NHFC was just made aware of a last minute amendment that will tie our state firearms definitions to federal law. While this is going on locally, the ATF is busy making changes in rules on firearms and there were already issues with the federal definition.
Why in the heck would we do this?
They will be voting on May 5th. Call the NH Senate ASAP at 603-271-2111 and demand that the Senators oppose amendment 2022-1807s.
Threads on why tying to federal law is a bad idea:
Dear New Hampshire Senators,
Please see our attached letter opposing the definition change regarding 'firearms' being proposed in HB490.
We will be watching this vote and grading on this vote. We also ask that you role call both the vote on the adoption of this amendment as well as passage of the bill if amended.
The citizens in New Hampshire deserve to know which legislators are working against thie second amendment rights while in office.
Regards,
NHFC
______________________________________
Attached letter:
Dear Senators,
We were just made aware of a last-minute Senate amendment to HB490 attempting to tie our state definition of ‘firearms’ to Federal law. In 2018, NHFC, Inc. clearly opposed a similar change. The definition of firearms in our statutes has always been better then Federal law.
Tying New Hampshire statutes to Federal law, even when a date is included is simply bad legislative practice and in the case of definitions, will cause harm to gun owners as evidenced in the recent court case.
We ask that you oppose amendment 2022-1807s and if you want to correct something, undue the faulty definition in RSA 173-B that was modified in SB500.
324:2 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.
As we mentioned in 2018 when the Senate attempted this last time, this is an extremely bad idea. Had SB500 been defeated, the recent issues regarding definition of firearm in case law could have been avoided. Had the legislators not messed with the definition several years ago, we would be better off.
Why in the heck would we do this?
They will be voting on May 5th. Call the NH Senate ASAP at 603-271-2111 and demand that the Senators oppose amendment 2022-1807s.
Threads on why tying to federal law is a bad idea:
NH: SB500, Giving control of our firearms definition to Congress
Guys, Heads up. Although the sponsors have been good in the past, [they sponsored Constitutional Carry last year], they seem to have lost their way, or were given some really BAD advice. Maybe a polite phone call to them to remind them that this is a horrible idea: SENATE BILL 500 AN ACT...
www.northeastshooters.com
ATF definition of firearm is faulty
The ATF's Definition of an AR-15 Lower as a 'Firearm' Is In Serious Trouble - The Truth About Guns interesting hush-hush bureaucracy at its finest.
www.northeastshooters.com
Dear New Hampshire Senators,
Please see our attached letter opposing the definition change regarding 'firearms' being proposed in HB490.
We will be watching this vote and grading on this vote. We also ask that you role call both the vote on the adoption of this amendment as well as passage of the bill if amended.
The citizens in New Hampshire deserve to know which legislators are working against thie second amendment rights while in office.
Regards,
NHFC
______________________________________
Attached letter:
Dear Senators,
We were just made aware of a last-minute Senate amendment to HB490 attempting to tie our state definition of ‘firearms’ to Federal law. In 2018, NHFC, Inc. clearly opposed a similar change. The definition of firearms in our statutes has always been better then Federal law.
Tying New Hampshire statutes to Federal law, even when a date is included is simply bad legislative practice and in the case of definitions, will cause harm to gun owners as evidenced in the recent court case.
We ask that you oppose amendment 2022-1807s and if you want to correct something, undue the faulty definition in RSA 173-B that was modified in SB500.
324:2 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 [
As we mentioned in 2018 when the Senate attempted this last time, this is an extremely bad idea. Had SB500 been defeated, the recent issues regarding definition of firearm in case law could have been avoided. Had the legislators not messed with the definition several years ago, we would be better off.
Last edited: