Progressive Democrats rebuke the NH Constitution

Update: just after putting this up!

There is already a petition to protest this action by the Democrats to limit a Right enumerated by the NH Constitution – please sign it here!

While some may see this as merely a "gun issue", it is not – this is truly a constitutional issue.

————————————————————————————————————–

PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS USE COMMITTEE RULE TO OUTLAW GUNS AT STATE HOUSE

Citizens for Sensible Legislation rebukes unconstitutional policy-making in the dark of night just before Christmas

MANCHESTER, N.H.? In a surprise action today, a cadre of anti-liberty lawmakers in Concord acted behind closed doors to ban guns at the State House, the Legislative Office Building, the Upham Walker House, legislative parking garages and lots, and any other facility that the Legislature controls.

In a partisan, 8-3 vote, progressive Democrats sitting on the Joint Committee on Legislative Facilities today used a policy-making authority for legislative buildings to impose their out-of-touch and unconstitutional agenda on citizens, lawmakers and state office workers who would want to protect themselves from criminals who might try to harm them in these buildings. Section 2(a) of the New Hampshire constitution clearly protects the right to bear arms.

"The Democratic legislators on the Joint Facilities Committee are a rouges gallery of the strongest opponents of personal and economic liberty in New Hampshire," said Andrew Demers, chairman of Citizens for Sensible Legislation. "These are extremists who have failed in their attempts at restricting liberty through the legislative process, so they’ve now turned to an unprincipled and underhanded tactic. Clearly, these legislators are out of touch with average citizens on this important issue.”

"The citizens of New Hampshire are undoubtedly less safe and less free because of the Joint Committee’s actions today," Demers added.

Democratic committee members Sylvia Larsen, Terie Norelli, Margaret Hassan, Mary Jane Wallner, Lou D’Allesandro, Marjorie Smith, Daniel Eaton and Martha Fuller Clark were behind today’s vote against liberty and safety, while Republicans voted to honor citizens’ right to defend themselves.

Republican leadership condemned the scheme by progressive Democrats. “It won’t allow people working in the buildings to protect themselves from someone just walking in with a weapon,” said Gene Chandler, senior assistant House Republican leader. “Once again, we are favoring the criminals.”

According to Chandler, state Rep. Mary Jane Wallner slipped in the measure at the last minute. It wasn’t on the agenda and no one from the public had the chance to comment. He said a law to ban guns in state buildings failed measurably a few years ago, so the anti-gun extremists turned to dirty tricks to impose their will on the people. A similar law has come up again for the 2010 session, which will likely be defeated.

“Senate President Larsen and House Speaker Norelli are the architects of the Democratic Party’s progressive anti-freedom policies. This underhanded deal, done four days before Christmas, shows the utter contempt that they have for New Hampshire citizens", said Andrew Demers, chairman of Citizens for Sensible Legislation.

###

About Citizens for Sensible Legislation

Citizens For Sensible Legislation is a volunteer coalition of residents committed to educating the people of New Hampshire about candidates, legislation and issues that affect individual and economic liberties.

Citizens For Sensible Legislation – P.O. Box 5114 Manchester NH 03108 – info@cslnh.org – http://cslnh.org

Like it? Share it!

Alex

Talk about dictators. We can blame this mess on NH voters who bought into the democrat lies that tied $500 a year state reps to Iraq policy back in 2006.
Jim Splaine

So, don’t we have a freedom not to have people walking around with guns in our halls of government? I suppose you’d want anyone who wants to be able to carry weapons into the U.S. Capitol or the White House? Can anyone just walk into a prison to visit someone and carry a gun? Aren’t some limits reasonable to protect the freedoms of the rest of us? Just asking.
Skip

I have NO problem with someone having a weapon (open or concealed carry) walking around the State House, as law abiding people aren’t going to use them. Unless of course, some madman decides to walk in there as well with the express intent to kill someone (which that person will do even with the gun restrictions in place – re: Virginia Tech).

Explain to me – how would I, carrying a weapon, impinge upon “the freedoms of the rest of us”? The answer is that I wouldn’t – I require nothing from you, expect nothing of you, in that case except for one one: leave me alone in the expression of my freedom under the US and NH Constititions.

Just answering!
Alex

Jim, as a state rep, can you answer a question? How many violent acts have occurred in any of the state house buildings during New Hampshire’s history? However this tyranny doesn’t surprise me since these individuals are all anti-2nd. Even that clown Eaton showed his true colors after being Mr. Pro-2nd. It is time for NH residents to put the majority back into the minority for another 70+ years. It is amazing that in only 3+ years the NH Democrats have financially ruined this state and sunk us into a half a $500 billion hole.
Jim Splaine

I’m very torn on this issue. Really. I opposed the “Castle Doctrine” in past years in the Legislature, but since I’ve had a few reasons to be concerned about my own safety in my neighborhood in past months because of some of the things I’ve fought for at the State House, I can much more relate to the reasoning behind it. I’d likely support such legislation now, allowing a person to use force in his/her own home.
And on carry of firearms, I think we need the dialogue. I do see the problem about where does it stop? For example, what if someone wants to walk about “expressing” himself by carrying half a dozen weapons. But I also understand that the weaker among us might feel they need protection when alone.
I also realize that prohibiting weapons at, for example, a State House is very difficult to enforce. In our situation, we would need metal detectors and personnel from 7:00 AM to near Midnight, 6 or 7 days a week, covering 5 entrances, and if someone really wanted to get in with a weapon they could — either by using another method (i.e. windows) or overpowering what is likely to be one guard. And even if we could provide for full security, what about someone on the plaza or outside the exits, in-waiting? In other words, does such prohibition do any good even if it works? (We even saw at the White House recently that “security” is only so good as alert people who watch everything and follow all procedures every time.)
So, I’m open on the question, and I look forward to what should be an interesting discussion. By the way, in past years I’ve voted against legislation providing for State House security.