NRA Threatens Constitutional Carry in New Hampshire

Status
Not open for further replies.
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."
 
Nose bumping

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top