NH: Two Takes on Gun Fight Two to One Vote

Gun Watch ^ | 20 February, 2014 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

Two articles in two local papers provide two takes on the two to one vote that defeated the "universal background check" or "ban on private sales" a week ago on the 12th of February.

Depending on whether you read the seacoastonline or the New Hampshire Union Leader, the bill went down to defeat because of confusing parliamentary wrangling (the house is controlled by Democrats 215-177) or the Democrats want the bill to go down, but did not want their names attached to its defeat.
From seacoastonline:

HB 1589 would have required most private sellers to conduct background checks through federally licensed dealers, using a system already in place for dealer sales.

Breaking the law would have been a misdemeanor charge. An exception would have been made for noncommercial private sales between individuals not prohibited by federal law from buying a gun. 

The final vote came after a long and confusing debate that lawmakers said left many shaking their heads.

After this, I was a little confused about what a "commercial" private sale would be, so I took a look at the bill, HB 1589.

V. “Transfer” means the intended delivery of a firearm to another person, either with or without consideration of payment or promise of payment, and includes gifts and loans.

159-E:2 Firearms Sales to be Conducted Through a Licensed Dealer.
I. No person shall sell or transfer a firearm unless:

(a) The person is a licensed firearms dealer; or

(b) The purchaser or transferee is a licensed firearms dealer; or

(c) The requirements of paragraph II are met.

II. If neither party to a prospective firearms transaction is a licensed firearms dealer, the parties to the transaction shall complete the sale or transfer through a licensed firearms dealer as follows:

There are exceptions in the bill for transfers among immediate family, at a range, while hunting, or during a competition.    I guess everything else is considered a "commercial private sale", but there might have been an amendment to the bill that was not shown on the legislative web site.

In contrast, The New Hampshire Union Leader wrote that the bill failed because the Democrats wanted it to fail, but did not want their names attached to the failure.  It is not hard to see why they would not want their names attached to it.  Consider the attacks on Senator Ayotte after the she refused to vote for a flawed "universal background check" bill, even though she voted for one that could not have been used to impose a registration system.   From the Union Leader:

Last Wednesday's House votes on House Bill 1589, to require background checks for almost all guns sales in New Hampshire, revealed that New Hampshire Democrats are divided about the utility of universal background checks. Despite the party's official bluster about the need for such legislation, House Democrats would not stand up to have the final vote on the bill recorded. Dozens of them wanted to vote against it, but only if they could do so secretly.

 It is possible for legislators to be confused by parliamentary procedure.  It is a strength of any leadership to use parliamentary rules to their advantage  and to the disadvantage of their opponents.  It seems less likely that those in leadership positions did not realize what was happening and were as confused as those who where pushing for the ban on nearly all private sales.

New Hampshire is a gun friendly state.  It has very low rates of homicide.  The neighboring states have much more onerous gun laws and higher homicide rates.   Homicide is mostly a matter of culture rather than the availability of weapons.

My money is on the Union Leader;  the Democrat leadership in the New Hampshire House  were only too happy to have this whole issue just go away. 


©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

[marktwain]

I think the Democrat leadership wants to hang on to the NH House, and onto Bloomberg money...

[andyk]

An exception would have been made for noncommercial private sales between individuals not prohibited by federal law from buying a gun.

So you would only have to go to an FFL if the person to whom you were selling the gun was a known convicted felon?

[marktwain]

The way I read it, if you were not closely related to the buyer, you had to go to a dealer and ask government permission to sell it.

[andyk]

Yeah, I think you’re right. I’ve never heard of a “commercial” vs “non-commercial” private sale before. I guess that’s the distinction that was lost on me. Either way it’s a load of hooey.

[marktwain]

I am sure that you are correct. It is typical leftist “How can we fool ‘em today” B.S.

I believe the sentence was constructed to be deceptive. Unfortunately, people who constantly deal in deception often get to the point where they do not know the difference between truth and falsehood themselves.