Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 31

Thread: NH - Constitutional carry up for vote.

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    11,063
    Feedback Score
    41 (98%)
    Not true. McDonald v. Chicago applied the 2nd Amendment to the states.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    CNY
    Posts
    8,465
    Feedback Score
    12 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Belmont31R View Post
    Not true. McDonald v. Chicago applied the 2nd Amendment to the states.
    Sorta... Kinda... But not really...

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    8,848
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by DeltaSierra View Post
    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?
    • formerly known as "eguns-com"
    • M4Carbine required notice/disclaimer: I run eguns.com
    •eguns.com has not been actively promoted in a long time though I still do Dillon special
    orders, etc. and I have random left over inventory.
    •"eguns.com" domain name for sale (not the webstore). Serious enquiries only.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Somewhere...
    Posts
    1,247
    Feedback Score
    21 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by chadbag View Post
    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.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    out west
    Posts
    700
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by DeltaSierra View Post
    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.
    "Oh, its a wonderful day! My sun is shining, my birds are chirping, my humongous chicken defeated Elmo." Huxley

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Somewhere...
    Posts
    1,247
    Feedback Score
    21 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by pilotguyo540 View Post
    Please sir, do not stand up for my rights.
    I'm not exactly sure what you mean here...


    Quote Originally Posted by pilotguyo540 View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by pilotguyo540 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by DeltaSierra; 10-22-11 at 23:14.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    out west
    Posts
    700
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by DeltaSierra View Post
    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.
    "Oh, its a wonderful day! My sun is shining, my birds are chirping, my humongous chicken defeated Elmo." Huxley

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Somewhere...
    Posts
    1,247
    Feedback Score
    21 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by pilotguyo540 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by pilotguyo540 View Post
    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....




    Quote Originally Posted by pilotguyo540 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by DeltaSierra; 10-23-11 at 00:18.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    out west
    Posts
    700
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by DeltaSierra View Post
    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?
    "Oh, its a wonderful day! My sun is shining, my birds are chirping, my humongous chicken defeated Elmo." Huxley

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    AZ-Waging jihad against crappy AR's.
    Posts
    24,900
    Feedback Score
    104 (100%)
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by DeltaSierra View Post
    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.



    Owner/Instructor at Semper Paratus Arms

    Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SemperParatusArms/

    Semper Paratus Arms AR15 Armorer Course http://www.semperparatusarms.com/cou...-registration/

    M4C Misc. Training and Course Announcements- http://www.m4carbine.net/forumdisplay.php?f=141

    Master Armorer/R&D at SIONICS Weapon Systems- http://sionicsweaponsystems.com

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •