Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Constitutional Carry Threatened in NH

  1. #1
    Regular Member jahwarrior72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Nizzy EEzzy in da Pizzy
    Posts
    388

    Constitutional Carry Threatened in NH

    http://pgnh.org/nra_pushes_gun_contr...tutional_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]

  2. #2
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Swanzey,NH, ,
    Posts
    218
    If the SO CALLED pro gun advacates, had left the bill alone without adding amendments to it it would have past. But NOOOOOO the NRA and GO-NH had to have thier agenda.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    SW Florida
    Posts
    31
    Notice the common thread among what the NRA is doing? They killed open carry in florida this year too. Scumbags. Would love to get their membership database and put them out of business!

    Sent from my DROID2 using Tapatalk

  4. #4
    Regular Member 1Grizzly1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Layton, Utah, USA
    Posts
    54
    If all of the states go to constitutional carry organizations like the NRA will be defunct. They need something to rally against in order to stay in business.

  5. #5
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Swanzey,NH, ,
    Posts
    218
    I am an Edowment Member, I emailed and called NRA and told them that I will not give them another dime. I also called GO-NH and told them that the envelope and application they had sent is going in the trash.

    I will not cancel my membership as it is already paid for, For the rest of my life.

    I will send all surveys and solicitaions back in the PREPAID envelope provided, with no money and everything stuffed it it. I will not let NRA send, The Rifleman over the computer, I paid for a Printed magazine, I want a Printed magazine.
    Last edited by Rattrapper; 05-13-2011 at 10:35 AM.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=15124

    That's funny, the NRA-ILA leaves out of their updates that they're actively trying to ruin the bill...

  7. #7
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Swanzey,NH, ,
    Posts
    218
    PGNH (Pro Gun New Hampshire) sent out a memo stating the John Hohenwarter the guy from NRA was the person involved in submarining this legislation. It is available on Northeastshooters.com.

    It is a very good read.
    Last edited by Rattrapper; 05-13-2011 at 10:08 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Northern CT
    Posts
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by 1Grizzly1 View Post
    If all of the states go to constitutional carry organizations like the NRA will be defunct. They need something to rally against in order to stay in business.
    BINGO!! And trust me when I say that I am probably the biggest pro NRA guy out here. Or should I say.....I WAS!

  9. #9
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Swanzey,NH, ,
    Posts
    218
    Here is some more of the NRA's Screwed the Pooch story:

    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?...50188783749821 .

    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_contr...tutional_carry , http://pgnh.org/a_sad_day_in_the_new_hampshire_senate , and http://pgnh.org/heave_ho_hohenwarter .

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by 1Grizzly1 View Post
    If all of the states go to constitutional carry organizations like the NRA will be defunct. They need something to rally against in order to stay in business.
    They could go back to what they were originally founded for: training and competition. The Friends of the NRA is the closest thing they have to that....and is why I am not an NRA member, but do contribute to the Friends of the NRA periodically.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961
    It seems to me that the actions of the NRA have been far more detrimental to gun rights in New Hampshire than the Brady Bunch could ever dream of being.

    This does not surprise me, as NRA has a lot to loose with constitutional carry. The are the leader of the Concealed Carry Instruction Industry (C2I2). If constitutional carry catches on, where will the income to pay the executive directors come from?

    I mean really, you tell me which is more important to the NRA Executive Directors, Preserving the source of their fatcat pay or restoring constitutional rights for Americans?
    Last edited by Thundar; 06-06-2011 at 10:33 AM.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  12. #12
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Swanzey,NH, ,
    Posts
    218
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    It seems to me that the actions of the NRA have been far more detrimental to gun rights in New Hampshire than the Brady Bunch could ever dream of being.

    This does not surprise me, as NRA has a lot to loose with constitutional carry. The are the leader of the Concealed Carry Instruction Industry (C2I2). If constitutional carry catches on, where will the income to pay the executive directors come from?

    I mean really, you tell me which is more important to the NRA Executive Directors, Preserving the source of their fatcat pay or restoring constitutional rights for Americans?
    That is exactly what happen in Massachusetts in 1998, NRA's spokes group in the statehouse, did nothing to kill the bill, as it MANDATED TRAINING for first time license requesters. (may issue state) The NRA traing was one of the accepted courses thus an industry was given free rein. All with the Blessing of NRA and GOAL (Gun Owners Action League)
    Last edited by Rattrapper; 06-06-2011 at 10:42 AM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Merrimack, New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    370
    Article 2a of the New Hampshire Constitution is a single sentence. How does a bill which prattles on for page after page, and reinforces by reference a number of other unconstitutional gun laws, count as "constitutional carry?"

    They started off on the wrong foot with the "notwithstanding any other law" wording, and then wrapped around the axle over and over again with "withstandings" stressing that all the other unconstitutional gun laws are still in full force.

    Here's bill for actual "constitutional carry:"

    RSA 159:4 is hereby repealed. Effective date: Upon passage.
    Too bad it wasn't introduced at the beginning of the session.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    343
    I received a mailing today from the NRA-ILA asking for donations to continue the battles for our RKBA.

    I sent them back this letter in their own Postage paid envelope (5 pages worth), addressed to Chris Cox, Executive Director NRA-ILA.


    Mr. Chris W. Cox
    Executive Director
    NRA-ILA
    11250 Waples Mill Rd
    Fairfax, VA 22030


    Dear Mr. Cox,

    Today I received the mailing asking for donations for NRA-ILA, also detailing many battles that NRA-ILA have been involved in fighting for our RKBA, but I have a concern that I must express to you.

    I find it VERY disconcerting that I continue to find examples of the NRA and the NRA-ILA working AGAINST Law Abiding Citizens that want to exercise their 2nd Amendment right by Open Carrying.

    For instance, in New Hampshire I find this;

    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?...50188783749821 .

    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 athttp://pgnh.org/nra_pushes_gun_contr...tutional_carry , http://pgnh.org/a_sad_day_in_the_new_hampshire_senate , andhttp://pgnh.org/heave_ho_hohenwarter .


    Do you agree that this is cause for concern?

    In case you are unaware, here is a copy of the amendment that NRA-ILA is pushing, mandating LICENSED conceal carry vs constitutional carry.

    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]


    I believe that the 2nd Amendment states “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms”; saying nothing about MUST be concealed, and MUST have a license to do so.

    I am now thinking that once the NRA backs Constitutional Carry, then I may consider again supporting the NRA and the NRA-ILA.

    Sincerely,



    XD Shooter
    NRA# xxxxxxxx
    Of course these are the very concerns posted in this thread. Just wanted to show that others are reading and using your posts in HOPEFULLY productive ways....

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by mvpel View Post
    Article 2a of the New Hampshire Constitution is a single sentence. How does a bill which prattles on for page after page, and reinforces by reference a number of other unconstitutional gun laws, count as "constitutional carry?"

    They started off on the wrong foot with the "notwithstanding any other law" wording, and then wrapped around the axle over and over again with "withstandings" stressing that all the other unconstitutional gun laws are still in full force.

    Here's bill for actual "constitutional carry:"



    Too bad it wasn't introduced at the beginning of the session.
    But IIRC, you need to take into account that F&G regulations ban firearms without licenses; which would mean additional gun control. Isn't there an issue with SB88 that will ban the carrying of firearms on ATV/snowmobiles?

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Merrimack, New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    370
    From the GO-NH Minuteman Alert:
    =====
    Full View
    This is a GONH MinuteMan Alert: Urgent! Immediate action needed for SB88
    ...
    From:
    "lists@gonh.org" <lists@gonh.org>


    MINUTEMAN ALERT -- ACTION NEEDED!!

    BEST BY NOON ON TUESDAY JUNE 7, 2011,

    or NO LATER THAN 10 PM ON TUESDAY JUNE 7, 2011

    (as of this writing)

    Ask your Senators to form A COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE, OR NON CONCUR on SB 88: Tell your senator that CHANGES MUST BE MADE!
    In its current form, SB 88 has the following gun control provisions, deficiencies and setbacks for firearm owners:

    QUICK READ

    A Wolf in Sheep’s clothing is still a wolf! The Republicans promised us “Constitutional Carry” and they deliver gun control!!?? Not surprisingly the politicians and bureaucrats that would seek to convince you that they are “pro gun” are touting this as a “pro gun” victory passed by a “veto proof” majority. They think if they tell you SB 88 is “pro gun,” enough of you will believe it. Don’t be fooled by the pretty wrapper, and great sounding introductions: look inside and read the words of the bill, ALL OF THEM, and look up the other laws SB 88 references, then THINK about harmonizing the portions of this bill, and you will see the wolf!

    Some New Hampshire judges are notoriously NON firearm friendly. We need to be clear in our laws to force them to recognize our firearm rights. SB 88 159:6 “Full faith and Credit for Licenses from other States: Reciprocity” provides 3 “ors” for reciprocity. Nowhere in 159:6-d does it say that a license is not needed!!! And this is “Constitutional Carry”?? Part II of RSA 159: 6-d provides that “such non resident is in compliance with RSA 159:4,” which has no conditions! Would you want to hang your freedom from prosecution on this one? Citizens should not have to play Russian Roulette and guess about their right to protect themselves.

    Knowing that our members are all busy, this Alert will be limited to hitting the larger flaws and conflicts. Note the draft/amendment of RSA 627:4 III is unintelligible.[1] Read it- try to determine what it means….Any one of these flaws should cause you to non concur on this bill, and several pages of flaws surely should do so.[2]


    A MORE IN DEPTH ANALYSIS OF THE FLAWS AND GUN CONTROL PROVISIONS OF SB 88 FOR THOSE WHO WANT THE DETAILS- A LENGTHIER EXPLANATION OF THE FLAWS OF SB 88


    SB 88 (as amended by the House) perpetuates the flawed portion of 627:4 II[3]


    ü In America, a Defendant is presumed innocent and the burden is upon the state, BUT RSA 159:5-a provides “……and the burden of proof of any such exception, excuse, proviso or exemption shall be upon the defendant.” WHAT? The burden is on the DEFENDANT?? Guilty until proven innocent? That might have been fine with the “old” RSA 159, but with SB 88 and its modification of RSA 159:4, the Roulette game has begun. What are you betting? Only your freedom.



    ü RSA 159:5-a IS A BURDEN SHIFTING STATUTE: Now, if you are accused of hunting from a motor vehicle, OHRV, snowmobile, boat, or aircraft, having a loaded firearm on a OHRV, having a loaded self defense tool on a snowmobile, relative to receiving stolen property (what about the firearm you bought used…you had no idea it was stolen!): NOW the burden is on you, unlike it is in any other criminal case!


    ü SB 88 requires that in order for a non resident to carry under the reciprocity provisions, such non resident must be in compliance with RSA 159:4….but there is no conditions in RSA 159:4, and furthermore, the reciprocity provision is unclear, and its effect on our current reciprocity agreements is unknown. A better provision is available. [4]


    ü SB 88 does not solve the “Ward Bird” (and other) self defense prosecution problems for several reasons. First, SB 88 does NOT include/exempt or list “pointing”[5] but only “producing or displaying” of a firearm. In many cases of self defense, the attacker will claim (whether or not it is true) “he/she pointed a firearm at me!” While understanding the deadly vs. non-deadly force issue, many will be misled into thinking this amendment solves the “Ward Bird” problem -- it does not.


    ü SB 88 takes away your right to self defense while snowmobiling![6] SB 88 will make it illegal for a woman (or anyone else) snowmobiling, to carry a loaded firearm (likely a handgun) for self defense, even if they have a license to carry! So much for “Constitutional Carry”! Does the Constitution not apply on snowmobiles? Currently a person may carry a loaded firearm on a snowmobile if they have a license to carry a pistol/revolver.[7] Common sense tells you that many people snowmobile in the woods and on trails, and many women have their own snowmobiles; now, many will be practically forced to ride in groups for safety.


    ü SB 88 confuses whether carrying a handgun for self defense in a motor vehicle, OHRV, boat or aircraft is now legal![8] There have been many, many instances of law enforcement harassing those who carry firearms, claiming “confusion” as to the current law; if SB 88 passes, the “confusion” will multiply. There is no reason to incorporate the inequities of RSA 207:7 under RSA 159:4. RSA 207:7 is current law, with a justification of “poaching” which prohibits the less fortunate ,or those who live in an OHRV, travel, or live in a boat or motor home[9] from being able to carry a loaded shotgun, one of the most effective self defense tools.


    ü SB 88 still has not solved the problem for those who choose to have a license and live in towns where Chiefs of Police decide, arbitrarily, as to what specifically defines qualified vs. unqualified, or is in “compliance”. Throughout SB 88 is the term “qualified pursuant to RSA 159:4…”[10] however, nowhere is the term defined, or even outlined or described!


    ü SB 88 provides that certain convicted felons will not be prosecuted pursuant to RSA 159:3 for possession, carrying and ownership etc. of a firearm.[11] SB 88 confirms that in New Hampshire, if you are a “marshal, sheriff, policemen or other duly appointed peace and other law enforcement officer, or bailiff or court officers responsible for court security…”[12] and are also a felon, you are exempted from being prosecuted! This is a serious flaw in New Hampshire law, and SB 88 reaffirms that certain felons will be exempted from criminal prosecution under New Hampshire law.


    ü You might think that one cannot be a felon and be a “marshal, sheriff, policemen or other duly appointed peace and other law enforcement officer, or bailiff or court officers responsible for court security….”? It isn’t certain whether that is true at all! If it is true, then why does a “marshal, sheriff, policemen or other duly appointed peace and other law enforcement officer, or bailiff or court officers responsible for court security…” NEED AN EXCEPTION FROM PROSECUTION AS A FELON CARRYING A FIREARM??[13]


    ü Under SB 88, there is no prosecution for felons who are “marshals, sheriffs, policemen or other duly appointed peace and other law enforcement officers, or bailiffs or court officers responsible for court security….”[14] For the rest of us (peons?) it is a class B felony for a convicted felon to “own or have in his possession or under his control a pistol, revolver, or other firearm, or slungshot, metallic knuckles, billies, stiletto, switchblade knife, sword cane, pistol cane, blackjack, dagger, dirk-knife, or other deadly weapon as defined in RSA 625:11, V”, but not if that convicted felon is one of the “chosen” ones of law enforcement.[15]


    ü SB 88[16] provides that a convicted felon who is a “marshal, sheriff, policemen or other duly appointed peace and other law enforcement officer, or bailiff or court officers responsible for court security….” is EXCEPTED FROM BEING CHARGED with a class B felony like any other convicted felon would be, if “… such person completes and signs an application for purchase of a firearm and the person is a convicted felon under the provisions of paragraph I.”


    ü SB 88 was written by a “Philadelphia Lawyer”, with its goal being: Full employment for lawyers! If you cannot understand what it means (you have to look up 9 laws, referenced and “brought in” to the new RSA 159:4, to see what SB 88 really means), without having a lawyer to interpret the legalese, then how is an average person supposed to understand and follow this law?


    ü SB 88 provides an exemption to RSA 159:14 for sale of pistols and revolvers.[17] This is a good concept, however: The reference as to “qualified pursuant to RSA 159:4” is nonsensical, as 159:4 pertains to carrying without a license and criminal prosecution for carrying in certain areas; no “qualification” criterion are found in this statute.


    ü SB 88 provides that “No non-resident shall be required to obtain a license to carry…if" "II. Such non resident is in compliance with RSA 159:4…” [18] How does one “comply with” RSA 159:4? (as amended in SB 88)


    ü SB 88 does not require that the nonresident’s license be valid or current, just that the non resident have a license.[19] Expired licenses are okay?


    ü What does RSA 637:7[20] “relative to receiving stolen property” (and disposing of stolen property) have to do with carrying a firearm -- why is it being incorporated by law into the “right to carry”? This tying of criminal behavior to carrying firearms is unnecessary, confusing, and counterproductive to the public relations battle firearms owners have been waging for decades to disassociate firearms from crime. They are two separate issues, and should not be melded here.[21] They were not previously found in RSA 159:4 and there is no justification for doing so now.


    ü What does RSA 637:7-a[22] “relative to possession of property without a serial number” have to do with carrying a firearm-why is it being incorporated by law into the “right to carry”? This tying of criminal behavior to carrying firearms is unnecessary, confusing, and counterproductive to the public relations battle firearms owners have been waging for decades, to disassociate and separate firearms from crime. They are two separate issues, and should not be melded here.[23]


    ü RSA 597:7-a [24] detention and sanctions for bail conditions. Currently there are many reasons a person may be barred from firearms ownership and possession, and being released on bail is one of them.


    ü Currently RSA 159:4[25] is 4 simple sentences, in plain English. SB 88 will make RSA 159:4 into two paragraphs that INCORPORATE 9 other laws that associate and confuse criminal acts with a citizen’s right to carry a firearm for self defense.


    ü SB 88 will perpetuate the law that if a carjacker claims he owns my vehicle, (and goodness forbid a child is secured in the vehicle), I have NO RIGHT to use deadly force…as I must “surrender the property to the person asserting a claim of right thereto.” Is this a cruel joke? Plus, PLAIN ENGLISH PLEASE![26]


    ü SB 88 “comply(s) with a demand that he or she abstain from performing an act which he or she is not obliged to perform”…..[27] What does this mean?


    ü SB 88 will force you to retreat before defending yourself, but this law says a cop or someone acting at the direction of a cop does not have to retreat before defending themselves![28]


    ü A law giving cops more rights to self defense than a citizen is just wrong.[29]


    ü “Ward Bird” RSA 651:2 II-g is to be amended to remove the minimum mandatory provisions, which is good -- in theory, but may be bad in reality. A judge looking at the penalty statute, with 20 year maximum and a conviction whereby the judge thinks the citizen needs “some time,” the judge may “split the difference” and give the citizen 10 years or less, whereby amending RSA 651:2 II-g to “may give” and 3-6 (not minimum mandatory but discretionary) may encourage a shorter sentence in a self defense case, if the court is inclined to sentence those found guilty. With 20 years as a benchmark in cases where a citizen who uses a firearm in self defense as Ward Bird did (or Stuart Urie or Joseph Brown, or …), the 20 years versus the subtle suggestion of a variable 3-6 sounds much more appealing if YOU were the one being sentenced. Why not simply amend RSA 652:2 II-g as Representative Betsy Patten did?


    ü SB 88 purports to say those “otherwise qualified pursuant to RSA 159:4” may carry firearms while hunting game animals with bow and arrow:[30] Again, however, the absence of any clear criterion or definition of “qualified” in RSA 159:4 is an inducement for prosecution for carrying a firearm while bow hunting, under this vague statute. New Hampshire citizens deserve better.


    ü Before now, it was unthinkable to consider opposing the repeal of a law that gives the New Hampshire Department of Safety authority to adopt the rules relative to firearms licensing, but without some protection, guidelines, or law in place, this is nothing more than a repeal that will make money for lawyers, and could harm applicants! SB 88 repeals RSA 21-P:14 II (f) relative to the authority of the commissioner of the department of safety to adopt rules relative to the issuance of nonresident pistol “permits”- without clear (or any) criterion for the issuance of non resident licenses. The lack of any suitability definitions in SB 88 provides a recipe for financial disaster for non-residents who want a New Hampshire nonresident license.


    [1] Page 1 Lines 8-22
    [2] Current version ((of many) http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legi...11/SB0088.html
    [3] Page 1 Line 15
    [4] The director of the division of state police shall negotiate and enter into reciprocal agreements in other jurisdictions to recognize in those jurisdictions the validity of the license issued under RSA 159:6. The director shall apply to every jurisdiction with which New Hampshire does not currently have a reciprocity agreement, at least once every 5 years to obtain recognition in those jurisdictions of the license issued under RSA 159:6. Any such agreement executed shall not expire unless an expiration date is required under the statutes of the reciprocal jurisdiction.
    [5] Page 4 Line 12
    [6] Page 2 Line 16
    [7] 215-C:35 Loaded Firearms Forbidden. – No person shall carry on a snowmobile, or a trailer towed by same, any firearms unless said firearm is unloaded. This section shall not apply to law enforcement officers carrying firearms in the course of duty or to pistols carried under a permit issued pursuant to the authority of RSA 159. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/...C/215-C-35.htm
    [8] Page 2 Lines 13-14
    [9] RSA 207:7 “II. No person shall have or carry, in or on a motor vehicle, OHRV, snowmobile, or aircraft, whether moving or stationary, a cocked crossbow, a loaded rifle or loaded shotgun, or a rifle or shotgun with a cartridge in a magazine or clip attached to the gun.
    III. No person shall have in or on a boat or other craft while being propelled by mechanical power, or in a boat or other craft being towed by a boat or other craft propelled by mechanical power, a cocked crossbow, a loaded rifle or loaded shotgun, or a rifle or shotgun with a cartridge in a magazine or clip attached to the gun
    http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/.../207/207-7.htm

    [10] Page 3 Lines 24, 30, 35-36
    [11] Page 2 Lines 21-27
    [12]RSA 159:5 Exceptions http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/.../159/159-5.htm
    [13] Page 2 Lines 21-27
    [14] Page 2 Lines 21-27
    [15] Page 2 Lines 21-27 and RSA 159:3 I. (a).
    [16] Page 2 Lines 21-27 and RSA 159: I-a.
    [17] Page 3 Lines 28-31.
    [18] Page 3 Lines 19-24.
    [19] Page 3 Lines 18-20.
    [20] http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/.../637/637-7.htm
    [21] Page 2 Line 17
    [22] http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/...37/637-7-a.htm
    [23] Page 2 Line 18
    [24] http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/...97/597-7-a.htm
    [25] http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/.../159/159-4.htm
    [26] Page 1 Line 15
    [27] Page 1 Lines 16-17
    [28] Page 1 Lines 20-22

    ======

    It seems to me that PGNH and the bill's sponsors are being too bull-headed and stubborn to take a step back and really consider these problems with the bill.

    I notice that not a single one of PGNH's abrasive and accusatory diatribes against GO-NH and the NRA actually explain how turning a four-sentence law into a two paragraph miasma of legalese referencing nine other laws, some of which are unconstitutional gun control laws, counts as "Constitutional Carry."

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,509
    Quote Originally Posted by mvpel View Post
    From the GO-NH Minuteman Alert:
    =====
    Full View
    This is a GONH MinuteMan Alert: Urgent! Immediate action needed for SB88
    Are you going to post this at the NHLA forum?

  18. #18
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Swanzey,NH, ,
    Posts
    218
    Here we go again!!! NRA's puppet GO-NH is having sexual relations with the canine. So as long as they are involved Constitutional Carry will never happen. They will muck it up just like NRA and its agent GOAL did to MasSucKchusetts in 1998.

    NRA needs to go home, NOW!!!!

  19. #19
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Swanzey,NH, ,
    Posts
    218
    As I understand it, Constitutional Carry is dead in New Hampshire, at least for this session.
    We owe this to the NRA and its lapdog GO-NH.

    So from here on end, I will be sending all mailings from the NRA back to them, with all the paper and then some stuffed into the envelope. They get to pay the freight.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Norwalk, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    265
    Quote Originally Posted by 1Grizzly1 View Post
    If all of the states go to constitutional carry organizations like the NRA will be defunct. They need something to rally against in order to stay in business.

    Thats simply untrue. the NRA is unlike any other pro gun group & is NOT a lobby group first & foremost. If we got constitutional carry nationwide they could get bacl to their primary business of training & organizing matches and other firearms activities. Its only relatively recently that they have become a pro gun lobby group & the fact is they really lack in that regard. We need no compromise gun lobby groups & the NRA with its need to cooperate with the same entities trying to impose more gun laws is in a poor position to be no compromise. If the powers that be stopped recognizing its training & other programs, then it would certainly die. They NEED to keep out of the fight IMO. It would be best if they used the NRA ILA money to support local no compromise peo gun groups. Then they wouldn't be directly involved but would still be able to lend the weight of its membership to those who need it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •