New Hampshire

... who would have expected it?  It's from the Free State -- New Hampshire.  Go read it.  Unfortunately, neither the sheep nor the police react well to open-carry.  I could wish for open-carry to be more popular, simply for the PR benefits, but the police hassle factor strongly argues for concealed carry.

That the Gun Owners of New Hampshire is now asserting the right of the mentally ill to break federal law and buy firearms is to be expected. The gun-rights group has long distinguished itself by bad judgment. That the Legislature appears ready to acquiesce may be only slightly less shocking but far more disappointing.

A homeowners group is seeking to declare unconstitutional recent legislation exempting shooting ranges from liability and prosecution from noise complaints.

The club, which began in Nashua in 1913 and moved to Hollis in 1966, suspended its shooting and other outdoor operations last fall due to unresolved disagreements over noise levels and environmental concerns of nearby homeowners.

1913... gee, I wonder who was there first?

Since this is happening in the Free State maybe some of those folks can step in and help out.

This bill repeals the statute that prohibits carrying a pistol or revolver without obtaining a permit and repeals additional statutory provisions concerning procedures associated with the license to carry a pistol or revolver.

The above summary is from a House bill in New Hampshire. It really does seem like legislators are starting to realize that concealed carry is safe. However, given that the language amends all sorts of other bills, it might be a good idea to make sure the bill actually does what it says -- rather than leaving in place some legislative prohibition on concealed carry after the permit process has been removed. I'm not saying it does -- but I'd want to check.

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.

The New Hampshire Senate voted Thursday to let gunowners carry concealed weapons without a license. The 13-10 vote sent the measure to the House. Supporters argued that the constitutional right to bear arms shouldn't be infringed by requiring gunowners to apply for licenses. Alton Republican Robert Boyce said the constitution gives people the right to protect themselves. But opponents said getting a license from the local police department is a needed safeguard. Nashua Democrat Joseph Foster said getting a license is a reasonable regulation that doesn't prevent anyone from carrying a weapon. Other opponents said eliminating the requirement might result in more guns being carried.

I was fairly impressed that the bill got introduced; even with the extremely positive concealed-carry conditions at the moment, I'm surprised it passed. Surprised but not at ALL dismayed. Good work. Now get it through the House, and we can have Vermont-Alaska-NewHampshire carry as a goal to strive for.

DEBATES OVER whether citizens should be allowed to carry concealed handguns always seems to end up with fearful stories about what might happen. We hear horror stories about how permit holders might endanger the lives of others and of shootouts in the streets. But within a year, all the fuss dies away. No state that has adopted a right-to-carry law has rescinded it, and for good reason.

New Hampshire, whose original right-to-carry law was adopted in 1923, is an old hand at dealing with these fears. Yet, in seeking to further liberalize its law, many of the old concerns are being revisited. In February, the state Senate passed a bill, 13-10, to let law-abiding citizens carry concealed handguns without requiring them to get a license or pay fees. The state House votes on the bill today.

While no longer requiring a license, the bill really does not change who can legally carry a concealed handgun. Federal law still forbids felons, anyone charged with domestic violence, someone who has been dishonorably discharged from the service or anyone who?s been involuntarily committed to a psychiatric hospital from even owning or possessing a gun.

The New Hampshire House voted on the bill Lott is referring to yesterday, which would remove licensing requirements for concealed carry in New Hampshire. If passed, the bill would result in "Vermont-style carry" within the state. It has already passed the Senate.

I don't know the outcome of the vote. If I find out, I'll pass it on.

A New Hampshire House committee is taking aim at a plan to do away with any requirements for carrying a concealed weapon in the state.

By a vote of 16 to 3, the House Criminal Justice Committee rejected a plan to eliminate concealed-weapons permits in New Hampshire. The bill will still go to the full House with a negative recommendation from the committee.

A number of committee members are former and current police officers, and they expressed concerns about public safety and an influx of guns from out of state.

This is the bill that would have given New Hampshire Vermont-style (permitless) concealed-carry. Since it goes to the full House anyways, I don't think this particular vote means much. But I'm watching closely regardless. If you live in New Hampshire, pay attention.

A lawmaker is asking the Legislature to revisit the laws that allow judges and police officers to seize guns in domestic violence cases.

"A lot of these domestic violence charges are brought as a tactic in divorces," said Rep. Howard Dickinson, a Center Conway Republican. "There is an excessive amount of paranoia when it comes to guns, and sometimes the guns have nothing to do whatsoever with the situation."

State laws allow guns to be seized in a couple of ways. A judge has an option of taking guns and ammunition when he or she issues a domestic violence petition. In addition, police officers are obligated by law to take guns when they are called to a domestic violence assault and make an arrest.

This is a potentially explosive issue, so I'll deal with it carefully. First, this particular prohibition on possession by people who have a domestic-violence restraining order is a matter of federal law as well as state law. Changing the state laws won't make a difference to the federal laws involved.

Second, we're not really dealing with domestic violence situations; we're dealing with restraining orders that allege domestic violence. As we learned in US v Emerson, "domestic violence" restraining orders are practically a standard part of hostile divorce proceedings. They generally don't come with any sort of due process and they do not represent a conviction. So there is a large gap between people accused of domestic violence by way of this type of restraining order, and people who actually committed domestic violence.

For people who did not actually do what they are accused of, seizing their firearms represents a level of intrusion that really should involve due process of law. That applies even more strongly when that seizure is as permanent as the local police can make it; many people have reported problems getting their firearms returned to them once the restraining order is no longer in force.

I'm not sure what the best solution is. But I recognize that the current situation represents a problem for people who are guilty of nothing more than being involved in a divorce. And that's not right.

UPDATE: One of my readers informs me that the situation is even worse than I thought.

I read your blog on the siezure of guns for those subject to a restraining order, and there's an additional point that many people don't realize. I don't know to what extent this really occurs, but it is not unusual for counter-restraining orders to occur. In other words, if a woman files a restraining order against a man, it is not unusual for the man to file one against the woman, sort of a cover-your-ass situation. Well, when that occurs, the woman cannot arm herself either, thus creating a greater risk of victimization. Something else to ponder with the mentioned laws.

So, if the divorce gets messy, both parties file restraining orders against each other. This results in both parties being disarmed (since the restraining order also prevents purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer). In the absence of firearms, the male advantage in strength, size, and aggression will tend to give the advantage to the abuser -- quite possibly making the situation worse.

Shouldn't we be trying to make the situation better, not worse? To do that, we need to allow both parties to defend themselves. Otherwise, we just end up with another victimization period.