Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

New Hampshire to get Vermont carry?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by hillbilly, Feb 8, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. hillbilly

    hillbilly Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    3,166
    Location:
    Iowa
  2. AZRickD

    AZRickD Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2003
    Messages:
    1,684
  3. cosmos7

    cosmos7 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    97
    Location:
    PRK
    More encouragement for the Free State project if this passes... :D
     
  4. Andrew Rothman

    Andrew Rothman Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2003
    Messages:
    2,669
    Location:
    MN
    Aw, c'mon, folks. Just paste the darn text!

     
  5. clubsoda22

    clubsoda22 member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2003
    Messages:
    1,718
    Location:
    SE PA
    hopefully they keep the permit around though, because NH has reciprocity with a LOT of states for the $10 it costs to get one.
     
  6. Devonai

    Devonai Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2003
    Messages:
    3,827
    Location:
    Connecticut
    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.
     
  7. Jim March

    Jim March Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,732
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    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.
     
  8. Jonesy9

    Jonesy9 member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2003
    Messages:
    405
    Location:
    MA
    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.
     
  9. longeyes

    longeyes member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    7,227
    Location:
    True West...Hotel California
    Where's the fabled Massad Ayoob on this one?
     
  10. dustind

    dustind Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,581
    Location:
    St. Michael, MN
    This would be great if it passes. I have a pdf on my website saved if anyone wants details about the bill. http://dustin.o-f.com/storage/SB454_HB1271.pdf

    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.
     
  11. dustind

    dustind Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,581
    Location:
    St. Michael, MN
    *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.
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2004
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page