New Hampshire’s self-defense law is about to go to Constitutional Carry. The present law is shall-issue in black-letter law, but has been converted to may-issue in some towns by a combination of tortured case law from anti-gun judges, and anti-gun policies of specific police chiefs (most of whom are elements of the toxic Red Tide, aka Massachusetts diaspora), is about to go to Constitutional Carry. It may go entirely along party lines, as New Hampshire Democrats have reinvented themselves in the last decade as a party for whom New York / Massachusetts level of anti-gun extremism is a litmus test for office seekers.
This article on progress was written by Dave Solomon of the Union Leader; the Union Leader’s editorial positions are traditionally conservative, but Solomon is a highly partisan Democrat, and the bulk of his report consists of Democrat gun-control enthusiasts’ complaints about the new law.
State Sen. Bette Lasky, D-Nashua, said the change will make New Hampshire residents less safe by removing the authority of police chiefs to pick and choose which residents will be allowed to carry a concealed handgun. Current law allows police chiefs to determine if someone is “suitable” for a concealed carry permit.
“SB 12 will revoke a process that has worked well in our state for more than a century,” said Lasky.
Lasky is lying about that. We don’t know Solomon’s background, but he may be so embedded in Democrat politics he doesn’t know the may-issue facet of the law was created by some of her fellow Democrats, legislating from the bench in recent years.
This has enabled some police officials, such as former Portsmouth Chief Lou Ferland and Captain Mike Schwartz, to add requirements beyond those in the legislation, issue arbitrary denials, and in one case, actually charge a local lawyer with wiretapping for recording Schwartz lying to him. (Ferland and Schwartz and several other city police officials retired after being called out for “self-serving and dubious, often contradictory, testimony…. an unusual measure of selective memory” in a judge’s opinion in a case where Portsmouth cops manipulated a mentally declining nonagenarian into naming them beneficiaries in her will).
The Senate did ultimately pass the bill, and the parallel bill is advancing in the state House of Representatives. It has passed twice before, but was vetoed by former governor Maggie Hassan, already famous in her new job as Senator for grilling Homeland Security Secretary Keene on a fake-news fabrication that the New York Times had already retracted. New governor Chris Sununu has vowed to sign the bill.
This would finally close the door on a law that is a remnant of the state’s racist past:
The-Racist-Roots-of-New-Hampshire-s-Concealed-Carry-License-Law.pdf
Full or limited Constitutional Carry is the law at present in 16 states, including New Hampshire where permitless carry of a concealed and unloaded, or open and loaded, firearm is already permitted. The principal change from this law would be to remove the permit requirement for carrying loaded and concealed, but it would also eliminate a path used by some anti-gun local officials in some cities (notably Manchester and Portsmouth) to strip political opponents of their 2nd Amendment rights.
Kevin was a former Special Forces weapons man (MOS 18B, before the 18 series, 11B with Skill Qualification Indicator of S). His focus was on weapons: their history, effects and employment. He started WeaponsMan.com in 2011 and operated it until he passed away in 2017. His work is being preserved here at the request of his family.
24 thoughts on “NH Moves towards Constitutional Carry”
It isn’t “Constitutional Carry.” When Maddison and Jefferson et., al., brought the Constitution of the United States into being; it was not to give “The People” rights. All of our rights are God given and unalienable. The U.S. Constitution tells the Federal component of our system of government – Federalism – what we the people shall allow it to do. The Federal government shall NOT infringe on our right to keep and bear arms.
Here in Idaho, our state legislators gleefully told we the people “We have given you constitutional carry.” Ladies and gentlemen; if your state legislature can give you something…your state legislature can take it away. States are allowing legislatures to “give us” a God given unalienable right while looking to the future with uncontained glee in anticipation of taking back our God given unalienable right.
When the Second Amendment falls; the phrase – “the right of the people” falls. When that happens, the entire Constitution falls. Be the first in your crowd to correct people when they mis-state the case; it isn’t Constitutional carry, It’s God given and unalienable carry. And anybody who want’s to take away something that God gave to me better bring a lunch, a couple of friends, several spare magazines and a backup weapon.
Cordially,
Bruce Maddux
Of course, you’re right in that the Bill of Rights doesn’t grant jack squat, it just enumerates natural and innate rights of the people that Congress (etc.) must respect.
I’m in California, the Library shelves the Constitution in the fiction section.
Ah yes, alongside Turtledove and other alternative history novels of science fiction and fantasy.
Tip: what do you think?
http://fraghero.com/trumps-bodyguard-fake-arms-reason
@ProGunFred on Gab.
I saw this over there. Been too busy to Gab, but I do have a retired senior special operations officer’s opinion of the Secret Service to share. (It might take a while. Bottom line up front, he was very impressed.
I’m not going to touch the statements on that web page with a barge pole. I’m in no position to confirm or deny anything.
While he may something under that oversized overcoat (the last I heard was the Secret Service does field the P90 among other ‘long guns’) , those are his real arms.
Here’s a site that debunks, with video, the idea.
http://taskandpurpose.com/no-secret-service-agent-not-tactical-fake-arms-inauguration/
Not a particularly impressive “debunking”, IMHO. The limited motion noted could have easily been built into a prosthetic. Also, try doing that move yourself – with your hand flat, fingers together, move your thumb and pinkie away from the middle three simultaneously, then back. Doesn’t seem “natural” to me. [But I don’t play CoD, so what do I know?]
Miles
I’ve never played Call of Duty and I doubt my guys did either.
However, maybe some of their kids did.
And that first gif video shows him adjusting his tie and jacket.
So, take it for what you might want to make out of it, or not.
Since I learned of it, I have found New Hampshire’s required three “good character references” to be an odd head-fake toward “may-issue.”
-John M.
It’s not required in the law. Some municipalities demand it. My town did not.
By what authority do they demand such a thing, then?
-John M.
Many Connecticut cities had the same thing. It was usually anything from three letters of recommendation to a sit down with a police chief or both. Small towns, like mine, would process permits in a couple weeks. Cities would drag it out as long as possible depending on the individual. I believe the state legislature finally (and recently) enacted legislation putting the stonewalling tactics to an end.
I believe one of the local counties near where I live has that “good character references” nonsense. It’s a highly partisan Democrat county, where only the good ole’ boys in the know can get things like that.
So what is the definition of “loaded”?
My dad would take me hunting as a child. He’d have the rifle in the rack with the magazine loaded, chamber empty, bolt open. I mentioned that this was “loaded”. He stated, no, a chambered round is “loaded”.
This may be a loaded question, but in NH is “loaded” a chambered round, or an inserted magazine?
I bet lawmakers and judges do not know either. I guess “loaded” is when the shoulder thing goes up.
The objection to a loaded gun in a vehicle comes mostly from the anti-gun head of the wildlife cops or rangers or whatever they’re called, up here. He’s just full of gun control BS… may be a generational thing.
I understand the objection to calling it “Constitutional Carry” perhaps the term “Permitless Carry” might be useful here.
Still … progress. “Elections have consequences”
Can’t stop the signal, Mal…
Good on you that you already have permit less open carry
Here in Florida our new open carry (with permit) law is stuck in committee
Looks like the 3 RINO senators from south Florida will not let it go forward for a full floor vote
I thought you guys sent the roadblock — Martinez? — to the showers. Guess he had a bench.
Keep your powder dry and your faith in God folks where ever you live. We definitely live in interesting times. With it being cold out I have to keep my coat hiked up over my pistol going back and forth to work so I don’t go through a license check or some such and don’t get charged with having a concealed weapon. Of course in my case I’d get one with an attitude or having a bad day and charge my seat belt going over the pistol in the holster was concealing the weapon. Live, for now, in North Carolina.
I can only hope New Hamshire does not have to suffer the violence we here in Vermont have had to endure thanks to our draconian firearms laws. My pearls can only handle so much clutching!
There’s some talk about the Federal Government stepping in, because locals have been powerless to stop the Maple Sugar wars….
Congrats to NH.
Here in MN the NH out of state permit was a handy way to pick up a lot of useful states for not much money or hassle (our public safety guys have the power to set reciprocity, they’ve snowballed it of course, and other states flip us the bird right back). Kinda sucked when NH jumped from $20 to $100 but, hey, a state’s gotta make rent like the rest of us.
Anyway, glad to see another brick out of the wall.