking of Gura.

I can live with mistakes made with good intentions... but PGNH is supporting a VERY bad bill in this case.

As a lawyer, Nappen should be aware that there is a perception of a strong conflict of interest when he is advocating for bills that will take people's rights away but in the process generate more business for firearms lawyers.

Check out the parable of the broken window, and tell me that what Nappen is trying to do by supporting this bill is not comparable with the glazier paying a boy to break windows...

There is no good reason to pass this bill. Whatever the reasons of any group that supports SB244, they are no friends of ours.

I have to disagree with you on this matter.

That's not it. One can't even comment on what actually happened without people jumping in and turning a thread to **** - that is how bad relations are. See the PGNH "about" page for the raw basics. But anyhow Nappen isn't the reason for the PGNH-GONH split. NHFC has its own history. Each group has its pet "firearms lawyer" and disdains the others' lawyers and that, good sir, should tell you tons.

Who are NHFC's and GONH's lawyers then?

 

[soloman02]

Who are NHFC's and GONH's lawyers then?

Penny Dean is the GONH attorney and Jonathan Evans is the attorney for NHFC. He is also the president of NHFC.

Evans does not practice in 2A cases as his primary form of income.

However, he needs a better website.

It screams, rightly or wrongly, "Ambulance Chaser." That was literally the first thing that popped into my head when I saw his website.

http://www.injury-rights.com/Injury-rights.com/Welcome.html

 

[ScottS]

I'm new here, but my understanding is that the split is due to:

Nappen wanting his own group (PGNH)
NRA affiliate (GONH)
Group independent from the NRA (and affiliated with GoA) (NHFC)

This is actually not right, at least not in terms of GO-NH and PGNH.

Sometime back in 2006ish, I think, GO-NH (NRA state affiliate) had the "Night of the Long Knives." IIRC, the fundamental difference was some of the Directors wanted to allow legislators on the Board of Directors, some thought it was a conflict of interest. There was some kind of palace coup, Directors got voted out, left, resigned, whatever. PGNH was formed with the offshoot of those who left GO-NH.

ETA: Strange has it right. EACH of the groups has screwed the pooch at some time or another, and I'm pretty sure that if you put Penny Dean's and Evan Nappen's business cards on top of each other, they'll spontaneously combust right before your eyes.

 

[WatchCityCPA]

Thank you all for the information... history lessons are nice and good, but at the end of the day what matters is what those groups do.


In the hearing I've attended, PGNH sold us down the river.


This the video Soloman02 posted in post#20 with a link to the time (24 minutes 52 seconds) when PGNH starts their 24 minute (!!!) testimony.





Listen to Bob Clegg (The Honorable Bob Clegg, President — former NH State Senator and Senate Majority Leader, now a registered lobbyist) introduce Nappen as "the most prominent and nationally recognized gun rights expert in the country".


Listen to Nappen argue this is a good bill (paraphrasing his words, but you'll easily find the statements in the video if you are patient enough):
because there already is an annulment process...
because there is federal court case law that rules that certain types of admissions are not a federal disqualifier...
because you can file a NICS appeal
because the NH gun line can fix it for you...
because an FFL can give you the form to file the NICS appeal...
because the law only applies to a very narrow category of people...
because during an involuntary commitment you have the right to an attorney throught the entire process...
because NH should be in conformance with the federal NICS
because while now the records are not sent in, when you put them in you do not create a NEW disqualifier...
because a NICS appeal is easy and it works great for the people wrongly rejected today...
because he does not think that people will wrongly be reported to NICS...


This only covers the first 10 minutes or so of the video, so we did not get to the "how affordable of a lawyer I am" lines, etc.... but I only have so much time on my hands.


Watch that video and draw your own conclusions about PGNH.


Oh, and one more subtle point - he points out at 34:33 that a person is here today to testify that is an example of a person who cannot restore his rights due to the existing bad law.


First, that is precisely the situation he wants to put the many people that would be reported to NICS as a result of this horrible bill... just like that person, they would lose their rights because they were commited at some point in the past, iregardless of the fact that they got better and were released from the commitment since they could live a normal life.


Second, that person who testified was prepped and brought over by Sen. Watters... which indicated that PGNH is directly working with the bill sponsors to push SB 244. A wonderful example of bipartisanship and common sense compromise... brought to you by PGNH.

 

[RadiCS]

This is why I'm only a member of NHFC. I feel like I can't trust the other groups. Since, Design is on here I feel like in can trust him.

 

[design]

.... Found online today...
-Design
-----------------------------

Alert: Please email or call these five NH senators ASAP!

[Posted Friday, January 17, 2014, at 12:30 p.m.] Note: The content of this article is a version of the Pro-Gun New Hampshire membership alert emailed Wednesday, January 15, 2014, at 2:30 p.m.

Last Tuesday, January 14, 2014, the NH Senate Judiciary Committee heard public testimony on Senate Bill 244, the landmark legislation that creates a way to annul mental health adjudications so that gun owners can UN-prohibit themselves from buying and possessing guns.

PGNH, the NRA, and the NSSF (National Shooting Sports Foundation, the industry trade association) have carefully analyzed this bill and support it, but some others have spread false information and propaganda that plays on the public's fears, and campaigned to flood the senate committee with complaints.

SB 244 DOES NOT create any new gun disqualifiers, NOR does it cause anyone not already prohibited from gun purchase/possession to become prohibited. It DOES create a much-needed relief mechanism, something that does not now exist.

PLEASE READ the articles on SB 244 that we recently (starting January 10) published on our website, www.PGNH.org, and then email or call the five members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to express your support of this bill and counter the false propaganda.


Senator Sharon Carson (Chair): [email protected] , tel. 434-2489

Senator Bette Lasky (Vice Chair): [email protected], tel. 888-5557 or 315-1924

Senator David Boutin: [email protected], tel. 203-5391

Senator Sam Cataldo: [email protected], tel. 859-1089

Senator Donna Soucy: [email protected], tel. 271-4151

----------------------
I think we need we need to double-down our efforts on calling the committee to ask them to oppose this legislation... IT IS A BAD BILL.