“Patience is power. Patience is not an absence of action; rather it is “timing” it waits on the right time to act, for the right principles and in the right way.” ? Fulton J. Sheen
Senate Bill 244 began as a bill sponsored by Democratic Senator David Watters. The bill established all sorts of confusing and ambiguous provisions to submit names of the “mentally ill” to the exclusionary provisions of NICS. Additionally, the bill was purported to deal due process provisions for the removal of ones’ name from the NICS exclusion list. Actually, As of this day, there are few who can truly articulate…succinctly…what the bill now accomplishes in the wake of the numerous amendments….so numerous folks have lost count. Summarily, I cannot tell readers factually what the gist of the bill is because as I write this, amendments still abound.
Bill Barry took to the pages of the Union Leader today to advocate for SB244. In the UL, Barry writes,
Senate Bill 244 would require the state to submit a list of names of people who already cannot possess a gun under this federal law to the NICS instant background check system.
Really Bill? Which version would that be? Would that be the version that violates the constitution? or the version that requires one to waive certain due process requirements? or is it the version where all of Watters’ original language is stripped out and then augmented. Or…is it one of the pending versions that will likely come out of the house when they get their hands on it? So Which version is Bill Barry advocating for?
Many of my friends in the gun community are now supporting the amended Bill, crafted by Senators, Carson, Cataldo and Boutin, while many more are not. I for one am not supporting this bill and I intend to actively oppose it.
We have been to session after session after session…hour after hour where bills related to guns or gun laws have been amended, plied, massaged…confabulated…lied about. We have born witness to strident anti-second amendment forces hard at work to the point where they were willing to violate house rules to cram a bill through to declare victory.
We keep seeing the same language of the charlatan liars used over and over. “Sensible Gun policy” “Gun Violence” “Bipartisan.” Its all hokum….tom-foolery…nonsense. Bill Barry in his UL confabulation declares,
“Protecting our families from gun violence is not a partisan issue.”
First, There is no such thing as, “Gun Violence.” Violence is simply, “Violence,” irrespective of the weapon of choice…be it a knife, a gun, a ball bat, a folding chair, an umbrella or a motor vehicle. the term, “Gun Violence,” is sham politics.
Second, Protecting our families from violence is indeed, a partisan issue…a Particularly Bitter Partisan issue, at that. These anti-gun liberals repertoire of advice when faced with violence is to run away, vomit on ones attacker, use scissors and call 9-1-1. Don’t fight back…comply….hope the cops arrive before you are blown to bits, cut up into pieces or beaten to a bloody pulp. We advocates of the second amendment disagree, believing that our right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of defending ones life and the lives of families, is a fundamental one. Partisan indeed.
Bill Barry’s opening paragraph in his op-ed gives form to the notion that, “only police should have guns.” He writes,
“As a law enforcement officer, I have responsible gun ownership in my bloodstream. My fellow members of law enforcement and I have guns ourselves, and we take responsibility for using them safely and teaching our families about using them safely. But we also know what happens when guns get into the hands of people who shouldn’t have them, including the dangerously mentally ill.”
Freudian slip? or careless editing. But the narrative discusses members of the law enforcement community and the mentally ill. Barry never identifies who the, “people who shouldn’t have guns,” are. You? me? We can only guess.
Finally, in my humble view, Bill Barry has zero credibility in gun politics. As a former deputy Sheriff, and officer for Auburn, Barry ran for Alderman in Manchester, a campaign financed by Unions, Gabrielle Giffords PAC, along with other leftist Kool-Aid drinking supporters. Moreover, why would a police officer have any credibility on this legislation? Cops take an oath to enforce the laws, not make them.
We live in a time when the Rise of the Warrior Cop is becoming a looming concern to many citizens, so why would a police officer have such gravitas to talk about such things as, “sensible gun policy?” or Protecting the very citizens they themselves do not trust? Our media is awash with stories about SWAT and SRT teams enforcing some of the most mundane of local laws? Seriously?
This is pure partisanship. These bills in Concord are about winners and losers. This is about left-wing anti-gun victory…getting a marker on the board, in the face of the facts…facts that show the Granite State is one of the safest states in the nation with some of the lowest crime rates in the country…all while talking about the “epidemic of gun crime.” Its pure charlatanry. This is about the outside influence of the Brady Campaign…the Bloomberg crowd, out of staters coming to New Hampshire to knead our state into something more akin to their own ugly slice of anti-gun hell.
There will be courage….Senators and House members will vote against this bill…There will be Cowardice…Senators and House Members voting for this bill to be, “bi-partisan,” deluded into thinking this is, “sensible gun policy.” There will be even bigger cowards…those who take a walk when the bill is voted on. Then there will be the rabid, anti-gun Kool-Aid drinkers who want just this one win…this one scalp on the wall….this “pyrrhic victory.”
The ultimate question will be who the willing dupes will be to pass this legislation. Will you stand with me to oppose Senate Bill 244?
