Actually, HB 1749 was unconstitutional as it was introduced. Sadly, rather than admit his mistake, the sponsor of the bill went on a rampage accusing any and all of not taking unwritten and unseen "amendments" on faith all manner of disparaging names, wearing out what little good will he had left in the House as evidenced by the overwhelming - 239-71 - vote to send it to interim study. When H.L. Mencken said "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins....", he had no idea how accurate he was....Has the gravitational field of the earth flipped or something equally disruptive in the universe happened?
Informing constituents that their reps/sens are doing "Bad Things"/going against their word is now political terrorism
Trying to hold political persons accountable via penalties WHEN they act in BAD FAITH and fail to follow law and in doing so violate the rights of citizens is bad (HB1749)
![[sad]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/004.gif "Sad [sad]")
-
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.
NH: SB500, Giving control of our firearms definition to Congress
- Thread starter design
- Start date
Has anyone seen a positive recommendation on SB500? I have been looking and I have not found any group supporting a bill that yields our firearms definitions over to Congress. Just image the likes of Kuster and Hassan redefining the meaning of firearms..
BTW, just adopting those definitions has its own set of issues. Why do we want to treat suppressors as firearms?
-design
BTW, just adopting those definitions has its own set of issues. Why do we want to treat suppressors as firearms?
-design
ChevyGuy91
NES Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2008
- Messages
- 22,915
- Likes
- 23,485
I am honestly so confused by the bickering back and forth on this issue I am not even sure what the original intention of this bill was. After reading these threads, and the posts on all the NH gun FB groups, all I can deduce is that I don't want the feds to have any more control then they already have.
I hate to sound like some kind of mush-head, but some cohesion from everyone involved on these issues would be nice.
kingfisher
NES Member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,622
- Likes
- 2,458
Agreed.
Could someone verify that we can carry concealed into this State House hearing? I'm planning to be there, but I don't want to surprised by a metal detector.
I've also heard that it's unconstitutional but no one has explained how it's unconstitutional.
Now to say that our legislature sent this to committee because it unconstitutional is laughable. Most of the stuff that they pass is unconstitutional but it doesn't seem to deter them from passing. Sounds like protecting their own.
ChevyGuy91
NES Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2008
- Messages
- 22,915
- Likes
- 23,485
I was heavy last hearing I attended.
As introduced SB 500 infringes our rights by changing RSA 173-B to use the definition of "firearm" in federal law. That has the side effect of taking control of that RSA from the legislature. It serves no useful purpose in RSA 173-B on domestic violence. Other sections take half measures in other areas such as the onerous parts of RSA 207:7 and, strangely, removing "suitable person" language in RSA 214:17 and leaving it in another part of the same paragraph.
Altogether it looks hastily drawn and ill conceived. As introduced I oppose it because it does more harm than good.
KBCraig
NES Member
Well, there's a group of two. You know who they are.
The prime sponsor turned in an amended version of the bill and the co-sponsor did not show up to testify... Several people noted the issues about the ties to federal statutes.
Will post the proposed amendment as soon I can
Will post the proposed amendment as soon I can
The complete audio file of the NH Senate Judiciary Hearing on NH SB 500, February 13, 2018 can be found here:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/senateaudio/committees/2018/Jud/SB0500_02132018.asx or by going to the bill status media file page here and clicking on "February 13, 2018"
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bil...=&txtsessionyear=2018&txtbillnumber=SB500&q=1
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/senateaudio/committees/2018/Jud/SB0500_02132018.asx or by going to the bill status media file page here and clicking on "February 13, 2018"
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bil...=&txtsessionyear=2018&txtbillnumber=SB500&q=1
This is what is currently in NH RSA:
642:3-a
(a) "Firearm'' has the meaning given that term in section 921 of Title 18 of the United States Code
This is what is proposed:
“Firearm” shall have the meaning set forth in 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(3) (A) as written on January 1, 2018.
And this is 18 U.S.C (a)(3)(A):
The term “firearm” means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive, as of January 1, 2018.
strangenh
NES Member
Susan, thanks for bringing up that the bill sponsors are open to other suggested changes from testimony. I wish I could have made it to the hearing; critical work events came up. One thing this bill (and I have the initial filed amendment now) does is modify RSA 207:3 to remove the gun in "gun at arms length" and replace it with ["firearm" in one version, and "firearm or muzzleloader" in the initial proposed amendment]. That seems to be one of those "while we're at it" changes that I think could and should be dropped from the bill. Here's why, and I hope you'll consider it with an open mind:
RSA 207:3,I is primarily a default restriction on mode of use, not mechanism of taking. The regulations cover mechanism of taking. It is intended (historically) to require that a hunter be in direct control of the hunting device, not to specify the type. For example, it prohibits any kind of gun used with a string pull on the trigger (an historically common poaching-over-bait method), among any other use not "at arms length." It's essentially a safety rule. The word "gun" there is intentionally open to apply to anything as a broad safety measure; but changing it would actually be a restrictive move - no matter what new definition is used. In effect it spells out the default minimums. I hope perhaps this change to 207:3 can just be dropped; even the addition of muzzleloader would take (the now-legal) breach-loading BP guns, antique modern guns, and air guns out of legal use (and yes, despite current chatter, air guns are currently legal in NH for hunting non-game, non-regulated wildlife, like groundhogs - and 207:3 applies to ALL wildlife).
Thanks again.
RSA 207:3,I is primarily a default restriction on mode of use, not mechanism of taking. The regulations cover mechanism of taking. It is intended (historically) to require that a hunter be in direct control of the hunting device, not to specify the type. For example, it prohibits any kind of gun used with a string pull on the trigger (an historically common poaching-over-bait method), among any other use not "at arms length." It's essentially a safety rule. The word "gun" there is intentionally open to apply to anything as a broad safety measure; but changing it would actually be a restrictive move - no matter what new definition is used. In effect it spells out the default minimums. I hope perhaps this change to 207:3 can just be dropped; even the addition of muzzleloader would take (the now-legal) breach-loading BP guns, antique modern guns, and air guns out of legal use (and yes, despite current chatter, air guns are currently legal in NH for hunting non-game, non-regulated wildlife, like groundhogs - and 207:3 applies to ALL wildlife).
Thanks again.
To those following this thread, NHFC received a copy of the submitted Avard amendment and the post above is incorrect. The amendment did not just reference:
This is what is proposed:
“Firearm” shall have the meaning set forth in 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(3) (A) as written on January 1, 2018.
The section is actually 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(3) as written on January 1, 2018. ( Note the subparagraph about just firearms "(A)" was not included) To quote the Former Senator that testified about a former conversation with the NHSC Justice . "If that is what you meant, you should have written it that way, I interpret the law, not the intentions you may have had, you need to be clear and concise..."
The amendment does add the date clause, but does NOT strip out the ties to frames receivers, or suppressors. The amendment also adds this language to another section of our statutes. If Ray Buckley had filed this bill, everyone would be fighting it, but some want to give a pass as a republican filed the bill. Both parties have hurt the gun owners, and if you do not believe me, look at how long HR38 has been sitting in the Congress. Just parking in the wrong spot at the Pheasant lane could get you arrested. See this story for more details about being over the line. http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/images/stories/journal/2009/Network-2009-12.pdf
NHFC will post a copy of this amendment on our website tonight. Pease check our alert regarding SB500
This is what is proposed:
“Firearm” shall have the meaning set forth in 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(3) (A) as written on January 1, 2018.
The section is actually 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(3) as written on January 1, 2018. ( Note the subparagraph about just firearms "(A)" was not included) To quote the Former Senator that testified about a former conversation with the NHSC Justice . "If that is what you meant, you should have written it that way, I interpret the law, not the intentions you may have had, you need to be clear and concise..."
The amendment does add the date clause, but does NOT strip out the ties to frames receivers, or suppressors. The amendment also adds this language to another section of our statutes. If Ray Buckley had filed this bill, everyone would be fighting it, but some want to give a pass as a republican filed the bill. Both parties have hurt the gun owners, and if you do not believe me, look at how long HR38 has been sitting in the Congress. Just parking in the wrong spot at the Pheasant lane could get you arrested. See this story for more details about being over the line. http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/images/stories/journal/2009/Network-2009-12.pdf
NHFC will post a copy of this amendment on our website tonight. Pease check our alert regarding SB500
Agreed. ITL.
You left out the preface to that definition:
I don't think anybody here has an issue with using the Federal definition in a section titled "Taking a Firearm From a Law Enforcement Officer", we're more concerned with everywhere else in the RSAs that SB500 proposes changes.642:3-a said:
