Getting threatened by someone who uses a pseudonym...nice.
No threat, I'm a voter. Just remember that. I know I will.
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 February Giveaway ***Canik TP9SF Elite***
Getting threatened by someone who uses a pseudonym...nice.
XI. "Firearm'' [means any weapon, including a starter gun, which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by force of gunpowder] shall have the meaning set forth in 18 U.S.C. section 921.
It already exists in NH statute and has since at least 2000. NHFC has never introduced legislation to change it. SB 500 would actually bracket it to a much more constrained definition than the one below...Susan, I think people acknowledge that there is some good in this bill as you stated but everyone has a problem with this:
Considering NH has always been more 2A friendly - why would we give them the power to define what firearm is?
For me, this out weighs any good in this bill.
JR, some 2A groups actually understand it and want "suitable person" completely and utterly and forever removed from statute, but maybe NHFC is OK with the NH Fish and Game Commissioner keeping the discretionary and discriminating authority.Rumor is that some 2A groups like this bill, where is that information posted?
And since I'm a private citizen, you can vote against me all you want.No threat, I'm a voter. Just remember that. I know I will.
Susan, I think that's a little overstated regarding how we already use the federal definition and how NHFC hasn't tried to change that, given the definition is limited to that one section. If anything, in that section NH is especially not making a special case out of taking a BP gun from an officer (which using NH's own definition in that section would include). In other sections, the NH definition is significantly more pro-gun, not to mention reliable. Other things SB500 inadvertently does is criminalize taking vermin with air guns and BP firearms, in the 1st case by replacing "gun" with "firearm," and then in the second by tying that to the federal definition of "firearm." There are a lot of unintended consequences to this bill. It really should be broken down into smaller, topic-specific bills rather than trying an "all at once" omnibus.It already exists in NH statute and has since at least 2000. NHFC has never introduced legislation to change it. SB 500 would actually bracket it to a much more constrained definition than the one below...
642:3-a Taking a Firearm From a Law Enforcement Officer. –
I. Whoever knowingly takes a firearm:
(a) From the person of a law enforcement officer, while such officer is engaged in the performance of official duties; and
(b) Against that officer's will; or attempts to do so, shall be punished as provided in paragraph II.
II. The punishment for an offense under this section is:
(a) In the case of an offense other than an attempt, or an offense that is an attempt during which the firearm is discharged (other than intentionally by the officer), a class A felony; and
(b) In the case of any other offense that is an attempt, a class B felony.
V. In this section:
(a) "Firearm'' has the meaning given that term in section 921 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
(b) "Law enforcement officer'' means law enforcement officer as defined in RSA 630:1, II.
Source. 1999, 166:1, eff. Jan. 1, 2000.
Susan, I think that's a little overstated regarding how we already use the federal definition and how NHFC hasn't tried to change that, given the definition is limited to that one section. If anything, in that section NH is especially not making a special case out of taking a BP gun from an officer (which using NH's own definition in that section would include). In other sections, the NH definition is significantly more pro-gun, not to mention reliable. Other things SB500 inadvertently does is criminalize taking vermin with air guns and BP firearms, in the 1st case by replacing "gun" with "firearm," and then in the second by tying that to the federal definition of "firearm." There are a lot of unintended consequences to this bill. It really should be broken down into smaller, topic-specific bills rather than trying an "all at once" omnibus.
Omnibus pro-gun bills have been put forward before, by NHFC people. They always fail - both for political reasons, and for reasons of unintended consequences due to complexity, like with this bill. NHFC now wisely backs section-focused, targeted bills, as have other NH pro-gun organizations in the past.
SB500 is a bunch of good ideas in a package that has negative effects. If your idea of pro-gun activism is to throw some people under the bus to make gains elsewhere, well, then, I can't support your idea of pro-gun activism. Small steps forward with no steps back - occasionally larger steps forward, but still no steps back. No "trades" that hurt some of us to benefit others.
Some people may not know who Susan is but she has done alot of good for the 2A in NH. She does fight tirelessly for our side on this matter. (Unless I have the wrong Susan).No threat, I'm a voter. Just remember that. I know I will.
JR, some 2A groups actually understand it and want "suitable person" completely and utterly and forever removed from statute, but maybe NHFC is OK with the NH Fish and Game Commissioner keeping the discretionary and discriminating authority.
Some people may not know who Susan is but she has done alot of good for the 2A in NH. She does fight tirelessly for our side on this matter. (Unless I have the wrong Susan).
I think we can debate this without being rude to each other.
Hello, JR. Many of us choose not to pull our dresses over our heads in advance of meeting the opposition.Hi Ms. Susan,
Welcome to NES.
Please point me to public links or documents that show groups supporting SB500 as introduced.
GONH website and FB have nothing, latest legislative update from 2016
WDLNH website and FB have nothing regarding SB500
PGNH website, latest update from 2016
GRAA: Latest update from 2017 regarding HR38
So far, there have been no posts that I have found supporting this bill.
For the record at least two groups have come out in opposition to this bill as there are many unintended consequences from this legislation.
-Design
Hello, JR. Still looking for all your bills the change the definition existing in statute.... Still looking for an answer as to which groups are supporting this well crafted bill that took months to put together.
At least this bill wasn't one bought and paid for an outside, Washington DC mothership like NHFC's, tho I guess all your big mailers and advertising were.... Still looking for an answer as to which groups are supporting this well crafted bill that took months to put together.
At least this bill wasn't one bought and paid for an outside, Washington DC mothership like NHFC's, tho I guess all your big mailers and advertising were.
Like the mailer I got, JR.
At least this bill wasn't one bought and paid for an outside, Washington DC mothership like NHFC's, tho I guess all your big mailers and advertising were.
Which, JR?Miss Susan, It is still nno clear what you mean by this. Please explain.
Kevin, I was unaware you are a spokesperson for NHFC. Congratulations and good to know. You ought to suggest to them they should introduce a bill to remove it.Welcome to NES, Susan. But, be prepared: you will not find many here who are tolerant of the insider approach. Most prefer straightforward legislation that deals with on topic, and does so wisely, by removing language instead of adding language that has terrible consequences.
The goal of SB 500 is laudable. NHFC certainly supports the goal, but there is no good reason to tie the definition of "firearm" to the federal definition; and, there are many good reasons not to. Pointing out that the link already exists for one very specific crime is a misdirection from the fact that expanding it to the entire body of NH statutes would be a very bad idea.
I don't believe the bill HAS been introduced. Maybe you got a copy of a draft from legislative services but...I believe only the committee of jurisdiction has been determined. But then, you're a state representative, you probably know the process...right? And you already have copies of the draft........Again I ask, can anyone point me to a group supporting SB500 as introduced. I'm being told it is a good bill. I would like to hear their arguments in favor of this legislation.
Absent any evidence, I must conclude that the bill as filed is flawed and should be withdrawn. Tying NH statutes to federal law in all places where the word "firearm" is used is a very bad idea.
Some people may not know who Susan is but she has done alot of good for the 2A in NH. She does fight tirelessly for our side on this matter. (Unless I have the wrong Susan).
I think we can debate this without being rude to each other.
Take a deep breath, grab a dictionary and Strunk and White's book on grammar, consider learning how to diagram a sentence, let go of NHFC's skirt, call me back.Susan, merely because one group has not tried to do something this bill also does not try to do, doesn't mean this bill is right. I think you should look up "red herring."
This bill criminalizes everyday, ordinary, reasonable, legal behavior. It needs an overhaul or it needs to be broken up into more specific bills.
Susan, do you support criminalizing varmint hunting with airguns? Do you support tying bowhunting to federal law about firearms access? That's what this bill does.
Yes it does other things, several of which are excellent.
It also needlessly takes several steps back in exchange for steps forward.
Susan, why would you support doing that? Do you or this bill's supporters have amendments ready to remedy the issues? These are real issues.
I'm an undeclared voter.RINO
Glad you're digging keeping "suitable person" alive and well. Hunters will be thrilled. Not.Susan, maybe you have not seen this link:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/billText.aspx?sy=2018&id=1812&txtFormat=html
Just in case you cannot see this, I have copied the text fully for all to see:
SB 500 - AS INTRODUCED
2018 SESSION
18-2796
04/10
SENATE BILL 500
AN ACT amending references to firearms terminology.
SPONSORS: Sen. Avard, Dist 12; Sen. Bradley, Dist 3
COMMITTEE: Judiciary
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANALYSIS This bill amends certain references to firearm to make them consistent with federal law. The bill also removes the prohibition of carrying a loaded rifle or shotgun in or on a stationary motor vehicle, OHRV, snowmobile, or aircraft.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]
Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.
18-2796
04/
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Eighteen
AN ACT amending references to firearms terminology.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 Pistols and Revolvers. Amend RSA 159:12, II(a) to read as follows:
(a) Fathers, mothers, grandparents, guardians, administrators or executors who give a pistol or revolver to their children or wards or to heirs to an estate.
2 Protection of Persons From Domestic Violence; Definitions. Amend RSA 173-B:1, XI to read as follows:
XI. "Firearm'' [means any weapon, including a starter gun, which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by force of gunpowder] shall have the meaning set forth in 18 U.S.C. section 921.
3 General Provisions as to Fish and Game; Lawful Methods of Taking. Amend RSA 207:3, I to read as follows:
I. Wildlife shall be taken in the daytime between 1/2 hour before sunrise and 1/2 hour after sunset with a [gun] firearm fired at arm's length or bow and arrow, unless otherwise specifically permitted.
4 Hunting From Motor Vehicle, OHRV, Snowmobile, Boat, or Aircraft. Amend RSA 207:7, II-IV to read as follows:
II. No person shall [have or] carry, in or on a motor vehicle, OHRV, snowmobile, or aircraft, [whether] when moving [or stationary], a cocked crossbow, a loaded rifle or loaded shotgun, or a rifle or shotgun with a cartridge in a magazine or clip attached to the [gun] rifle or shotgun.
III. No person shall have in or on a boat or other craft while being propelled by mechanical power, or in a boat or other craft being towed by a boat or other craft propelled by mechanical power, a cocked crossbow, a loaded rifle or loaded shotgun, or a rifle or shotgun with a cartridge in a magazine or clip attached to the [gun] rifle or shotgun.
IV. The provisions of this section shall not apply to law enforcement officers carrying [guns] a firearm in the line of duty.
5 Game Animals; Bow and Arrow. Amend RSA 208:5, V to read as follows:
V. The licensee shall [not] be entitled to carry any firearms while hunting under the provisions of this section, unless such licensee [also possesses a valid firearms hunting license or a valid license to carry firearms issued pursuant to RSA 159] is prohibited by state or federal law from carrying a firearm.
6 Hunting, Fishing, Trapping; Refusing Licenses. Amend RSA 214:17 to read as follows:
214:17 Refusing Licenses; Appeal. The executive director and his agents shall refuse to issue any license to hunt if it appears that the applicant is [not a suitable person to carry firearms] prohibited by state or federal law from carrying a firearm. Any person who has been refused a license by an agent shall have the right of appeal to the executive director, whose decision, given after hearing, shall be final. Any attempt to secure a license from another agency, after having been refused by an agency and before appealing to the executive director, and any attempt to secure a license from any source in the same year that the executive director, on appeal, has decided that the applicant is not a suitable person to carry firearms, shall be a violation of the provisions of this chapter.
7 Repeal. RSA 214:18, relative to the executive director's authority to suspend or revoke the license of a physically or mentally improper or incompetent person, is repealed.
8 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.