• 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

design said:
Rumor is that there is yet another amendment in the works...
I think that would be amendment 4, but Susan can tell us how many amendments have been made for this bill
Click to expand...


Are the later amendments making improvements or digging a deeper hole?
 
While it is possible to correct the errors in the bill, I need to see the amendment to review it. I have only been told that there is yet a new[er] amendment forthcoming. If someone gets a copy please post as I have not seen it. If someone is in Avard's district, please ask him for it. If he won't share it, we have a problem.
 
There is a new amendment that has been voted on. Amendment will be posted later.
 

Attachments

  • SB 500 - 2018-0966s.pdf
    73.7 KB · Views: 9
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
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
Yes, the bill is much better at this point. The bill was voted out of committee 5-0 with these changes.

There are potential issues with the hunting/air-gun language as far as I can tell, but other than that point, it is a much improved bill. The Senate heard our voices and made changes... Well done.
 
It is much much better now. This gets my support. JR - no problem with air gun language in it from my POV.

In fact, it mostly removes the need for the air gun bill (HB1575) (the latest amendment to which would make it illegal to hunt with an airgun inside a compact area... more or less creating a crime where previously, in a compact area an airgun was what you were supposed to use on pests...). I suppose HB1575 could command that F&G permit air gun hunting for a broad range of game, but right now, this clearly sets air rifles as a default base method ("gun" covered it before, but it was vague and amateur opinions differed).
 
Last edited:
Neither JR Hoell nor GOA nor NHFC had anything to do with getting SB 500. Their presence is toxic to the Senate. The only "voices" that were heard were the ones in their heads.
 
But, but, but the bill was a good bill just a couple of weeks ago and NHFC was the *Bad* group for exposing the major flaws in the legislation... :)

Bottom line is the bill has been changed for the better and the voices of the gun owners were heard.
No direct ties to 18USC921, no random poorly drafted replacing "gun" with "firearm".
Changes suggested by GONH, GOA and NHFC were adopted.
Inclusion of airgun rules came out of nowhere, but it is better language than we have seen proposed in the House.

Still no answers on why the State needed to change the definition " [force of gun powder] the action of an explosive.

PS. The bill was on the consent calendar for today and passed the Senate on a voice vote.
 
Considering NHFC was a significant portion of this broadcast from two days ago regarding SB500: I figured that the viewers hear might want to listen in. If NHFC were such *nobodies* and did nothing, why take a portion of the broadcast to discuss (criticize) them????

"...The boys over at the Firearms Coalition hated it because there was going to be the Federal definition of firearms used in the bill to replace the existing definition... it came down to quite a, quite a clean fix today.. and one that the Democrats and Republicans could go along with... "
Susan Olsen (Groktalk) 3/7
Gun Rally, Gun Bills, Guns, Guns, Guns. - GraniteGrok

BTW, when have the dems been friends of the 2nd amendment? Did you see their almost unanimous caucus vote in the House to suspend the rules to ban firearms for anyone under 21???
Lastly, and I thought preemption was a bad thing.... After all, HB1749 just put teeth into the current preemption law.

PS. for full disclosure, I am a current NHFC board member.
 
Susan said:
Neither JR Hoell nor GOA nor NHFC had anything to do with getting SB 500. Their presence is toxic to the Senate. The only "voices" that were heard were the ones in their heads.
Click to expand...

Good! I hope they continue to be a thorn in their side.
 
Admin said:
Enough of the personal attacks
Click to expand...
I understand clearly that this is a private site. If fraudulent statements float its boat and are allowed to be used to raise money for other private organizations, well then, knock yourselves out.
 
Neither JR Hoell nor GOA nor NHFC had anything to do with getting SB 500. Their presence is toxic to the Senate. The only "voices" that were heard were the ones in their heads.
Click to expand...

Susan said:
I understand clearly that this is a private site. If fraudulent statements float its boat and are allowed to be used to raise money for other private organizations, well then, knock yourselves out.
Click to expand...

I know you can write more better than that and still get your point across without the personal attacks. [thinking]
 
I would suggest listening to groktalk. Explains Susan’s positions and her hatered for design.
 
RadiCS said:
Here you go: Gun Rally, Gun Bills, Guns, Guns, Guns. - GraniteGrok
Click to expand...

I like how she claims the federal gun free school zone law protects gun owners because it has an exemption for license holders. Ugh, do you, Susan, not understand that if there wasn’t a federal gun free school zone law there wouldn’t need to be an exemption? It’s not that there is a NH RSA prohibiting school carry but a federal exemption of that.

So yeah, it is a strange thing. The strange thing being your lack of logic there.

As for SB500, I’d have to go back and look at the original drafts, but I believe the issue was the proposed definition wasn’t actually a definition, but actually a deference to the federal statute, which has a definition. That is different than defining it using the same definition.

Yep. It said

“Firearm'' shall have the meaning set forth in 18 U.S.C. section 921.

It did not say

“Firearm” shall mean (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; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.

It’s an important difference since 18 USC 921 can change, which then changes NH law. If they used the actual terminology, then if 921 changes it had no impact on NH law. This is what she still seems to have not understood.
 
Last edited:
Amended Senate version went from: (Just in regards to the title of this thread) There were other changes...
(As filed)
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.

to
(As passed out of the Senate)
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] the action of an explosive.

This is not the amendment that was introduced at the Senate hearing. That amendment did not correct this issues. Those issues were corrected because the gun owners got involved!


The concerns of the gun owners where heard in the Senate and the issues with the ties to Federal law were fixed. Thank you to all who took time to get involved. Notice the title of this thread, we can change it now. :)

BTW, there are others on this forum who actually helped draft the language that was adopted, but I will let them choose to take credit if they want.
 
Last edited:
Passed the Senate as amended and the House F&G committee just did their review and gave it an "ought to pass amended" - their amendment is a little different from the Senate's (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/billtext.aspx?sy=2018&txtFormat=amend&id=2018-1255H) but they didn't muck it up too much. I guess if it passes the House with amendment 2018-1255h, it'll go to a committee of conference. It's mostly there and it's still looking 2A-favorable.

The big differences between the two seem to be about allowing a loaded (chambered, ready to fire) long arm in a moving vehicle (Senate: Y to 'have' but not to 'carry', House: N to both), and F&G related changes.
 

Similar threads

Interesting Article on the "Notching" of Firearms to Keep Track of "Kills"
Replies
8
Views
347
clampett
clampett
  • Locked
Groups Sending Congress Gun Control Pleas Via AI-Generated Voices of the Dead
Replies
1
Views
122
Broc
Broc
Falmouth group arguing to destroy surplus LE firearms instead of trade-in
Replies
12
Views
545
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
Why Are Big Sports Leagues Lobbying Congress For Gun Control?
2
Replies
34
Views
1K
fishgutzy
fishgutzy
Washington Transfers Seized Firearms to Ukraine as House GOP Continues Opposition to More Funding
Replies
7
Views
128
Animal357
A
Back
Top Bottom