NH Senate votes yea on "Vermont style" carry bill

You people who voted for "Vermont style" carry in the CCW poll must have
brought good luck to the citizens of New Hampshire.

:bounce: :headbang: :bounce: :headbang: :bounce: :headbang: :bounce:


Go to http://gencourt.state.nh.us/ns/billstatus/quickbill.html

and enter SB454.

No other info available just yet.

It is better than the alternative:-)

Maybe this will spread. We can hope.

and I did vote for Vermont style

SPONSORS:
Sen. Prescott, Dist 23 (R)
Sen. Clegg, Dist 14 (R)
Sen. Barnes, Dist 17 (R)
Sen. Peterson, Dist 11 (R)
Sen. Kenney, Dist 3 (R)
Rep. Letourneau, Rock 77 (R)

thanks, glad to have our pages advertising another GOP "victory"

:-)

:)

on edit, changed subject.

Bipartisanship..LOL

I know, it is not representative. We applaud it despite its sponsors.

I don't care who's sponsoring it. This isn't a football game.

and all of us who visit that fair state.

I may keep my NH non-resident license anyway, so that I can carry on snowmobiles. :) There are apparently still a few permit requirements buried elsewhere in the NH code.

The vote tally was 13 for, 10 against.

http://www.thewmurchannel.com/politics/2860233/detail.html

The New Hampshire Senate is composed of 18 Republicans and 6 Democrats.

It would appear that there were a few switch hitters who didn't toe the party line. It should be interesting learning which ones didn't.

Obviously a few Repubs had to vote against it. I'm curious to see if any Dems voted for it.

...54% for to 43% against with 2324 votes cast. Good for NH.

As the old saying goes,"Even a blind hog finds an acorn now and then." In this case, IMO, the measure is a return to the less fettered civil rights we all deserve.

I can't find it in myself to oppose all measures simply beacuse a member(s) of the opposition support or introduce them, just as I cannot support every single measure a Dem introduces. I'm strongly opposed to the current resident of 1600 and his minions, yet there are a few, especially on state levels (as I witness daily here in KY) in his party that refuse to march in lockstep with the D.C. crowd.

On the plus side, the NH legislation when finally passed will certainly put another brick in the barrier that protects 2nd Amendment rights. More work for the anti's in their efforts to restrict those rights is a good thing.

Now. Everybody hide and watch as I work in favor of reproductive rights, gay rights, the environment , education, immigration, and damn near every other plank in the DNC platform.

This is EXACTLY why so many of us are advocating dropping this anti-gun plank from the Democratic party!

There should be DEMOCRATS advocating these kinds of freedom-embracing laws!

Stoker

47 to go.

:toast:

http://www.theunionleader.com/Articles_show.html?article=33225&archive=1

NEVER DID I expect to wind up living alone, in a new area, with a violent acquaintance threatening me because of some perceived offense.

Never did I expect to ever need to carry my handgun to and from work in case that man tracked me down and physically threatened me.

So naturally, I didn’t have the paperwork I needed to defend my own life when I needed it most.

New Hampshire has a chance to help women who find themselves terrified, in my situation, by passing Senate Bill 454, which will do away with the paperwork now required to carry a concealed weapon. How unfortunate that the NH Women’s Lobby doesn’t see it that way and is opposing the bill, which can help women more than men. Men, after all, sometimes have fighting skills and brute physical strength that can help them defend themselves; women rarely do.

<more>

nice.

So, there aren't any nice liberal authors of gun pieces out there? Hell's Bells - why don't some of our more articulate DUers start writing some stuff so that the Right doesn't own the issue? Beats fending off the freedom grabbers on this board 15 hours a day.

and publish it here, we get accused of being "lunatic asswipes"

why don't some of our more articulate DUers start writing some stuff so that the Right doesn't own the issue?

I was hoping to spark interest in something a tad more evolved than quick posts to message boards. Perhaps taking some time to thoughfully write out a piece and attempt to get something published in a liberal publication would be a start. Then, Gungeon members could happily link back to such piece.

And, frankly, for those not paying attention, its been a long time since anyone has been called a lunatic asswipe on this board.

***Sigh...I miss the good ol' days***

its been a long time since anyone has been called a lunatic asswipe on this board.

I'd be happy to oblige, but only if it would make you feel better.

Are there no longer any asswipes around here?

(Makes Lenny and Squiggy entrance.)

the messenger went missing.

Has written some very well written articles on gun rights for an Alabama newspaper.

bring them on.

I am quite happy to write up an arguemnt and post it... I can't see myself writing anything for a local or national paper.

there is only two sides, far left against and the far right for, there has to be a much bigger middle but hardly anyone speaks up from there.

and I don't think there's much of a "middle" left to talk about. We're already so far past the "middle" that we're debating whether all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns should be banned (S.2038).

I can't buy a simple handgun down the street from my office, 15 miles from my house, from a federally-licensed firearms dealer because it's across the state line from my home.

I can't buy a firearm from a co-worker at work who lives 10 miles from me because he lives in KY, but I can buy a firearm from a total stranger in a parking lot 300 miles away in Cleveland because it's still in Ohio.

My grandmother can't give me my grandfather's rifle when I'm down for a visit because she lives in Texas and I live in Ohio. She has to ship it to an Ohio firearms dealer who charges me for the privilege of picking up my grandfather's gun.

I can't buy a new $16 13-rd magazine for my Glock 23. Instead I can pay $60-$100 for a used pre-ban 13-rd magazine, or I can pay $16 for a new 10-rd "politically-correct" magazine. Apparently the 11th round is the dangerous round in the hands of a violent criminal. Of course, there are new 13-rd LEO-restricted magazines floating around, but possessing them could buy a civilian 5 years in Club Fed. We all know a murderous thug would never think of breaking that law.

In it's original condition, I can't put a pistol-grip on my 1993 MAK-91 because it was imported after the import ban on pistol-gripped rifles. I can put a pistol grip on it if I swap out 6 Chinese parts for U.S. parts, thereby turning it into a non-foreign rifle under 922(r).

There are so many hyper-technical and non-sensical restrictions and hoops that gun owners have to jump through now that it makes my head spin. And I'm an attorney! You should read the endless discussions on gun boards about how exactly to jump through all the hoops so that one doesn't inadvertently commit a federal felony.

We should be debating whether fully-automatic firearms should be banned, restricted, or freely available, not whether or not a semi-automatic Remington 7400 hunting rifle is a dangerous, cop-killing, assault weapon.

and you folks here who can write could try to bridge that middle. Constantly citing RW sources only further alienates the left.

You wouldn't post a George Will piece in GD to convince folks that the Iraq War was the greatest thing since sliced bread, you'd post a liberal voice. Posting a Will piece would get you seriously flamed - why should the RKBA crowd expect different down here when they post pieces from sources that find George a tad to Left for them?

There is no rule against RW sources down here, and its not likely to change, but the RKBAers hurt their cause on this liberal board with daily RW links.

I would think one would consider the merits of an argument independent of its source.

I had no idea who Bernadette Malone was. I just thought she wrote a compelling article. Apparently I wasn't the only one.

I am sure you know that discussion of political issues are rarely framed on merit alone. Often source is as important or more important than content. Politics is largely visceral, should'ves and could'ves are lost opportunities. We don't make the rules, we don't have to like them, but we don't have to tilt at windmills, either.

I agree, but people can't pretend to be intellectually honest and open-minded if they reject arguments based solely on the source.

I'm working on a guns in the workplace article now. I'll post it here when I'm done. We'll see what kind of response I get. :)

Can I get a ghost writer? I do well enough with biz speak. I need help on the editorial side. Yes, my wife is more than capable of doing it, but you should hear the "discussions" when she grades my work.

why don't some of our more articulate DUers start writing some stuff so that the Right doesn't own the issue?

And why don't more of our Democratic leaders start advocating this kind of leglistation, for the same purpose!

Stoker

Didn't know Bernadette from Eve. I actually thought it was quite a liberal article when I read it. Oh well. :shrug: