KBCraig
NES Member
I trust my own reading comprehension. On this issue, GOA, NRA and NSSF apparently lack that skill.
All of those organizations, by the way, solicit funds by fearmongering. Don't act like NHFC is the grifter here.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Taurus G3C Optics Ready***
NH: Need for preemption to stop towns from enacting local firearms bans
- Thread starter design
- Start date
All of those organizations, by the way, solicit funds by fearmongering. Don't act like NHFC is the grifter here.
KBCraig
NES Member
I had a voicemail today from Alan. It was too late after I finished taking care of family business for me to call him back, but I will.
He said he had a call from one of his members, but that he doesn't do any of that social stuff.
Imagine: a regional rep for a major gun rights organization who doesn't "do" social media or forums. That has to be super effective.
AFAR/PFAR
NES Member
Definitely worth engaging to see what his thoughts are and to attempt to show him where some of the pitfalls of 307 are.
If I was an actual GOA member, I would probably reach out to him with my concerns.
I don't think it is a "bad" thing that people in his position want to stay off of social media, but it certainly limits his effectiveness. There is really no reason someone shouldn't be taking advantage of regional gun forums like here and Arf's NH HTF or general regional forums such as city data or even r/newhampshire or r/nhguns on reddit. Obviously there is a different approach to the non gun forums. Example: gun forums rally the base in a non obnoxious way, non gun forums dispute half truths and lies within the "tone" of said board while leveraging a few known good posters to help out.
Rob Boudrie
NES Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 41,989
- Likes
- 22,456
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.
Qwikdraw45
NES Member
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]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
AFAR/PFAR
NES Member
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.
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.
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 [
2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.
AFAR/PFAR
NES Member
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.
NHMA Search HB 307
A couple of recent snippets. The one single word "use" is a big damn deal.
Qwikdraw45
NES Member
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.
strangenh
NES Member
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.
AFAR/PFAR
NES Member
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 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.
Rob Boudrie
NES Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 41,989
- Likes
- 22,456
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)
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)
KBCraig
NES Member
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.
