PDA

View Full Version : NH - Constitutional carry up for vote.



Irish
04-18-11, 13:04
New Hampshire possible Constitutional carry. (http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2011/04/17/nh_senate_considers_ending_gun_permit_requirement/)

Kfgk14
09-08-11, 16:24
Anybody know where this went, was it passed?

DeltaSierra
09-16-11, 16:54
The bill was vetoed by the Governor, but it was just re-passed with a veto proof majority the other day.




http://www.pgnh.org/nh_house_votes_to_override_governors_veto_of_sb88

http://www.pgnh.org/nh_senate_overrides_governors_sb88_veto_17_to_7

http://www.unionleader.com/article/20110906/NEWS06/709079995

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/newsstatenewengland/931708-227/senators-back-from-break-tackle-vetoes.html

http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/278203/activists-gop-push-for-gun-rights-veto-override?CSAuthResp=1316209979%3A46na2ih812tple6budidshvlv3%3ACSUserId|CSGroupId%3Aapproved%3AE46C59C889BC1335CEC8F6518CD219D1&CSUserId=94&CSGroupId=1

Irish
09-16-11, 17:11
The bill was vetoed by the Governor, but it was just re-passed with a veto proof majority the other day.

The bill takes effect on the 13th of November.

Great news! It sounds like the bill is more for "stand your ground" type of defense than Constitutional carry but definitely good news anyway.

Army Chief
09-16-11, 18:05
The bill was vetoed by the Governor, but it was just re-passed with a veto proof majority the other day.

The bill takes effect on the 13th of November.

Good timing. My NH CCW permit just expired last month. =]

AC

DeltaSierra
09-16-11, 21:31
Great news! It sounds like the bill is more for "stand your ground" type of defense than Constitutional carry but definitely good news anyway.


The Ward Bird case was also considered, and it is now legal for a property owner to display a firearm while attempting to remove a trespasser from the property (not that I would recommend such action unless it was absolutely needed.)

kest_01
09-16-11, 23:23
Very good...one of the reasons that New Hampshire is on my very short list of places that I'm looking at moving to when I retire from the military in 10 or so years..good gun laws and great weather

Irish
10-21-11, 15:53
Update and good news! http://www.unionleader.com/article/20111021/NEWS07/710219987

Belmont31R
10-21-11, 15:57
“To think that government is taking away one of your Second Amendment rights through permitting, I think is ridiculous,” said Cahill, who just ended a term as president of the N.H. Association of Chiefs of Police.




permit=permission=not a right




Glad to see another state moving in the right direction, though. Wish "Texas" would get its shit in order. Last legislative season they made sure to grant law makers unrestricted carry but not for us mere peons. :mad:

DeltaSierra
10-21-11, 19:50
The language in the SB 88 (originally) covered concealed carry without a permit, but somewhere along the line that was removed from the bill. When SB 88 first appeared on the NH General Court website, it specifically stated that no person shall be guilty of a criminal offense for carrying a loaded firearm concealed on their person, or in a motor vehicle without a permit....

I'm not sure what happened....


As far as I am concerned, the NH permit system needs to be completely overhauled, and the permits should be issued through the State Police (thereby allowing NH permits to comply with ATF regulations allowing for a concealed carry permit to exempt a person from the NICS check.)

I am not particularly in favor of the permit-less carry, as we already have way to many people in this state that shouldn't touch a firearm, much less carry one in public....





Good timing. My NH CCW permit just expired last month. =]

AC

Evidently someone edited the bill before it was actually passed... Even the General Court website had put up the (somewhat) original version of the bill, which still contained the wording allowing for carrying without a permit, but now all the versions of the bill that I can find do NOT contain that wording....

Irish
10-22-11, 09:41
I am not particularly in favor of the permit-less carry, as we already have way to many people in this state that shouldn't touch a firearm, much less carry one in public....

Maybe do a little research into states that already have permit-less carry and see if that doesn't change your mind. The fact of the matter is that it causes no additional crime or problems and blood isn't running in the streets. VT, AK, AZ and WY all allow concealed carry without a permit.

The 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution should be all the "permit" anyone needs.

Iraqgunz
10-22-11, 10:36
Why are you against giving the rights back to the people that should have never been taken to begin with?

In my opinion Constitutional Carry is a step forward. If you are a criminal and you are caught you should be hammered.

There is no provision in many states to have training and own a long gun? Stupid people can own them as well.


The language in the SB 88 (originally) covered concealed carry without a permit, but somewhere along the line that was removed from the bill. When SB 88 first appeared on the NH General Court website, it specifically stated that no person shall be guilty of a criminal offense for carrying a loaded firearm concealed on their person, or in a motor vehicle without a permit....

I'm not sure what happened....


As far as I am concerned, the NH permit system needs to be completely overhauled, and the permits should be issued through the State Police (thereby allowing NH permits to comply with ATF regulations allowing for a concealed carry permit to exempt a person from the NICS check.)

I am not particularly in favor of the permit-less carry, as we already have way to many people in this state that shouldn't touch a firearm, much less carry one in public....






Evidently someone edited the bill before it was actually passed... Even the General Court website had put up the (somewhat) original version of the bill, which still contained the wording allowing for carrying without a permit, but now all the versions of the bill that I can find do NOT contain that wording....

chadbag
10-22-11, 13:48
As far as I am concerned, the NH permit system needs to be completely overhauled, and the permits should be issued through the State Police (thereby allowing NH permits to comply with ATF regulations allowing for a concealed carry permit to exempt a person from the NICS check.)



I don't know -- $10 (when I was there) for 5 years, no pics, fingerprints, etc., through your local chief, is pretty compelling.

DeltaSierra
10-22-11, 14:11
I don't know -- $10 (when I was there) for 5 years, no pics, fingerprints, etc., through your local chief, is pretty compelling.

It is a terrible system, trust me.

It is easy to get, but that is just about where the benefits of such a lax system end. It doesn't qualify with the standards ATF has set forth for exempting the holder of a permit from the NICS check. We also have pretty bad reciprocity (when compared with Alaska or Arizona permits.)

The "permit" in this state is nothing more than proof that you paid a tax to allow you to carry a concealed handgun, or a loaded handgun in a vehicle...



Iraqgunz and Irish,

I understand to some degree the benefit of having "Constitutional Carry" but since we pretty much have that already, it won't help anything to have a meaningless permit system, while at the same time having "Constitutional Carry."
Since there are no real requirements to be approved for a permit (other than you cannot have any felonies, or misdemeanors of domestic violence on your record) no one can be denied a permit. If you wanted to make things easier for those of us that have a good reason to carry a firearm, the best solution (considering the overall situation here) would be to allow carry without a permit in-state, and overhaul the permit system so that it would be more restrictive, thereby giving us better reciprocity, and perhaps allow us to be exempted from NICS when we go to buy a weapon. That way, those individuals that feel threatened by a permit system could be free to carry within the state (read, Libertarians that think they should move here, smoke pot, open carry everywhere, run around naked, drink and drive, and generally cause trouble) and those of us that genuinely have a legitimate reason to carry could get a permit that actually meant something, and would make things easier for us...

chadbag
10-22-11, 15:23
It is a terrible system, trust me.


I won't trust you. I find it one of the better ones in the country (excepting Constitutional Carry). (I lived in NH for 5 years and grew up on the NH border in Mass)



It is easy to get, but that is just about where the benefits of such a lax system end. It doesn't qualify with the standards ATF has set forth for exempting the holder of a permit from the NICS check. We also have pretty bad reciprocity (when compared with Alaska or Arizona permits.)


So making people jump through more hoops, pay more money, and giving the government more control and a central CCW database (I don't think the NH ones get out of the local PD) is better because you get some perceived extra privileges from the government?

I'd rather undergo the NICS check each time and have a relatively inexpensive and hassle free and quick (mine took 7 days to get -- I know people who got them in 1 day) was to get a CCW





The "permit" in this state is nothing more than proof that you paid a tax to allow you to carry a concealed handgun, or a loaded handgun in a vehicle...


That is all it is in any state. Why make it more hassle and more expensive than it needs to be.





Iraqgunz and Irish,

I understand to some degree the benefit of having "Constitutional Carry" but since we pretty much have that already, it won't help anything to have a meaningless permit system, while at the same time having "Constitutional Carry."
Since there are no real requirements to be approved for a permit (other than you cannot have any felonies, or misdemeanors of domestic violence on your record) no one can be denied a permit. If you wanted to make things easier for those of us that have a good reason to carry a firearm, the best solution (considering the overall situation here) would be to allow carry without a permit in-state, and overhaul the permit system so that it would be more restrictive, thereby giving us better reciprocity, and perhaps allow us to be exempted from NICS when we go to buy a weapon. That way, those individuals that feel threatened by a permit system could be free to carry within the state (read, Libertarians that think they should move here, smoke pot, open carry everywhere, run around naked, drink and drive, and generally cause trouble) and those of us that genuinely have a legitimate reason to carry could get a permit that actually meant something, and would make things easier for us...

DeltaSierra
10-22-11, 15:43
...and giving the government more control and a central CCW database (I don't think the NH ones get out of the local PD...)

Yes they do get out of the local PD, as all permit information here is entered into a Department of Homeland Security database.

chadbag
10-22-11, 15:55
Yes they do get out of the local PD, as all permit information here is entered into a Department of Homeland Security database.

Is that written in to the law? I am trying to find a reference to it and have failed.

Thanks

DeltaSierra
10-22-11, 16:05
Is that written in to the law? I am trying to find a reference to it and have failed.

Thanks


When DHS gives a PD new computers (this is just one instance that occurred locally) they asked the Chief of Police to give them certain information, and of course since he had just received a nice new laptop from them, he was happy to oblige their request.

As it stands right now, NH drivers licenses are DHS compliant (even though they are not supposed to be according to state law) and the Pistol & Revolver Permits are entered into the DHS database by the local police that receive DHS funding and equipment.

Irish
10-22-11, 18:00
Iraqgunz and Irish,

I understand to some degree the benefit of having "Constitutional Carry" but since we pretty much have that already, it won't help anything to have a meaningless permit system, while at the same time having "Constitutional Carry."
Since there are no real requirements to be approved for a permit (other than you cannot have any felonies, or misdemeanors of domestic violence on your record) no one can be denied a permit. Why should they be denied? If you wanted to make things easier for those of us that have a good reason to carry a firearm, the best solution (considering the overall situation here) would be to allow carry without a permit in-state, and overhaul the permit system so that it would be more restrictive, thereby giving us better reciprocity, and perhaps allow us to be exempted from NICS when we go to buy a weapon. That way, those individuals that feel threatened by a permit system could be free to carry within the state (read, Libertarians that think they should move here, smoke pot, open carry everywhere, run around naked, drink and drive, and generally cause trouble) and those of us that genuinely have a legitimate reason to carry could get a permit that actually meant something, and would make things easier for us...

Posed a question in red but the 2 bold statements definitely don't jive with the 2nd Amendment or living in a free country. Honestly it sounds like stuff you'd hear from the Brady group.

DeltaSierra
10-22-11, 18:18
Irish,

There are certain things that are regulated, for the safety of the community in which you live. If the State in which you live wants to place certain restrictions on firearms (or anything else for that matter) they can do so, as the Constitution of the United States originally applied to the Federal Government and not to the States.


The Federal Government should have a hands-off approach on this issue, but if a State requires a permit, then so be it.

Belmont31R
10-22-11, 18:23
Not true. McDonald v. Chicago applied the 2nd Amendment to the states.

Irish
10-22-11, 18:26
Not true. McDonald v. Chicago applied the 2nd Amendment to the states.

Sorta... Kinda... But not really...

chadbag
10-22-11, 22:09
When DHS gives a PD new computers (this is just one instance that occurred locally) they asked the Chief of Police to give them certain information, and of course since he had just received a nice new laptop from them, he was happy to oblige their request.

As it stands right now, NH drivers licenses are DHS compliant (even though they are not supposed to be according to state law) and the Pistol & Revolver Permits are entered into the DHS database by the local police that receive DHS funding and equipment.

Is this sharing of data allowed by NH law?

Can this be proved? Why is no one suing to stop it?

DeltaSierra
10-22-11, 22:40
Is this sharing of data allowed by NH law?

Can this be proved? Why is no one suing to stop it?

It is not publicized, and there is no way to "prove" this. No PD is going to admit to doing this, but it is common practice for the Feds to get some sort of kickback when they give out equipment.

There is no point to suing anyone in this State. Whenever a corruption case goes to the AG, it is dismissed, so it is just a waste of time and effort.

pilotguyo540
10-22-11, 22:52
Irish,

There are certain things that are regulated, for the safety of the community in which you live. If the State in which you live wants to place certain restrictions on firearms (or anything else for that matter) they can do so, as the Constitution of the United States originally applied to the Federal Government and not to the States.


The Federal Government should have a hands-off approach on this issue, but if a State requires a permit, then so be it.

Please sir, do not stand up for my rights. Just out of curiosity, what do you consider a legitimate reason to have a firearm? What makes your reason worth a damn and someone else's worthless? To me, "just because," should be more than adequate.

I don't trust my government if it does trust its people. "We the people," is no longer inclusive of the government.

DeltaSierra
10-22-11, 23:13
Please sir, do not stand up for my rights.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean here...




Just out of curiosity, what do you consider a legitimate reason to have a firearm? What makes your reason worth a damn and someone else's worthless? To me, "just because," should be more than adequate.

To own a firearm, and to carry a firearm in public are two totally separate issues.

If you need to carry a weapon for the "just because" factor, you don't really have much of a life. If you carry a firearm to defend yourself from injury or death, and train so that you can effectively use the weapon in the event of a scenario that would justify the use of deadly force to prevent harm to yourself or another, that would, in my mind be suitable cause for the issuance of a permit.


Instead of the overly simplified, and extremely "redneck" approach to firearms, why not be honest with yourself about why you choose to carry a weapon.

I deal regularly with the "I want ______ because I can" crowd, and none of them EVER practices with their weapon, but they carry "just in case" they can have the opportunity get into a gun fight.




I don't trust my government if it does trust its people. "We the people," is no longer inclusive of the government.

I don't trust the Government either, but I am a whole lot less concerned with them knowing what I have, than I am with half of the idiots that are issued permits...

If you own weapons that fall under the purview of the NFA, you are required to pay a tax, and register your weapons with the Federal Government, and I don't see anyone screaming about that, yet the slightest mention of the fact that the State permit requirements are on the lax side, and I am suddenly a Stalinist...

I'm not even suggesting that weapons should be registered, and by no means do I like Government regulation, but we live in a complicated society that does not teach people to be responsible.

pilotguyo540
10-22-11, 23:58
I'm not exactly sure what you mean here...




To own a firearm, and to carry a firearm in public are two totally separate issues.

If you need to carry a weapon for the "just because" factor, you don't really have much of a life. If you carry a firearm to defend yourself from injury or death, and train so that you can effectively use the weapon in the event of a scenario that would justify the use of deadly force to prevent harm to yourself or another, that would, in my mind be suitable cause for the issuance of a permit.


Instead of the overly simplified, and extremely "redneck" approach to firearms, why not be honest with yourself about why you choose to carry a weapon.

I deal regularly with the "I want ______ because I can" crowd, and none of them EVER practices with their weapon, but they carry "just in case" they can have the opportunity get into a gun fight.




I don't trust the Government either, but I am a whole lot less concerned with them knowing what I have, than I am with half of the idiots that are issued permits...

If you own weapons that fall under the purview of the NFA, you are required to pay a tax, and register your weapons with the Federal Government, and I don't see anyone screaming about that, yet the slightest mention of the fact that the State permit requirements are on the lax side, and I am suddenly a Stalinist...

I'm not even suggesting that weapons should be registered, and by no means do I like Government regulation, but we live in a complicated society that does not teach people to be responsible.

I train, I know others who do as well, and I know plenty who do not. I don't consider all training equal or even adequate, and I don't consider everyone who does not train to be inept, uneducated, or a redneck. It should not be the governments job to choose who gets to excersize what rights.

People should be up in arms over the NFA requirements, but in our political reality, we must pick our battles.

I think you found the root cause of the problem. Society has sheltered people from responsibility. Safey has trumped liberty in this aspect. People should learn consequence, and grow stronger.

DeltaSierra
10-23-11, 00:12
I don't consider all training equal or even adequate, and I don't consider everyone who does not train to be inept, uneducated, or a redneck.

Well, I for one don't like dealing with individuals that are a potential threat to me based on the fact that they don't bother to learn how to properly handle the weapon that they carry to "defend" themselves with.



It should not be the governments job to choose who gets to excersize what rights.


But you don't mind the fact that certain people cannot meet the requirements to get a drivers license to operate a motor vehicle when all persons have the right to free travel.

In order to operate a motor vehicle, you are required to demonstrate reasonable proficiency in operating that vehicle. If you cannot operate the vehicle with some level of expertise, you cannot drive on public property (the roads,) yet, according to the courts, persons have a right to free travel....






I think you found the root cause of the problem. Society has sheltered people from responsibility. Safey has trumped liberty in this aspect. People should learn consequence, and grow stronger.

The issue here is that at this point in time there in no way to get back to what we once had as a society.

I have thought on this issue quite a bit, and can't figure out any possible way for our society to go back to some level of personal responsibility considering our current litigious condition as a nation.

pilotguyo540
10-23-11, 08:32
Well, I for one don't like dealing with individuals that are a potential threat to me based on the fact that they don't bother to learn how to properly handle the weapon that they carry to "defend" themselves with.



But you don't mind the fact that certain people cannot meet the requirements to get a drivers license to operate a motor vehicle when all persons have the right to free travel.

In order to operate a motor vehicle, you are required to demonstrate reasonable proficiency in operating that vehicle. If you cannot operate the vehicle with some level of expertise, you cannot drive on public property (the roads,) yet, according to the courts, persons have a right to free travel....






The issue here is that at this point in time there in no way to get back to what we once had as a society.

I have thought on this issue quite a bit, and can't figure out any possible way for our society to go back to some level of personal responsibility considering our current litigious condition as a nation.

Everyone is a potential risk. Learn what to look for to minimize risk. There are a lot of things that I don't like dealing with, but tough shit for me. Life is not fair, and bad things happen to good people. We must learn to accept that once again.

I never said I approve or disapprove of driving restrictions.

I think we need to end class action lawsuits for starters. I would also like to see so many of these nanny laws removed. Why are liberals always the first to interfere with Darwin's basic principals?

Iraqgunz
10-23-11, 12:55
We are free to travel, but there is no constitutional right to have a license or a vehicle. You can walk, ride a bike, public transpo, etc..

But, we do have a right to "keep and bear arms". In my book that means have and carry them.


Well, I for one don't like dealing with individuals that are a potential threat to me based on the fact that they don't bother to learn how to properly handle the weapon that they carry to "defend" themselves with.



But you don't mind the fact that certain people cannot meet the requirements to get a drivers license to operate a motor vehicle when all persons have the right to free travel.

In order to operate a motor vehicle, you are required to demonstrate reasonable proficiency in operating that vehicle. If you cannot operate the vehicle with some level of expertise, you cannot drive on public property (the roads,) yet, according to the courts, persons have a right to free travel....






The issue here is that at this point in time there in no way to get back to what we once had as a society.

I have thought on this issue quite a bit, and can't figure out any possible way for our society to go back to some level of personal responsibility considering our current litigious condition as a nation.

Irish
02-01-12, 11:47
UPDATE: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49134

New Hampshire could soon become one of the most pro-gun states in the country – a sanctuary where the Constitution is paramount and Americans don’t need the government’s permission to exercise their God-given rights.

The bill is House Bill 536, sponsored by state Rep. J. R. Hoell, and it has already passed the House. The issue is “constitutional carry” – a concept which recognizes that Americans have the Second Amendment right to carry firearms without getting the government’s permission.

Granite Staters would still be able to get a concealed carry license – for the purpose of thwarting the Brady Law and unsafe school zones, and securing reciprocity with other states.

But the constitutional right of Granite Staters to carry concealed would not be conditioned on that license.

In addition, House Bill 536 would make a few additional improvements in firearms law, including extending the term to five years and explicitly prohibiting law enforcement from demanding more information than is required by this bill.