New Hampshire to get Vermont carry?


February 8, 2004, 08:58 PM
Anyone in New Hampshire know what's up with this?

If you enjoyed reading about "New Hampshire to get Vermont carry?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
February 8, 2004, 10:08 PM

Go to the contacts page and pic a random legislator to tell them that you think it's a way cool idea.


February 9, 2004, 02:22 AM
More encouragement for the Free State project if this passes... :D

Andrew Rothman
February 9, 2004, 02:36 AM
Aw, c'mon, folks. Just paste the darn text!

Crowd expected for concealed weapon hearing

Lawmakers are bracing for a large crowd on Tuesday when the Senate Judiciary Committee hears testimony on Senate Bill 454. The measure would repeal the law requiring a permit to carry a concealed weapon. If this passes, it doesn’t mean people in the state of New Hampshire won’t be allowed to carry a concealed gun, it means they just won’t need a permit.

The bill’s prime sponsor is Sen. Russell Prescott, R-Kingston.

The Million Mom March, a nonprofit anti-gun lobby, will be out in full force on Tuesday to oppose the measure. [Gee, all twelve of them? - Matt] A press conference is scheduled for the morning before the hearing.

"Basically this bill puts law enforcement in danger. It really puts them between a rock and a hard place and compromises their safety, as well as the general public’s," said Laurel Redden, state coordinator of the Million Mom March.

Redden added that this bill attracted their attention because of some of the sponsors. Judiciary Chairman Andrew Peterson, R-Peterborough, who is thought of as a moderate, is listed as a supporter of the bill.

"Seeing that really struck fear into our hearts," Redden said.

The law enforcement community will also make an appearance before the committee against the bill. Hampton police Chief William Wrenn is expected to testify against the measure on behalf of the New Hampshire Chiefs of Police Association.

February 9, 2004, 03:00 AM
hopefully they keep the permit around though, because NH has reciprocity with a LOT of states for the $10 it costs to get one.

February 9, 2004, 03:13 AM
I agree wholeheartedly. They should retain the option to get a home state permit to make it easier for residents to obtain permits in other states. Get rid of the permit, and how am I supposed to receive/maintain my MA non-resident LTC? Unless Massachusetts makes an exception (obviously they should be shall-issue themselves), I'd be screwed.

Ten dollars for a four year permit, with a maximum of 14 days to issue, and shall issue all the way doesn't leave a lot of room for complaints. Make it a lifetime permit and make it free of charge and I'll be happy.

Jim March
February 9, 2004, 04:37 AM
If they're smart, they'll follow Alaska's lead and keep the permit system but make it voluntary for purposes of reciprocity.

NH is a good "candidate state" for this. Right next to Vermont, strong gun rights already, no significant urban areas.

February 9, 2004, 09:42 AM
I heard about this this past weekend while up in NH at the in-laws. From what I hear, the police unions will mobilize against it. If that happens it's dead.

February 9, 2004, 10:46 AM
Where's the fabled Massad Ayoob on this one?

February 9, 2004, 12:02 PM
This would be great if it passes. I have a pdf on my website saved if anyone wants details about the bill.

The Senate version only removes the need for a license. 6-III RSA 159:4

I think, I will be able to check when I get home. The House version HB 1271 removes a lot of sections. I will figure out the full effect later, the pdf file tells what would be removed.

February 9, 2004, 12:10 PM
*Here is the text of the Senate bill 454*

AN ACT relative to carrying a concealed weapon without a license.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 Pistols and Revolvers; Exceptions. Amend RSA 159:5 to read as follows:

159:5 Exceptions. The provisions of RSA 159:3 *(this part would be striken) [and 4]* shall not apply to marshals, sheriffs, policemen or other duly appointed peace and other law enforcement officers, or bailiffs and court officers responsible for court security; nor to the regular and ordinary transportation of pistols or revolvers as merchandise, nor to members of the armed services of the United States when on duty; nor to the national guard when on duty; nor to organizations by law authorized to purchase or receive such weapons; nor to duly authorized military or civil organizations when parading, or the members thereof when at, or going to or from, their customary places of assembly.

2 Repeal. RSA 159:4, relative to the prohibition on carrying a pistol or revolver without a license, is repealed.

3 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2005.

Edit: It would repeal this

159:4 Carrying Without License. - No person shall carry a loaded pistol or revolver in any vehicle or concealed upon his person, except in his dwelling, house or place of business, without a valid license therefor as hereinafter provided. A loaded pistol or revolver shall include any pistol or revolver with a magazine, cylinder, chamber or clip in which there are loaded cartridges. Whoever violates the provisions of this section shall, for the first such offense, be guilty of a misdemeanor. For the second and for each subsequent violation of the provisions of this section, such person shall be guilty of a class B felony, provided such second or subsequent violation has occurred within 7 years of the previous conviction.
Source. 1923, 118:4. PL 149:4. RL 179:4. 1951, 151:1. RSA 159:4. 1967, 220:3. 1973, 528:84. 1994, 48:1, eff. Jan. 1, 1995.

If you enjoyed reading about "New Hampshire to get Vermont carry?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!