NH: Need for preemption to stop towns from enacting local firearms bans

jpk

Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
17,402
Likes
18,330
Well, maybe THERE is where you could use some work, then.

Its not the first attempt to institute penalties for these violations

It was tried back in 2018? and not surprisingly the GOPe and a particular "Gun Group" opposed it.

Its not unlike constitutional carry.....many of these reforms take more than one attempt to acclimate and pass
 

timbo

Navy Veteran
NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Dec 17, 2010
Messages
13,715
Likes
15,331
Location
SoCeMo
This is correct

NH is NOT a home rule state and the legislature has previously passed RSA that clearly states that no subordinate political entity to the NH Leg may pass any law/ordinance wrt firearms/etc

The problem IMHO is that there's no explicit penalty and no enforcement......
...as there very much should be.
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
1,570
Likes
1,277
There is a way to salvage the bill. Have the House non-concur and ask for a committee of conference. Also there are some elected officials that want to run for higher office. Make sure that they are held accountable for their actions while in current office.
 

KBCraig

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
15,748
Likes
14,213
Location
Granite State of Mind
IMO JPK makes a good point on 307 here.

While yes, 307 had its nuts cut off by the senate, the original version still allowed towns to prevent the use via zoning.
Local violations of the preemption statute are pretty much a non-issue when it comes to possession, carry, and business zoning. Grok cited a Gilford school policy, but that policy isn't a local ordinance and carries no penalty. The threat to issue letters of trespass is toothless.

The preemption violations of concern are those that affect actual use: hunting, sport/recreational shooting, and even self-defense. We've seen examples of NH municipalities banning hunting or shooting, well outside any compact area concerns. Those who would enforce such illegal and unconstitutional rules and ordinances are the intended targets of 307.

Removing "use" from HB307 renders it pointless.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
252
Likes
251
Location
New Hampshire
Local violations of the preemption statute are pretty much a non-issue when it comes to possession, carry, and business zoning. Grok cited a Gilford school policy, but that policy isn't a local ordinance and carries no penalty. The threat to issue letters of trespass is toothless.

The preemption violations of concern are those that affect actual use: hunting, sport/recreational shooting, and even self-defense. We've seen examples of NH municipalities banning hunting or shooting, well outside any compact area concerns. Those who would enforce such illegal and unconstitutional rules and ordinances are the intended targets of 307.

Removing "use" from HB307 renders it pointless.
A big problem is the city owned arena in Manchester that is a no carry zone. Even the amended 307 will fix that
 

strangenh

NES Member
Rating - 100%
37   0   0
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
7,856
Likes
3,964
Location
NH
A big problem is the city owned arena in Manchester that is a no carry zone. Even the amended 307 will fix that
No it will allow someone to sue. They could go to court and get an injunction today, violation of which would carry penalties. The law today has the same set of words re: what firearms-related areas are preempted (plus 'use'). Statutory teeth are a nice-to-have we've been looking for, for years. But creating an ambiguity whereby towns could cite a senator's own words about the amendment to shut down hunting, target shooting, etc., that's not worth it.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
17,402
Likes
18,330
Local violations of the preemption statute are pretty much a non-issue when it comes to possession, carry, and business zoning. Grok cited a Gilford school policy, but that policy isn't a local ordinance and carries no penalty. The threat to issue letters of trespass is toothless.

The preemption violations of concern are those that affect actual use: hunting, sport/recreational shooting, and even self-defense. We've seen examples of NH municipalities banning hunting or shooting, well outside any compact area concerns. Those who would enforce such illegal and unconstitutional rules and ordinances are the intended targets of 307.

Removing "use" from HB307 renders it pointless.

The issue with ignoring what you refer o as non issue violations is that these politburo members frequently abuse power and drag a person through the press/media and attempt to ruin their reputation/work opportunities/etc and render them persona non grata.....and they do it because there are no penalties for them personally

Until there is accountability and penalties that actually punish these agents of gov acting in bad faith the bs will continue

There needs to be penalties that are at least on par wrt severity as there are for drunk driving
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
1,570
Likes
1,277
A big problem is the city owned arena in Manchester that is a no carry zone. Even the amended 307 will fix that
While the amended language will take care of the one venue, giving up the prohibition on use is worse.
What if the alderman vote that discharge within the city limits is unpermitted use? Goodbye to the private shooting range on the east side, good bye to MFL. The word use needs to stay in the bill
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 20, 2015
Messages
2,427
Likes
1,920
Location
South of the Mason-Dixon, NC
What we also need to go along with this is a mandate for the AG to pursue examples of unlawful/corrupt behavior at the town level

unfunded mandates and lack of clear enforcement vehicle wont help us

There's a lot of hokey/illegal shit that selectmen and town administrators perpatrate

Any chance that clarification to 644:13 would be included in an effort to add teeth to 159:26?
Years ago, in the NH town I grew up in the BoS appointed the Chief of Police for life. The chief was also director of the town senior center. He provided doctor rides and such for seniors in a town police cruiser. He also used that position to coerce seniors into voting the way he needed them to vote. Mind you this man failed the required state firearms qual to carry while on duty. So the town had to make him officially part time, but at the same full time salary he had.
When a petition was submitted to make the position full time, and thus disqualifying him from the job, he got copies of the signature pages and went to people's homes to get them to revoke their signatures.
He was eventually fired after a PD employee filed a federal sexual harassment law suit. But he had already cost the town over $1M in other lawsuits against his abuse of power under the color of authority. The fed suit finally forced the town board to fire him.
Liberals think this crap only happens in southern hick towns. Yet the town is overrun with Ma**h***s that tolerated this guy because he wasn't bothering them personally.
 

KBCraig

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
15,748
Likes
14,213
Location
Granite State of Mind
The issue with ignoring what you refer o as non issue violations is that these politburo members frequently abuse power and drag a person through the press/media and attempt to ruin their reputation/work opportunities/etc and render them persona non grata.....and they do it because there are no penalties for them personally

Until there is accountability and penalties that actually punish these agents of gov acting in bad faith the bs will continue
I agree with the need for repercussions.

I don't agree that giving up "use" gains ground. It cedes ground already won, already in the statutes.

Do you think that some municipalities aren't already drooling at the thought of being able to outlaw all recreational shooting and hunting?
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
252
Likes
251
Location
New Hampshire
While the amended language will take care of the one venue, giving up the prohibition on use is worse.
What if the alderman vote that discharge within the city limits is unpermitted use? Goodbye to the private shooting range on the east side, good bye to MFL. The word use needs to stay in the bill
I spoke with Alan Rice at GOA and he told me your only interest is to creat turmoil, confusion and disinformation so you can raise money. He also,said that Mike Hammond approved this bill and said to go read this
Pre-emption still needs help, contact state reps! | GOA New Hampshire

im not a lawyer, but I’ve come to trust Alan and GOA not to sound the alarm falsely and I trust their interpretation of hb 307
 

strangenh

NES Member
Rating - 100%
37   0   0
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
7,856
Likes
3,964
Location
NH
The bill was fine in the House version. We have a literal statement from the senator who removed 'use' as to why and it's explicitly not a good thing. I don't think she's right, legally, that removing "use" would "allow" local restrictions on use, because there's no enabling statute for that, but that legislative history, explicit statement, and removal of "use" from the existing RSAs creates a very dangerous ambiguity we won't see resolved for literally years as it makes its way through the courts (and it will). The kind of ambiguity we most certainly do not need. Today, without either version of this bill being passed, a resident can go to court and obtain an injunction against the enforcement of a restriction passed in violation of 159:26 as it stands today. A violation of that court order would be subject to court sanction, up to and including those permitted under flat out contempt of court. It's not statutory penalties, it has fewer angles to pressure local officials into not doing it in the first place, but it is there today, and requires the same level of effort to enforce as the HB-307 would require: Some individual still has to go to court to get the bad local rule/ordinance/order knocked down.
 

KBCraig

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
15,748
Likes
14,213
Location
Granite State of Mind
I spoke with Alan Rice at GOA and he told me your only interest is to creat turmoil, confusion and disinformation so you can raise money. He also,said that Mike Hammond approved this bill and said to go read this
Pre-emption still needs help, contact state reps! | GOA New Hampshire

im not a lawyer, but I’ve come to trust Alan and GOA not to sound the alarm falsely and I trust their interpretation of hb 307
So, what did you think when Alan Rice was NHFC's guy?

One of the infuriating things about NH gun politics, is NIH syndrome. It's always two against one. Reminds me of my first wife's family, where one of the siblings was always on the outs; they just took turns being the black sheep.

Some 12-15 years ago, I said that NH should do away with the gun line, and let the feds handle fed business. Susan Olsen of WDL called me an anti-gun shill. Fast forward, and guess who now supports ending the gun line?
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
252
Likes
251
Location
New Hampshire
So, what did you think when Alan Rice was NHFC's guy?

One of the infuriating things about NH gun politics, is NIH syndrome. It's always two against one. Reminds me of my first wife's family, where one of the siblings was always on the outs; they just took turns being the black sheep.

Some 12-15 years ago, I said that NH should do away with the gun line, and let the feds handle fed business. Susan Olsen of WDL called me an anti-gun shill. Fast forward, and guess who now supports ending the gun line?
I asked Alan about that and he told me that for many years, he was doing 2 things GOA and NHFC. He said he was worked for GOA since the late 90s. He told me he no longer respects JR Hoell because Jr got to close to Dudley Brown and tries to copy what dudley does. He told me that JR and dudley etc run a scortched earth burn it to the grond political program meaning if they do not get exactly what they demand they seek to destroy everyone and anyone in their way. That is what JR is doing on hb307. See this by GOA why 307 is still good:
Pre-emption still needs help, contact state reps! | GOA New Hampshire

and a few articles that show if JR copies dudleys behavior it will ruin NH

Dudley Brown's War

How a pro-gun, anti-gay "political terrorist" could help keep Colorado Democrats in power

Alans point is that if these tactics worked than colordado would have the best gun laws in america. they dont.

I have looked into this and more and dudley brown is a toxin. Alan also told me he has been in favor of disbanding the gun line for years but waitd to push it until a bill was introduced in reply to the massive delays. when delays were a few hours no one would introduce a bill. when they became weeks sb 141 came along. Jr opposed getting rid of the gun line
 

KBCraig

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
15,748
Likes
14,213
Location
Granite State of Mind
I, and others, have pointed out why that is wrong. It's not an improvement, and it reverses current state law about "use".

If "use" is removed, then what, exactly, are we to sue over? License issuance is already covered. "Use" is the only real violation of preemption where we need teeth, and the Senate version of HB307 removes that.

If I didn't have such an innocent mind, I might think this curious change was very deliberate, for someone's personal reasons. But c'mon, no politician has ever acted duplicitously before, right?

FWIW, I disagreed with NHFC on the gun line, and I told JR that I would vote to end it.
 

AFAR/PFAR

NES Member
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
2,345
Likes
3,022
Location
Grafton & Coös Counties
We have a literal statement from the senator

On this point anyone down south that can primary her out? Between this statement and listening to her last year in sessions, she is no friend of the 2A. Maybe some of our members who are in her district can politely voice their displeasure at the loophole she created for towns.

Sen. Sharon Carson, R-Londonderry, said the bill would preserve residents' constitutional rights to bear arms, but municipalities and schools would be able to establish rules governing the use of those weapons.


As far as HB307, I've come around to the point where this is a bad bill as amended by senate. Yes, penalties for overreach is good. Allowing the loophole to ban "use" is bad and will be abused.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Apr 25, 2018
Messages
1,905
Likes
2,916
Thank God that this state does not have "Home Rule" or "Referendum Legislation". This state would be lost if it did. It is bad enough that we state reps like Jennifer Gomarlo an absolute Communist Slut
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
252
Likes
251
Location
New Hampshire
I, and others, have pointed out why that is wrong. It's not an improvement, and it reverses current state law about "use".

If "use" is removed, then what, exactly, are we to sue over? License issuance is already covered. "Use" is the only real violation of preemption where we need teeth, and the Senate version of HB307 removes that.

If I didn't have such an innocent mind, I might think this curious change was very deliberate, for someone's personal reasons. But c'mon, no politician has ever acted duplicitously before, right?

FWIW, I disagreed with NHFC on the gun line, and I told JR that I would vote to end it.
From the amended bill with emphasis added to all the things that are protected:

Except as otherwise specifically provided by statute, no ordinance or regulation of a political subdivision, including, without limitation, any school district or school administrative unit,
shall regulate the sale, purchase, ownership, possession, transportation, licensing, permitting, taxation, or other matter pertaining to firearms; ammunition; ammunition components; knives;
firearms components; firearms accessories; and firearms supplies in this state.

I guess it comes down to who you trust more? GOA, NRA, NSSF who all agree the bill does a world of good by specifiying penalties and have had reall lawyers look it over or JR hoell and his band of fundraisers who need controversy to raise fear which will raise $$.

I trust GOA.
 

AFAR/PFAR

NES Member
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
2,345
Likes
3,022
Location
Grafton & Coös Counties
From the amended bill with emphasis added to all the things that are protected:

Except as otherwise specifically provided by statute, no ordinance or regulation of a political subdivision, including, without limitation, any school district or school administrative unit,
shall regulate the sale, purchase, ownership, possession, transportation, licensing, permitting, taxation, or other matter pertaining to firearms; ammunition; ammunition components; knives;
firearms components; firearms accessories; and firearms supplies in this state.

I guess it comes down to who you trust more? GOA, NRA, NSSF who all agree the bill does a world of good by specifiying penalties and have had reall lawyers look it over or JR hoell and his band of fundraisers who need controversy to raise fear which will raise $$.

I trust GOA.

Other matter is also in the House bill. How does the law define "other matter"?

The Senate removed use for a specific reason. Sen Carson is on record saying this bill allows towns to govern use of firearms.

I don't trust or distrust any of the major player gun right orgs in NH. They all have their pluses and minuses. All I see is what is on the written bill and and republican senator's statement.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
252
Likes
251
Location
New Hampshire
Other matter is also in the House bill. How does the law define "other matter"?

The Senate removed use for a specific reason. Sen Carson is on record saying this bill allows towns to govern use of firearms.

I don't trust or distrust any of the major player gun right orgs in NH. They all have their pluses and minuses. All I see is what is on the written bill and and republican senator's statement.
Can you send that Carson statement? I can’t find it
 

AFAR/PFAR

NES Member
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
2,345
Likes
3,022
Location
Grafton & Coös Counties

AFAR/PFAR

NES Member
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
2,345
Likes
3,022
Location
Grafton & Coös Counties
That’s second hand. Do you have video? Other wise I think I’ll stick with GOA.

Dude, she was quoted. The shit is on record. She could have said Yankees Suck and what was printed is gospel. According to Sen Carson, 'towns can use HB307 to restrict the use of firearms'.

Here is what is worse. Even though I linked The Patch, the originating news source was InDepthNH(a liberal source). Folks there are definitely holding on to that nugget and sending it to their allies.

Folks are fully prepared to weaponize this bill and use it against us.
 

strangenh

NES Member
Rating - 100%
37   0   0
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
7,856
Likes
3,964
Location
NH
That’s second hand. Do you have video? Other wise I think I’ll stick with GOA.
Everything you've said here was "quoted" and secondhand - or are you actually Alan? Seriously, stop having a biased argument by proxy, where you get to vaguely quote libel and everyone else needs video with cryptographic authentication from the Pope. The site reported publicly what the senator said. She hasn't denied it. Or do you now need everyone to prove a negative, too? JFC.
 

strangenh

NES Member
Rating - 100%
37   0   0
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
7,856
Likes
3,964
Location
NH
Top Bottom