Hassan shoots down gun bill that allowed concealed carry without a permit

[SecularMotion]

CONCORD — Gov. Maggie Hassan promised she would veto a bill that revoked the licensing requirement for anyone who wants to carry a concealed handgun in New Hampshire, and on Monday — to no one’s surprise — she delivered.

Senate Bill 116 would have repealed the requirement to obtain a permit from a local law enforcement official to carry a concealed pistol or revolver. The measure passed the House and Senate, but not by the two-thirds margin needed to override the governor’s veto.

“New Hampshire’s current concealed carry permitting law has worked well for nearly a century — safeguarding the Second Amendment rights of our citizens while helping to keep the Granite State one of the safest states in the nation,” Hassan said. “Our concealed weapons permitting system gives an important oversight role to local law enforcement, while allowing for appeals through appropriate channels.”

http://www.unionleader.com/article/20150706/NEWS0621/150709462&source=RSS

[OakCliffDem]

1. ^^^ - Drive by post with no comment - ^^^

Once again a great victory for gun control; no change to current law.

[ileus]

2. Wonder why the good governor doesn't trust the citizens of his state???

[Nuclear Unicorn]

3. "safeguarding the Second Amendment rights of our citizens while helping to keep the Granite State...

Hey! You posted an article about a politician affirming the individual's RKBA! Good for you. I feel like progress has been made.

[SecularMotion]

4. I've posted the Democratic Party platform many times

We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation.

[Shamash]

5. You keep posting it yet never say you believe it

Let do a simple "concern troll" test:

Is a ban on something "reasonable regulation" of it?

If "Yes", then a locality can ban abortion as a "reasonable regulation", Congress can pass a "no abortions after 8 weeks" ban as "reasonable regulation", and so on.

So Secular, with regard to the party platform:
• do you believe that firearms ownership is an individual right?
• do you think the party should preserve Americans' right to own and use firearms?
• do you think that a ban constitutes "reasonable regulation"?

[SecularMotion]

6. I support the statement from the Democratic Party platform

without quibbling or splitting hairs.

I think questioning the phrase "reasonable regulation" or equating gun rights with civil/abortion rights is using RW rhetoric.

[melm00se]

7. I always thought

questioning was a progressive trait rather than blindly accepting a statement.

The RKBA and abortion forces (both pro and con) share similar traits among them:

1) they vigorously defend any incursion upon their rights as they see them.
2) the militant members (both pro and con) are absolutely intractable to their opponents.

[Shamash]

14. You forgot 3) painfully ignorant, 4) deceptive and 5) fond of incremental ratcheting of restrictions

Secular, if you don't think there is a similarity between rabid pro-life and rabid pro-control types, you have not been following rhetoric over on the GCRA side. Perhaps you should head back there, read some people the riot act and block a few of the nastier ones. And while this would pretty much empty GCRA of all its regular posters, I honestly think no posts at all would make the group look more liberal than its current content.

After all, you did just say you supported the Democratic Party statement on individual gun rights without quibbling or splitting hairs. So I guess you should oppose people trying to trample that right as much as you would oppose someone trying to trample on civil rights or abortion rights.

[SecularMotion]

21. I see similarities between anti-abortion and anti-gun regulation types.

I think you should stick to stating your own opinions and not try to speak for me or other DU members.

[Shamash]

22. Perhaps you should actually -have- opinions instead of just cutting and pasting those of others...

If you do not want others to misinterpret your position, you should state it in a fashion that is hard to misinterpret. On one hand you say you support the party position on the 2nd amendment, but then you refuse to define what you think a "reasonable restriction" is (not going to quibble where the line is drawn). You say you support gun rights (the party position), then say it isn't fair to compare rights that you supposedly believe in to...other rights you supposedly believe in.

So you can see how we might be confused. We're just trying to figure out what you are saying, since what you are saying does not make any sense.

[SecularMotion]

27. You have a bad habit of trying to speak for others. Who is "we"?

I'm not interested in any further discussion with you. Your views on the gun issue are far to the right of mine.

[DonP]

31. "Your views on the gun issue are far to the right of mine."

Umm, you have no stated views.

Just a lot of stuff you cut and pasted from other people's articles an basement blogs.

When questioned or pressed about it you whine and run away to find more cut and paste material.

[SecularMotion]

33. See post #27

[DonP]

34. See post #31

[beevul]

37. That just means SMs views are farther from mainstream than yours.

In other news, after careful study, water has been found to be wet.

[Shamash]

41. Congratulations

By defining my view (compatible with the President and party platform) as far to the right of yours, you're admitting your view and that of anyone who agrees with you is a fringe view rather than a mainstream one. I don't need to "speak for you" to make you look foolish, I just have to point out the logical consequences of your own statements. If you haven't thought through the things you say you believe, and then cannot defend them from the resulting criticism, that's not really my problem, is it?

And I'm not surprised you don't want any further discussion with me. Getting your ass repeatedly handed to you in a public forum because you pit vague and contradictory assertions against rational, liberal arguments can't be good for your ego.

[krispos42]

8. Is banning a rifle because it has a protruding pistol grip reasonable to you?

n/t

[SecularMotion]

10. Restricting the sale of automatic or military grade weapons to the public is reasonable regulation.

I'm not going to quibble over where the line should be drawn.

[GGJohn]

12. ...

Restricting the sale of automatic or military grade weapons to the public is reasonable regulation.

Those are already tightly restricted, the AR-15 is NOT a military grade rifle, it's a semi auto rifle, it operates in the same exact fashion as my semi auto .22 rifle.

[melm00se]

17. i have a 22 rifle on an AR type platform

Sig 522.

I guess that is a military rifle

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

19. "military grade" = looks military n/t

[Shamash]

13. Great! If you are -not- taking a position, then you -cannot- oppose someone elses.

After all, if you ‘quibble’ at where I would draw the line as too far to one side, you have taken a position on where that line should be. But, you've said that you won't quibble over where that line is, so that's not going to be an issue.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

16. Define "military grade"

[friendly_iconoclast]

30. They cannot, or will not, define it

[Nuclear Unicorn]

32. I would imagine that makes it difficult to actually author any legislation.

Imagine other laws that skirt up against fundamental rights being similarly treated.

"Well, your Honor, it looked like defamation."

[friendly_iconoclast]

39. Attempting to dodge questions with glittering generalities doesn't build credibility...

...here, or in any other political forum.

[blueridge3210]

36. Any weapon

Of which they do not approve.

[hack89]

24. So I can keep my civilian semiautomatic AR-15? Great. nt

[DonP]

29. I guess that applies to my '03 Springfield and 72 year old M1 Garand, certainly Military Grade

Quibbling not included.

[Duckhunter935]

35. Good so I can keep my AR15

As it is not military grade. But I would have a problem with my bolt action Mosin Nagants, my bolt action K31 and my Colt 1911. They are all military grade.

[krispos42]

38. What makes a rifle "military grade"?

The specification of the steel? The mechanical tolerances? Coatings?

[Oneka]

40. I know,,,, I know....

"What makes a rifle "military grade"?"


A shoulder thing that goes up!!!!!

[beevul]

42. Rofl. N/T

[Duckhunter935]

43. that is one of the classics, lol

[Nuclear Unicorn]

9. Just calling something reasonable wouldn't making so.

It would be akin to claiming support for "reasonable racial segregation policies" just because the word reasonable was affixed to the phrase.

The words that become law ought to have solid definitions, not amorphous, ethereal appeals to trust.

[SecularMotion]

11. See post #6

[Nuclear Unicorn]

15. My previous post was in response to Post #6.

You're employing argument by assertion. You state a position and assume that position is correct but there is no reasoning or evidence to support the assertion.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

18. You've just explained most of the pro-control argument, SOP and attitude

Trust me!

[oneshooter]

25. Controllers do not want to deal with people, only with objects.

It's easier that way.

[DonP]

20. "shooting down" gun legislation isn't always a career enhancer

In Wisconsin, Governor Doyle (D) vetoed Concealed carry legislation 3 separate times. And gave us Scott Walker (R) who promised to sign it as soon as it hit his desk.

In Texas Ann Richards (D) refused to sign a concealed carry bill and gave us ... George W. Bush (R).

Three Colorado State Senators gone.

I'm pretty sure there are other cases where they followed the advice of gun control fans and lost their office or the legislature, or hadn't you noticed?

[Shamash]

23. Don't forget Gabrielle Giffords' old seat

The previous holder was a member of her staff who was wounded in the same attack, and still lost to an NRA-backed Republican.

[DonP]

28. Well, better they lose and be "pure of heart" to some folks I guess

We've had people actually post that they would rather lose a seat than have a gun supporter with a "D" after their name.

[Eleanors38]

26. The singular weakness of the gun control/ban outlook is lack of credibility...

Those with this outlook who purport to be "activists" usually do not reveal a comprehensive agenda with an end goal or vision. Theirs is a constant push to enact any and all "reasonable" regulations; in short, they have never seen a regulation or ban they didn't like.

Like the anti-choice banners, they want more and more regulation until a ban is de facto achieved.

Like the HSUS, they want this or that method of hunting regulation until a ban is de facto achieved.

Prohibitionism is a distinctly un-Liberal outlook which is extremist.

Gun banners have discredited themselves.