Posted on 04/29/2015 3:51:42 AM PDT by markomalley
The New Hampshire House is preparing to vote on legislation that would remove the licensing requirement for carrying a concealed firearm, a significant change to the state's gun laws.
If the House passes the bill Wednesday, it heads to Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan's desk. She has not said whether she will veto it, but did say recently the state's existing gun laws are working.
Current law requires anyone who wants to carry a gun concealed such as in a purse or under a coat to get a license from local law enforcement or officials. This bill would allow anyone who can own a gun to carry it hidden without the license. Maine is considering similar legislation and Vermont already has so-called "constitutional carry" laws.
Legislatures can only exercise power granted to them by the people. The people can only grant power to government that rests in the people and since self protection is a natural right given by God, the people cannot relinquish such power or grant government a power coming from a higher source. Constitutional carry is a natural right IMHO. Nevertheless, governments take it upon themselves to exercise dominion where none is granted.
To put it in plain words, crooks carry a weapon however they want too, the law abiding should have the same right.
As a matter of fact, in open carry states, I would say the crooks are more likely to carry concealed without a permit, so one might ask what’s the beef? Law enforcement will tell you as they are the ones testifying against Constitutional carry. Specifically the Sheriffs Association and the Police Associations as well as individual members of either.
Never understood why the culture shifted between the end of the 19th century and midway through the 20th on “concealment.” It used to be that gentlemen carried openly and vagabonds carried concealed. It was considered the ultimate in criminality to hide your weapon. While I understand there are certain advantages to concealing, why it is that law enforcement is against open carry is beyond me.
What, are they afraid they’ll get calls from the wussified masses that some bad man is carrying an awful, bloodthirsty gun through the produce section of the grocery store? They don’t want to do their damn jobs, and having more armed citizens means we need fewer of them to “protect” us.
We still have that RAT governor here because the GOP candidate wasn’t man enough to apologize for pissing on the Tea Party several years before.
I think that cost him the election and keeps us in a very precarious condition of having a RAT governor.
I’m in an open carry state which is fine, the problem lies in getting Constitutional concealed Carry passed through the Legislature. The ones against are exclusively Law Enforcement. We do have the permit system for concealed carry and legislation for no permit concealed carry preserves the permit system for multi-state reciprocity, but still no dice.
I have one question:
“This bill would allow anyone who can own a gun to carry it hidden without the license.”
Did anyone notice the word ** CAN **??
How is THAT defined??
If the word “CAN” is used, there must also be the hidden word “CANNOT”.
“Legislatures can only exercise power granted to them by the people.”......
Too bad our “Constitutional Expert” odumbo didn’t read that part, if he had, perhaps he wouldn’t make up his own laws when needed.
The masters are uneasy when the slaves may hold dirks in their belts.
Can’t think of another reason. They certainly don’t take issue with “Shall not be infringed”, at least openly they don’t.
Carrying openly today makes you a target. Two thugs could easily distract and overcome an open carrier and relieve him/her of their firearm.
My guess is that this is the number one fear amongst LEOs. That and the negative effect that seeing a firearm would have on the sheep roaming freely today...most of whom are oblivious to what that firearm represents in terms of their own security and safety.
Why shouldn’t NH go Constitutional Carry? Their neighbor, Vermont, has had it since Statehood.
My contention all along. Why would any state restrict it’s people from a god given right. They choose to do so and the people are left to appeal to their legislature to grant what God has already given in the natural law. Knowing that what the state grants, the state can with a pen and a phone, ungrant.
A properly-trained citizen carrying a sidearm is no more susceptible to being disarmed by an assailant than a law enforcement officer, and there have been numerous studies done over the years to prove that the incidence of disarmament is low. This “fear” is another one of the long-established beliefs by government officials that the people cannot police themselves.
That being said, there are plenty of people carrying a firearm with little to no training whatsoever, so I can appreciate the concern with having “greenhorns” walking around toting a sidearm. It only takes a single incident of someone being in the fight of their life for them to take proper training seriously. That’s what did it for me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.