The Enemy Within
Here's the latest move being undertaken by New Hampshire's "progressive" infestation as part of their never-ending quest to completely destroy the "Live Free or Die" state of New Hampshire and transform it into North Massachusetts.
I've dubbed it Operation Smokescreen (aka: Senate Bill 44)
Make NO mistake about it. This bill serves one purpose and one purpose only - to open the door for Massachusetts-style discretionary licensing for not only the concealed carrying of firearms, but for firearms ownership, as well.
You can bet the farm that if this becomes law, it would only be a matter of days before we see some power-tripping police chief pull the same kind of crap that happens in Massachusetts on a regular basis.
Cases in point: Quincy (MA) Police Chief Robert Crowley and Brookline (MA) Police Chief Daniel O'Leary. Don't even get me started on the over-bloated, fascist idiots at the Boston Police Department Licensing Office.
The people pushing this bill might be [read: are] statist, anti-constitutional scumbags, but they're not stupid. They know exactly what they're doing and exactly what this bill is for.
The "terrorist" angle is but a smokescreen of epic proportion, and underlies the absolutely ridiculous nature of this bill.
Here's why. From the highlighted text above:
Now, there are basically two possibilities concerning the nature of the applicant in question.
(A) He or she is not "a member of a terrorist or criminal organization", in which case the police chief has no business curtailing the rights of said individual, per current New Hampshire state law.
or...
(B) He or she actually is "a member of a terrorist or criminal organization", in which case it's highly unlikely said individual is going to walk into a police station and apply for a pistol permit, or abide by any of the state or federal gun laws for that matter.
It has nothing, whatsoever, to do with fighting terrorism, as its sponsors would like you to believe. The people, once agin, are being fed a line of bullshit, and all the perpetrators of this travesty want to hear from them is "Pass the salt."
Contrary to what some folks are saying, this bill represents a HUGE change to the current law. Right now, the only thing that can cause a pistol/revolver license application to be rejected would be a disqualifying criminal offense that would come up on the applicant's background check.
Should this bill become law, you could add the following to that list of disqualifiers:
1. A police chief/mayor/selectman's vivid imagination
2. A police chief/mayor/selectman's anti-gun bias
3. A police chief/mayor/selectman's personal grudges
Also, you'd be opening the door to creating the kind of system that exists in Massachusetts, where pistol permits are often issued as political favors. A system that recognizes the rights of upper-class, politically-connected individuals and leaves the commoners begging for table scraps under the proverbial table.
As is so often the case, all one needs to do is look into the petri dish called Massachusetts.
Stricter gun laws, higher violent crime rate, governmental distrust of the citizenry.
Quite the stellar model there.
From Gun Owners of New Hampshire:
I'm going to try my best to be there.
I've dubbed it Operation Smokescreen (aka: Senate Bill 44)
AN ACT relative to licenses to carry pistols and revolvers.
1 License to Carry. Amend RSA 159:6, I to read as follows:
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 a loaded pistol or revolver in this state for not less than 4 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. The official authorized to issue the license may deny a license to any person the official reasonably believes to be a member of a terrorist or criminal organization, as shown by sworn affidavit by such official or other law enforcement official or any other reliable person.
Make NO mistake about it. This bill serves one purpose and one purpose only - to open the door for Massachusetts-style discretionary licensing for not only the concealed carrying of firearms, but for firearms ownership, as well.
You can bet the farm that if this becomes law, it would only be a matter of days before we see some power-tripping police chief pull the same kind of crap that happens in Massachusetts on a regular basis.
Cases in point: Quincy (MA) Police Chief Robert Crowley and Brookline (MA) Police Chief Daniel O'Leary. Don't even get me started on the over-bloated, fascist idiots at the Boston Police Department Licensing Office.
The people pushing this bill might be [read: are] statist, anti-constitutional scumbags, but they're not stupid. They know exactly what they're doing and exactly what this bill is for.
The "terrorist" angle is but a smokescreen of epic proportion, and underlies the absolutely ridiculous nature of this bill.
Here's why. From the highlighted text above:
The official authorized to issue the license may deny a license to any person the official reasonably believes to be a member of a terrorist or criminal organization...
Now, there are basically two possibilities concerning the nature of the applicant in question.
(A) He or she is not "a member of a terrorist or criminal organization", in which case the police chief has no business curtailing the rights of said individual, per current New Hampshire state law.
or...
(B) He or she actually is "a member of a terrorist or criminal organization", in which case it's highly unlikely said individual is going to walk into a police station and apply for a pistol permit, or abide by any of the state or federal gun laws for that matter.
It has nothing, whatsoever, to do with fighting terrorism, as its sponsors would like you to believe. The people, once agin, are being fed a line of bullshit, and all the perpetrators of this travesty want to hear from them is "Pass the salt."
Contrary to what some folks are saying, this bill represents a HUGE change to the current law. Right now, the only thing that can cause a pistol/revolver license application to be rejected would be a disqualifying criminal offense that would come up on the applicant's background check.
Should this bill become law, you could add the following to that list of disqualifiers:
1. A police chief/mayor/selectman's vivid imagination
2. A police chief/mayor/selectman's anti-gun bias
3. A police chief/mayor/selectman's personal grudges
Also, you'd be opening the door to creating the kind of system that exists in Massachusetts, where pistol permits are often issued as political favors. A system that recognizes the rights of upper-class, politically-connected individuals and leaves the commoners begging for table scraps under the proverbial table.
As is so often the case, all one needs to do is look into the petri dish called Massachusetts.
Stricter gun laws, higher violent crime rate, governmental distrust of the citizenry.
Quite the stellar model there.
From Gun Owners of New Hampshire:
The hearing for SB44 has been re-scheduled for March 15, at 8:30am in State House Room 103.
I'm going to try my best to be there.
