NRA Threatens Constitutional Carry in New Hampshire


PDA






jahwarrior
May 12, 2011, 08:47 PM
http://pgnh.org/nra_pushes_gun_control_jeopardizes_constitutional_carry

NRA PUSHES GUN CONTROL – JEOPARDIZES CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY

[Posted Monday, May 9, 2011, at 9:00 a.m.] The following message was emailed to all members of Pro-Gun New Hampshire this morning:

Dear PGNH member:
We've sent you emails before urging you to contact your state rep or state senator on some piece of legislation, but this is the most serious request we've ever sent.

The Constitutional Carry bill, HB330, passed the NH House of Representatives by a vote of 244 to 109, and is now in the Senate. You'd think it would be a slam dunk, but... remember the old adage about "too many cooks in the kitchen spoil the broth"? Well, the NRA rep, John Hohenwarter, and GO-NH, are urging the Senate to "amend" HB330 by replacing it with a completely different version. Their version attempts to make our carry licenses more difficult to obtain by adding new mandatory requirements, and actually creates new gun control, particularly with regard to minors! Further, they would have this legislation proceed without a public hearing -- "in the dark." But never mind these things: what's most important is that the House HAS ALREADY REJECTED this version -- so if the Senate foolishly adopts it (or makes any other changes to the House version, which took a lot of work to create), then the entire bill dies. That means that all the work that went into it will have been wasted, and New Hampshire will lose its opportunity to pass Constitutional Carry. It would be a shame if we lost gun rights not because of pro-gun versus anti-gun arguments, but just because of personal politics.

The Senate votes on this next Wednesday, May 11. PLEASE call or email your state senator before then and leave a message asking him or her to pass the Constitutional Carry bill, HB330, THE WAY IT CAME OUT OF THE HOUSE, without further amendments. (Your message should include your name and address, which will confirm that you're a constituent of the senator.)
Here's how to find your state senator: http://gencourt.state.nh.us/Senate/members/wml.aspx

Please call Chris Cox at the NRA-ILA at (800) 392-VOTE (8683) and tell him that you are not happy with the NRA’s misguided meddling.

Again, this is the most important request we've ever sent. All you have to do is leave a short message, or email, to your state senator before Wednesday. Thanks!


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is the complete text of the NRA-submitted legislation. (We have X-ed out the identity of the State Senator whom the NRA rep persuaded to submit it.) TEXT BETWEEN SQUARE BRACKETS -- [xxxx] -- represents portions of the existing statute that are to be DELETED . Text in bold italics indicates new text to be ADDED. The "Amended Analysis" is written by the New Hampshire Office of Legislative Services.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sen. XXXX, Dist. XX

April 20, 2011

2011-1504s

04/09


Amendment to HB 330-FN


Amend the bill by replacing all after the enacting clause with the following:


*1 Pistols and Revolvers; License to Carry. Amend RSA 159:6 to read as follows:

159:6 License to Carry.

I. The selectmen of a town or the mayor or chief of police of a city or some full-time police officer designated by them respectively, upon application of any resident of such town or city, or the director of state police, or some person designated by such director, upon application of a nonresident, shall issue a license to such applicant [authorizing the applicant to carry] for the carrying of a loaded pistol or revolver in this state for [not less than 4] 5 years from the date of issue, if [it appears that the applicant has good reason to fear injury to the applicant’s person or property or has any proper purpose, and that the applicant is a suitable person to be licensed. Hunting, target shooting, or self-defense shall be considered a proper purpose] a criminal background check, including an inquiry of the National Instant Criminal Background Check system, reveals no information that the applicant’s possession of a pistol or revolver would violate RSA 159:3, RSA 159:3-a, RSA 159:7, or 18 U.S.C. section 922. The license shall be valid for all allowable purposes regardless of the purpose for which it was originally issued. The license shall be in duplicate and shall bear the name, address, description, and signature of the licensee. The original shall be delivered to the licensee and the duplicate shall be preserved by the people issuing the same for [4] 5 years. When required, license renewal shall take place within [the month of the fourth anniversary of the license holder’s date of birth following the date of issuance] 60 days of the expiration date of the license but at least 14 days before the expiration date. The license shall be issued within 14 days after application or renewal application, and, if such application is denied, the reason for such denial shall be stated in writing, the original of which such writing shall be delivered to the applicant, and a copy kept in the office of the person to whom the application was made. The fee for licenses issued to residents of the state shall be $10, which fee shall be for the use of the law enforcement department of the town or city granting said licenses; the fee for licenses granted to out-of-state residents shall be [$100] $50, which fee shall be for the use of the state. The director of state police is hereby authorized and directed to prepare forms for the licenses required under this chapter and forms for the application for such licenses and to supply the same to officials of the cities and towns authorized to issue the licenses. The form shall require no more information than was required on the state of New Hampshire application for pistol/revolver license, form DSSP 85, as revised in December 2009. No other forms shall be used by officials of cities and towns and no official authorized to issue a license under this section shall modify in any way the requirements for such license. The cost of the forms shall be paid out of the fees received from nonresident licenses.

II. No photograph or fingerprint shall be required or used as a basis to grant, deny, or renew a license to carry for a resident or nonresident, unless requested by the applicant.
III. The availability of a license to carry a loaded pistol or revolver under this section or under any other provision of law shall not be construed to impose a prohibition on the unlicensed transport of a firearm, including a loaded pistol or revolver, in a vehicle or the unlicensed carrying on or about one’s person, whether openly or concealed, of a firearm, including a loaded pistol or revolver.

*2 Pistols and Revolvers; Suspension or Revocation of License. Amend RSA 159:6, I to read as follows:

I. The issuing authority may order a license to carry a loaded pistol or revolver issued to any person pursuant to RSA 159:6 to be suspended or revoked [for just cause, provided] upon the issuing authority’s determination that the person provided materially false information in connection with an application to carry a pistol or revolver which was relied upon by the issuing authority in approving the application or that the person no longer meets the requirements for such license set forth in RSA 159:6. The suspension or revocation shall become effective upon service of written notice of the suspension or revocation and the reason [therefore is given to] therefor upon the licensee. A licensee whose license has been suspended or revoked shall be permitted a hearing on such suspension or revocation if a hearing is requested by the licensee to the issuing authority within 7 days of the suspension or revocation.

*3 Pistols and Revolvers; Full Faith and Credit for Licenses From Other States. Amend RSA 159:6-d to read as follows:
159:6-d Full Faith and Credit for Licenses From Other States; Reciprocity. [Notwithstanding the provisions of RSA 159:6, no nonresident holding] A current and valid license to carry a loaded pistol or revolver [in] issued to a nonresident by the state in which he or she resides [or who is a peace officer in the state in which he resides], shall be [required to obtain a license to carry a loaded pistol or revolver] recognized as valid within this state if[: I. Such nonresident carries upon his person the license held from the state in which he resides; and II.] the state in which such person is a resident provides a reciprocal privilege for residents of this state.

*4 New Section; Pistols and Revolvers; Unlawful Possession by a Minor. Amend RSA 159 by inserting after section 6-f the following new section:

159:6-g Unlawful Possession of a Pistol or Revolver by a Minor or a Student.

I.(a) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, no person under 18 years of age shall possess or carry a pistol or revolver unless such person is on property he or she owns or occupies as a resident.

(b) Subparagraph (a) shall not apply to a person under 18 years of age who:

(1) Is licensed to carry a pistol or revolver pursuant to RSA 159:6 or possesses a license or permit issued by a jurisdiction that provides a reciprocal privilege to residents of this state pursuant to RSA 159:6-d; or

(2) Possesses or carries a pistol or revolver with the permission of a parent or legal guardian.

II.(a) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, no person 18 years of age or under shall possess or carry a pistol or revolver in a safe school zone as defined in RSA 193-D:1, without authorization from the school district superintendent or designee.

(b) Subparagraph (a) shall not apply to a person 18 years of age or under if:

(1) The school property is open to public hunting; or

(2) The pistol or revolver is of a type and configuration that may be used to hunt on the date on which initial possession of the pistol or revolver occurs; or

(3) The person is engaged in hunting or is in transit to or from a place where the person has been hunting or intends to hunt.

III. Any person who violates the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a violation and shall be fined up to $500.

*5 Game Animals; Bow and Arrow. Amend RSA 208:5, V to read as follows:
V. The licensee shall not be entitled to [carry] take any game with firearms while hunting under the provisions of this section, unless such licensee also possesses a valid firearms hunting license [or a valid license to carry firearms issued pursuant to RSA 159].

*6 Pistols and Revolvers; Courthouse Security. Amend RSA 159:19, IV to read as follows:

IV. The provisions of this section shall not apply to marshals, sheriffs, deputy sheriffs, police or other duly appointed or elected law enforcement officers, bailiffs and court security officers, or persons with prior authorization of the court for the purpose of introducing weapons into evidence [and as otherwise provided for in RSA 159:5].

*7 Repeal. The following are repealed:

I. RSA 159:4, relative to carrying without a license.

II. RSA 159:5, relative to exceptions to possessing or carrying a pistol or revolver.

*8 Effective Date. This act shall take effect upon its passage.


2011-1504s

AMENDED ANALYSIS


This bill:


I. Permits any person who meets the requirements established in RSA 159:6 to possess or carry a pistol or revolver.


II. Provides recognition in this state of a license to possess or carry a pistol or revolver issued in another state, provided the other state offers a reciprocal privilege to New Hampshire residents.


III. Establishes a violation and fine for possessing or carrying a pistol or revolver by persons under 18 years of age, and by for possessing and carrying a pistol or revolver in a safe school zone.

© 2006-2011 Pro-Gun New Hampshire Inc.
75 S. Main St., Unit 7, PMB 284
Concord, NH 03301-4828
Tel. (603)226-PGNH [226-7464]

If you enjoyed reading about "NRA Threatens Constitutional Carry in New Hampshire" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
hso
May 12, 2011, 10:56 PM
This can not turn into a discussion of the NRA if ya'll want to keep it open to get help to keep the NH bill clear of amendments. That will just turn this thread into a mud slinging contest and do no one in NH any good.

Focus on what exactly it is that you want other members to do to actually contribute.

ilbob
May 12, 2011, 11:12 PM
If the NRA really is behind this, it might be that a few hundred thousand members calling and telling them to butt out is in order. They are actually pretty recpetive to membership concerns. Lobbying them is no different than lobbying politicians.

No threats of leaving the NRA are needed. Just express concern over what is going on.

But I would suggest people find out exactly what really is going on first.

jahwarrior
May 12, 2011, 11:23 PM
i only posted this because i believe that it's in the interest of NH residents. i live in PA, and currently, the push for Castle Doctrine is being jeopardized by the NRA. it's not mudslinging if it's fact.

sonick808
May 13, 2011, 01:17 AM
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=6762

The NRA clarifies the position/reasoning below the portion that reads:

Note that certain vocal but misinformed critics have made unfounded or misleading accusations about the NRA-backed amendment. For those seeking a better understanding, we offer the following information.

I don't understand it all, but Gun Owners of New Hampshire GO-NH support this move as well, so clearly they understand the issue more than any of us not engaged in New Hampshire do.

Best that we don't leap to any conclusions unless we're intimately aware of the details.

Cited NRA only to point to data, not address them in this thread.

hso
May 14, 2011, 08:30 AM
Let's dissect the actual proposed amendment because I'm confused about what the fuss is about.

Amend the bill by replacing all after the enacting clause with the following:


*1 Pistols and Revolvers; License to Carry. Amend RSA 159:6 to read as follows:

That sure sounds like a gutting of the constitutional carry effort

159:6 License to Carry.

I. The selectmen of a town or the mayor or chief of police of a city or some full-time police officer designated by them respectively, upon application of any resident of such town or city, or the director of state police, or some person designated by such director, upon application of a nonresident, shall issue a license to such applicant [authorizing the applicant to carry] for the carrying of a loaded pistol or revolver in this state for [not less than 4] 5 years from the date of issue, if [it appears that the applicant has good reason to fear injury to the applicant’s person or property or has any proper purpose, and that the applicant is a suitable person to be licensed. Hunting, target shooting, or self-defense shall be considered a proper purpose] a criminal background check, including an inquiry of the National Instant Criminal Background Check system, reveals no information that the applicant’s possession of a pistol or revolver would violate RSA 159:3, RSA 159:3-a, RSA 159:7, or 18 U.S.C. section 922. The license shall be valid for all allowable purposes regardless of the purpose for which it was originally issued. The license shall be in duplicate and shall bear the name, address, description, and signature of the licensee. The original shall be delivered to the licensee and the duplicate shall be preserved by the people issuing the same for [4] 5 years. When required, license renewal shall take place within [the month of the fourth anniversary of the license holder’s date of birth following the date of issuance] 60 days of the expiration date of the license but at least 14 days before the expiration date. The license shall be issued within 14 days after application or renewal application, and, if such application is denied, the reason for such denial shall be stated in writing, the original of which such writing shall be delivered to the applicant, and a copy kept in the office of the person to whom the application was made. The fee for licenses issued to residents of the state shall be $10, which fee shall be for the use of the law enforcement department of the town or city granting said licenses; the fee for licenses granted to out-of-state residents shall be [$100] $50, which fee shall be for the use of the state. The director of state police is hereby authorized and directed to prepare forms for the licenses required under this chapter and forms for the application for such licenses and to supply the same to officials of the cities and towns authorized to issue the licenses. The form shall require no more information than was required on the state of New Hampshire application for pistol/revolver license, form DSSP 85, as revised in December 2009. No other forms shall be used by officials of cities and towns and no official authorized to issue a license under this section shall modify in any way the requirements for such license. The cost of the forms shall be paid out of the fees received from nonresident licenses.

Wait a minute. All they want is a provision requiring the government to issue a permit so non residents can apply AND so that NH residents can have a document to carry with them when they're out of state so they can show LE in reciprocal states that they have a permit to avoid being hassled over carrying instead of having to explain the whole concept of constitutional carry? That's not gun control, that's recognizing that LE can't be expected to know every other state's carry provisions and giving the NH citizens the coverage of a document to prevent a misunderstanding if they want, not required, to. If you don't want it you don't have to get it, but if you do the state has to issue it. Where's the down side?


II. No photograph or fingerprint shall be required or used as a basis to grant, deny, or renew a license to carry for a resident or nonresident, unless requested by the applicant.

This prevents the state from requiring photo or fingerprints to issue this optional permit. IOW, the state has to issue a permit upon request and not require the impediment of a photo or fingerprint.

III. The availability of a license to carry a loaded pistol or revolver under this section or under any other provision of law shall not be construed to impose a prohibition on the unlicensed transport of a firearm, including a loaded pistol or revolver, in a vehicle or the unlicensed carrying on or about one’s person, whether openly or concealed, of a firearm, including a loaded pistol or revolver.

This nails down that you don't need a permit to carry in NH

*2 Pistols and Revolvers; Suspension or Revocation of License. Amend RSA 159:6, I to read as follows:

I. The issuing authority may order a license to carry a loaded pistol or revolver issued to any person pursuant to RSA 159:6 to be suspended or revoked [for just cause, provided] upon the issuing authority’s determination that the person provided materially false information in connection with an application to carry a pistol or revolver which was relied upon by the issuing authority in approving the application or that the person no longer meets the requirements for such license set forth in RSA 159:6. The suspension or revocation shall become effective upon service of written notice of the suspension or revocation and the reason [therefore is given to] therefor upon the licensee. A licensee whose license has been suspended or revoked shall be permitted a hearing on such suspension or revocation if a hearing is requested by the licensee to the issuing authority within 7 days of the suspension or revocation.

This provides for a way to revoke the optional permit. If you don't remember that the first part of this required the state to issue a nonresident permit upon request this could make your blood boil. BUT if you issue to a nonresident who falsified their request for a permit and then find out they weren't eligible for the thing you'd want a way to pull it back. I'm not sure that this is well enough worded since it doesn't spell out the reasons for revocation in enough detail, but it doesn't hurt NH citizens because they still do not require a permit to carry and revoking an optional permit is meaningless to them inside the state.


*3 Pistols and Revolvers; Full Faith and Credit for Licenses From Other States. Amend RSA 159:6-d to read as follows:
159:6-d Full Faith and Credit for Licenses From Other States; Reciprocity. [Notwithstanding the provisions of RSA 159:6, no nonresident holding] A current and valid license to carry a loaded pistol or revolver [in] issued to a nonresident by the state in which he or she resides [or who is a peace officer in the state in which he resides], shall be [required to obtain a license to carry a loaded pistol or revolver] recognized as valid within this state if[: I. Such nonresident carries upon his person the license held from the state in which he resides; and II.] the state in which such person is a resident provides a reciprocal privilege for residents of this state.

Guarantee of reciprocity with every other state even for nonresident permits. IOW, those folks with a Utah or Florida nonresident permit are covered as well as folks from states that don't issue nonresident permits. I'm not sure why they'd bother with this since by having constitutional carry you don't need to worry about whether someone has a permit or not. Sounds like a bone tossed to the opposition or covering for a problem that doesn't exist.


*4 New Section; Pistols and Revolvers; Unlawful Possession by a Minor. Amend RSA 159 by inserting after section 6-f the following new section:

159:6-g Unlawful Possession of a Pistol or Revolver by a Minor or a Student.

I.(a) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, no person under 18 years of age shall possess or carry a pistol or revolver unless such person is on property he or she owns or occupies as a resident.

(b) Subparagraph (a) shall not apply to a person under 18 years of age who:

(1) Is licensed to carry a pistol or revolver pursuant to RSA 159:6 or possesses a license or permit issued by a jurisdiction that provides a reciprocal privilege to residents of this state pursuant to RSA 159:6-d; or

(2) Possesses or carries a pistol or revolver with the permission of a parent or legal guardian.

II.(a) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, no person 18 years of age or under shall possess or carry a pistol or revolver in a safe school zone as defined in RSA 193-D:1, without authorization from the school district superintendent or designee.

(b) Subparagraph (a) shall not apply to a person 18 years of age or under if:

(1) The school property is open to public hunting; or

(2) The pistol or revolver is of a type and configuration that may be used to hunt on the date on which initial possession of the pistol or revolver occurs; or

(3) The person is engaged in hunting or is in transit to or from a place where the person has been hunting or intends to hunt.

III. Any person who violates the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a violation and shall be fined up to $500.

Standard fed restrictions on minors, but with provisions for the kids to hunt protected to include school property with permission.


*5 Game Animals; Bow and Arrow. Amend RSA 208:5, V to read as follows:
V. The licensee shall not be entitled to [carry] take any game with firearms while hunting under the provisions of this section, unless such licensee also possesses a valid firearms hunting license [or a valid license to carry firearms issued pursuant to RSA 159].

The optional carry permit is not a hunting license. Sounds like a reassurance to concerned folks that you still have to have a hunting license to hunt.


*6 Pistols and Revolvers; Courthouse Security. Amend RSA 159:19, IV to read as follows:

IV. The provisions of this section shall not apply to marshals, sheriffs, deputy sheriffs, police or other duly appointed or elected law enforcement officers, bailiffs and court security officers, or persons with prior authorization of the court for the purpose of introducing weapons into evidence [and as otherwise provided for in RSA 159:5].

Law enforcement not affected by any of the law or anyone bringing firearms in for evidence. Sounds like a bone tossed to LE since constitutional carry is still the rule in the law.

*7 Repeal. The following are repealed:

I. RSA 159:4, relative to carrying without a license.

II. RSA 159:5, relative to exceptions to possessing or carrying a pistol or revolver.

*8 Effective Date. This act shall take effect upon its passage.

Meh, nothing.



2011-1504s

AMENDED ANALYSIS


This bill:


I. Permits any person who meets the requirements established in RSA 159:6 to possess or carry a pistol or revolver.


II. Provides recognition in this state of a license to possess or carry a pistol or revolver issued in another state, provided the other state offers a reciprocal privilege to New Hampshire residents.


III. Establishes a violation and fine for possessing or carrying a pistol or revolver by persons under 18 years of age, and by for possessing and carrying a pistol or revolver in a safe school zone.


The summary of changes doesn't look like gun control since it says if you qualify you carry, if you have any permit from any state you can carry in NH if you're not a resident of NH, and kids have to follow the fed rules until 18.

I don't see why anyone could get worked up over these changes.

jahwarrior
May 19, 2011, 04:38 AM
http://nrano.com/hampshire-hb330-text-debunk-nra-argument/

alsaqr
May 19, 2011, 07:54 AM
Another hate the NRA website. These wannabe "gun rights" organizations never cease to amaze me.

jahwarrior
May 19, 2011, 12:17 PM
it's not exactly a gun rights site, it's just a site run by some friends of mine who are looking into the NRA's actions recently. it was mainly begun because of the interference of the NRA while we were trying to HB40 passed in PA. the site is run by a friend of mine, and he has help from friends, most of them members of www.pafoa.org; if you won't accept, or at least keep anopen mind about the things being discussed, i don't know what else to tell you.

hso
May 19, 2011, 12:44 PM
We don't see the issue.

What exactly is the problem with the amendment?

Sam1911
May 19, 2011, 12:58 PM
...the site is run by a friend of mine, and he has help from friends, most of them members of www.pafoa.org; if you won't accept, or at least keep anopen mind about the things being discussed, i don't know what else to tell you

Hmmm... a quick glance at that site and the first thing I think isn't exacly "open mind." But I'll give it another look and try to remain objective.

alsaqr
May 19, 2011, 01:17 PM
We don't see the issue.

What exactly is the problem with the amendment?

Bingo.
It would appear that some folks in NH who do not understand the issue have found another excuse to badmouth the NRA.

hso
May 19, 2011, 01:32 PM
I don't care if the badmouth the NRA, but they should at least be accurate and place blame when blame is warranted and not until.

I still don't see the NRA-promoted amendment as anything but tying up loose ends that the original bill missed.

Where's the beef?

jahwarrior
May 22, 2011, 08:16 AM
http://www.pgnh.org/an_open_letter_to_the_nra_from_the_chair_of_the_nh_house_criminal_justice_and_public_safety_committee

An Open Letter to the NRA -- from the Chair of the NH House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee

[Posted on Saturday, May 21, 2011, at 8:25 p.m.] Editor's note: The following open letter to the NRA was written by State Representative Elaine Swinford, Chair of the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee of the New Hampshire House of Representatives, and originally published today on her Facebook page. It is re-published here, on the Pro-Gun New Hampshire website, with Representative Swinford's permission. The Facebook link is http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=794319820#!/notes/elaine-swinford/open-letter-to-the-nra/10150188783749821 .

An Open Letter to the NRA

As the Chair of the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee in the State of New Hampshire, I am writing to you to set the record straight regarding the statement posted on your website about HB330. You have been given misinformation (I prefer not to call anyone a liar) by your state NRA-ILA representative, John Hohenwarter. I do not appreciate his unprofessional behavior, which has been contrary and harmful to NRA’s reputation.

HB 330 was carefully crafted to do one thing, to return to the people of New Hampshire their right to carry concealed without asking for or paying for the government’s permission to exercise a Constitutional right. This bill was vetted in the House of Representatives not once, but four times.

There was a public hearing, and the people of New Hampshire came to express their feelings and opinions. There were multiple public subcommittee meetings, which your State affiliate GO-NH and your representative Mr. Hohenwarter failed to attend. Many others did attend and voice their concerns and opinions, which were taken into consideration by the committee.

The only communication with the subcommittee by GO-NH/Hohenwarter was via an e-mail which suggested the so-called “NRA amendment.” This amendment was considered and rejected by the committee, in part because it was too extensive, proposed new gun control measures, instituted new criminal penalties, and added NICS checks on licenses. For those reasons and others it was felt the amendment should be offered as a bill of its own so it would go through the proper process of a public hearing and vetting. HB330 was again heard in Executive Session, where the committee discusses the pros and cons of the bill, and finally it went before the whole House of Representatives for a vote of “ought to pass” or “inexpedient to legislate.” The bill passed out of the House with a large margin of victory and was sent to the Senate.

Just prior to the full vote of the House, the “NRA amendment” was again presented to us via communication from the Majority office, but it was rejected again for the same reasons listed above; this was done with the full support of leadership, who agreed an amendment such as this one should never simply be attached to a bill, but vetted in the public eye on its own merits. Mr. Hohenwarter was again told to offer it as a second-year bill, so that the proper process could be followed. There are many in New Hampshire who would oppose new criminal penalties and question the mere addition of NICS checks as being ineffective to achieve a NICS-exempt carry license.

It is also likely your representative confused HB330 with another bill, HB536, which was retained in committee. The NRA criticisms of HB330 are in fact the problems contained in HB536, not HB330. I am not sure of Mr. Hohenwarter’s personal agenda, but it has clearly been obstructionist. Furthermore, his unprofessional behavior is not what New Hampshire citizens deserve.

Sincerely,

Representative Elaine Swinford
Chair of the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee
Belknap – District 5

Editor's note: Bob Clegg, President of Pro-Gun New Hampshire and former New Hampshire Senate Majority Leader, comments as follows:

Above, find a link to the truth. NRA-ILA Alerts have been written with much misinformation. We don't blame NRA-ILA. They have a rogue unprofessional employee who has a record of destruction when it comes to Second Amendment rights. Check our website daily as we unveil all the states who want Hohenwarter sent back to the mail room for service unbecoming a guardian of the Second Amendment.

Editor's note: For background information on this matter, see the articles on the Pro-Gun New Hampshire website at http://pgnh.org/nra_pushes_gun_control_jeopardizes_constitutional_carry , http://pgnh.org/a_sad_day_in_the_new_hampshire_senate , and http://pgnh.org/heave_ho_hohenwarter .

One-Time
May 22, 2011, 09:22 AM
Here we were recently helped by the NRA to get open Carry, funny thing was they helped turn an Open carry bill into a non open carry bill and thats how it was passed by the senate and house here, if the NRA is helping NH like they did Florida, they need to be slammed w/ Emails against what they are trying to do

crossrhodes
May 22, 2011, 08:26 PM
Well after slamming ahwarrior about being an alarmist. I see he has posted what appears to be a valid letter. Any comments about this or the links he posted? And just for the record...I'm not anti NRA. I see they may have a few anti gun people that may have infiltrated their fine organization.

hso
May 22, 2011, 09:18 PM
III. The availability of a license to carry a loaded pistol or revolver under this section or under any other provision of law shall not be construed to impose a prohibition on the unlicensed transport of a firearm, including a loaded pistol or revolver, in a vehicle or the unlicensed carrying on or about one’s person, whether openly or concealed, of a firearm, including a loaded pistol or revolver.

It still reads like there is no attempt to require a permit or NICS check for NH residents that don't want to bother with the optional permit.

I still don't get the uproar.

Does anyone here read III any differently?

Sam1911
May 23, 2011, 08:14 AM
Reading the proposed "amendment" I still don't see why it contains any harmful changes. The complaint that it subjects the carry permit to the NICS check seems to be without merit as the permit isn't even required for carry. If no permit is required, then there really isn't much reason to keep it around. EXCEPT that it could offer other and greater benefits than simply the ability to carry a gun concealed. But to get those other benefits it would need to be subject to more rigorous checking.

It looks like this is an attempt to give NH residents a significant increase in their choices about how they legally carry. E.g.: Unlicensed legal carry with no government strings at all, or a license process with enough "teeth" to make it really worth the effort to get.

This also seems to be a huge failure to communicate and deal clearly with the various concerned parties. If there is a failing on the part of Mr. Hohenwarter and/or NRA, that seems to be it. There is still a strong smack of alarmism about this, though, that reads like self-serving political posturing. I could be wrong. Hopefully my lack of a "dog in the fight" isn't the only reason I can't see the conflict at the heart of all the argument.

jahwarrior
May 23, 2011, 08:35 AM
Well after slamming Jahwarrior about being an alarmist. I see he has posted what appears to be a valid letter. Any comments about this or the links he posted? And just for the record...I'm not anti NRA. I see they may have a few anti gun people that may have infiltrated their fine organization.

thank you. i'm not some teeth gnashing, rabid anti-NRA nut. i was a long time member, like my parents were. but they started to lose credibilty with me during the Heller case, and i'm not the only one. i haven't exactly been doing all this research on my own, and still read the NRA-ILA's website to see their reasonings behind their actions; a lot of it doesn't add up. i think most of the problem may have to do with their state liasons, like Hohenwarter. my interest grew mainly from working with others in my homestate of PA, in trying to get Castle Doctrine passed. we've come close the past 7 years, and this is the closest we've gotten, only to have someone try and block our efforts. we got this far without assistance from the NRA, by the way.

if you believe what the NRA stands for, good. i'm not asking you to burn your membership card. i'm just asking that you keep your eyes open, and not put all your eggs in one basket. i think more progress could happen at local levels, as far as furthering our rights are concerned. in PA, we've got organizations like the Firearm Owners Against Crime (FOAC), and internet groups like www.pafoa.org, who help coordinate efforts to advance our cause. if you want to affect real change where you live, i think it would be better NOT to rely on the NRA, which was founded not so much on protecting rights, but recreational shooting.

merlinfire
May 23, 2011, 09:45 AM
I sincerely hope this is the actions of only one misinformed employee and not a show of organizational intentions.

That's crazy when a politician needs to tell the NRA that they aren't being pro-gun enough.

jahwarrior
May 23, 2011, 12:24 PM
my thoughts are: Hohenwarter, at the very least, is a Fudd. at worst, he's a Brady sympathizer.

wideym
May 23, 2011, 01:06 PM
Another way of looking at it is that it's a "state's right" issue. Maybe they just don't want some outside group interfering with a state law.

I kinda like the idea of being able to tuck a pistol in my waistband (holstered of course) without having to worry about if I forgot my wallet to walk down the street. I also see the reluctance to states to issue "out of state" permits. If some yahoo can't get a permit to carry in their own state, I don't like the idea of gaming the system so they can.

hirundo82
May 23, 2011, 01:42 PM
If some yahoo can't get a permit to carry in their own state, I don't like the idea of gaming the system so they can. Yeah, it's not like any of the states around NH make it tough to get a carry permit.

N003k
May 23, 2011, 05:04 PM
I'm sorry, I've gone through this thread and read the complaints, and the analysis that HSO was kind enough to provide...could someone on the side that the NRA is doing wrong please point out exactly what and where? Not trying to be sarcastic, but I just see general accusations coming from that side so far without any specific detail...

crossrhodes
May 25, 2011, 12:06 AM
I thinks it's more to do with a rogue NRA member then with the NRA it's self. If that's the case, I hope they review that individual's activities to ensure he's in line with their policies. I support the NRA but, they do have their 10% like every other organization. I had a kook explain to me that I needed to be a member because they are coming for our guns and the NATO troops know where to go because all the road signs have secret coded directions. I was a bit off a wise ### and asked if a tinfoil hat came with the membership....regardless I still support the NRA and the GOA.

jahwarrior
May 28, 2011, 12:13 AM
http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/7662-nra-sells-out-second-amendment-on-patriot-act

The NRA sent at least two e-mails to Congress during the Patriot Act debate this week calling Rand Paul's amendment to exempt gun purchases from the provisions of the Patriot Act a "poorly drafted amendment" and stating that "the NRA could not support this." The Senate rejected the Paul amendment by an 85-10 vote May 26. And the NRA e-mail, according to Reason magazine, claimed:

There have been no reports of the current PATRIOT Act being abused with respect to firearms records, however supporters suggested a far-fetched scenario in which every firearms sales record in the country — tens or hundreds of millions of documents dating back to 1968 — could be sought. Again, we nor anyone else is aware of any case in which this authority has been used to abuse gun owners. (In fact, published reports indicate that few of these orders are ever sought for any reason.)

By way of contrast, Gun Owners of America enthusiastically supported the Paul Amendment: "Without Paul’s exemption, it is possible that the BATFE could go to a secret (FISA) court, and, in a one-party (ex parte) proceeding, obtain an order to produce every 4473 in the country, ostensibly because a 'terrorism investigation' requires it. If such an action were taken, the government would have a list of every gun buyer in the country going back decades."

crossrhodes
May 28, 2011, 09:48 AM
I just hope they stay the hell out of Vermont. We are doing fine here and any changes would end up in get their political nose bumped on the state level.

paragrouper
May 29, 2011, 07:35 PM
http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/7662-nra-sells-out-second-amendment-on-patriot-act
How does this apply to your original post? Your first post looked like a call to action, although I could not tell from reading the proposal from the NRA why you were bent out of shape about it.

N003k
May 29, 2011, 07:50 PM
I'm going to reitterate, and ask specifically Jahwarrior since this is his thread...

What EXACTLY is the NRA doing here that's bad? Preferably quotes from the proposed bill, and how it's a bad thing...or just a point by point rebuttal of HSO's analysis with how he was mistaken...

Once again, not trying to be rude or sarcastic, but, so far it just seems like there's nothing wrong with any of the proposed changes as far as I can see.

hso
May 29, 2011, 07:51 PM
So now we're bringing in points outside of NH (and not even related to state programs)? A little drift from the original topic. Do we now expect others to bring in counter examples from all over the US where the NRA has bolstered first efforts for gun rights or supported efforts started by others? Then are we going to have the counter examples?

C'mon, don't sink into a juvenile food fight if you don't want this entire thread to stay around. Stick to the original topic.

Carl N. Brown
May 29, 2011, 08:03 PM
Without a way of getting a permit for reciprocity purposes with the states that require carry permits, residents of states with constitutional carry would only be able to carry in their home state. Don't other states with constitutional carry allow a mechanism for getting a permit that will be recognized out of state for those who would want to be legally armed while traveling?

hso
May 29, 2011, 08:14 PM
That's a problem for residents of constitutional carry states, no permit, nohing for another state to "recognize".

Perhaps the folks in NH would rather pass the legislation without coverage for citizens traveling outside the state until the next legislative session?

armoredman
May 29, 2011, 09:44 PM
Issue out of state permits when they have Consitutional Carry? That's a bit odd, says NH residents have full benefit of the 2A while visitors from others of the United States do not. Here in AZ anyone who is not a prohibited possessor falls under Constitutional Carry when you cross the border.
Good luck on NH to getting a good workable version.

If you enjoyed reading about "NRA Threatens Constitutional Carry in New Hampshire" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!