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

Isn't legislator a part time job in NH?

I would think difficulty in getting new laws on the books would be a good thing.
Yes, it is part-time. Making it hard to get new laws passed can be a good thing, or it can be a bad thing. Depends on the law you want or don't want. Think of a family reunion. If you had 400 relatives gathered together, do you think you'd ever get a consensus? Most of my family is of Irish descent. We'd have a brawl if we discussed politics. [smile]
 
Yes, it is part-time. Making it hard to get new laws passed can be a good thing, or it can be a bad thing. Depends on the law you want or don't want. Think of a family reunion. If you had 400 relatives gathered together, do you think you'd ever get a consensus? Most of my family is of Irish descent. We'd have a brawl if we discussed politics. [smile]

Just remember this amendment came out of the 24 member senate and not the house.
 
Just remember, the same Senate that killed two good gun bills (HB196 and HB197, text below) also gutted HB 307 moments after killing these two bills.
Something to consider when Morse runs for US Senate.

HOUSE BILL 196
AN ACT adding trespass as an exception to the charge of criminal threatening.


1 Criminal Threatening. Amend RSA 631:4, IV to read as follows:

IV. A person who responds to a person criminally trespassing pursuant to RSA 635:2 or other threat which would be considered by a reasonable person as likely to cause property damage, serious bodily injury, or death to the person or to another by displaying a firearm or other means of self-defense with the intent to warn away the person criminally trespassing or making the threat shall not have committed a criminal act under this section.

2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.

_______________________________

HOUSE BILL 197
AN ACT relative to the use of deadly force in defense of another.
1 Justification; Physical Force in Defense of a Person. Amend RSA 627:4, II(d) to read as follows:
(d) Is likely to use any unlawful force in the commission of a felony against [the actor within such actor's]a person in a vehicle, dwelling or its curtilage.
2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.
 
I love typing HB 307 into the search bar at NHMA and seeing them loving the Senate amendment. Then I go back and look at GOA and NSSF and wonder wtf they are thinking by backing this bill as amended.
NHMA Search HB 307

A couple of recent snippets. The one single word "use" is a big damn deal.


2.JPG

1.JPG
 
So do we ask for our reps to "kill the bill"? Is it past the "ITL" stage? Using the State's "GenCourt" house members search is useless. We just moved to Rochester. There are 3 wards for voting purposes, but I have no idea which district and ward we are for finding our rep.
 
So do we ask for our reps to "kill the bill"? Is it past the "ITL" stage? Using the State's "GenCourt" house members search is useless. We just moved to Rochester. There are 3 wards for voting purposes, but I have no idea which district and ward we are for finding our rep.
This bill was OK in its original version (it had its issues, but was probably net positive). We should ask the House to vote for non-concurrence with the Senate version, go to a committee of conference, and restore it. If they cannot manage that, then kill it and we can try again later. The Senate version removes "use" from current RSAs - a literal reading could still be net-positive, but with an avalanche of commentary that removing "use" from the longstanding preemption RSA opens up local regulation of "use" of firearms, even if the bill is net-positive, that is a long set of court battles just to get back to where we are now. I don't see that as a positive. A flawed "law to prevent further wrongdoing" that gives something away when we already have law we ought to be enforcing, which covers the same turf and the same effort to enforce - that seems like a bad plan.
 
edit--typed too slow-see what strange said.

The House owns the bill now and will vote this week(either tomorrow afternoon or Thursday), so it is not past the stage where they can ITL it.

NHFC wants us to ask for a committee of conference so the House can approach the Senate about them removing "use". That is probably an ideal solution.

Just my personal cynical opinion, but we're kind of late in the game and the election cycle to do that for a 2021 bill. I don't know-I'm just the retired guy new to the state who is bored enough to look at bills and try to send emails.

If my reps were pro 2A, I would lay out my argument and ask kind of along the lines of what NHFC is saying. Failing that, I would ask that they "kill" this poorly amended bill in any way possible-table, ITL, whatever is out there.

NRA, NSSF, and GOA disagree with me on this bill.
 
The old "one word back room nobody will admit to being the one that done it, hope no one notices" ploy.

Happened to us when "de novo" was pulled out of the law section regarding judicial review of license denials or revocations. The courts regularly hang their decision on "the courts position is not to judge the decision made even if it may have decided differently" hook (well then, WTF is the court for..... saying "appeal denied, next case please" is what we get under not de novo)
 
So do we ask for our reps to "kill the bill"? Is it past the "ITL" stage? Using the State's "GenCourt" house members search is useless. We just moved to Rochester. There are 3 wards for voting purposes, but I have no idea which district and ward we are for finding our rep.

You can call city hall, or you can use these two tools:

First, find your ward and polling place here: Polling Place Search and Sample Ballots

Then, select "Rochester" from the drop-down here, and see which reps cover your ward: The New Hampshire House of Representatives

Rochester is a mixed bag of both very good, and very bad.
 
Back
Top Bottom