Delmar Burridge is the lone sponsor of HB1566. And act prohibiting open carry of a firearm in certain public places. But the title is misleading because the language of the bill suggests a different goal entirely.
The trouble begins right out of the gate.
159:27 Firearms Prohibited in Certain Public Places.
I. No person shall knowingly and openly carry a loaded or unloaded pistol, revolver, firearm, or other deadly weapon as defined in RSA 625:11, V, whether licensed or unlicensed, upon the person or within any of the person’s possessions owned or within the person’s control in the following places:
Correct me if I’m wrong but wouldn’t ‘or within any of the person’s possessions owned‘ also prohibit carrying concealed?
So this isn’t an act prohibiting open carry in certain public places, it is an act prohibiting open or concealed carry. This would make the new “Working” title to AN ACT “prohibiting any firearms in certain public places.”
Sadly, that’s not correct either because the very next line of 159:27 I (a), prohibits carrying in,
(a) A place where medical services are provided. For the purposes of this section “medical services” means any service, supply, or drug intended for the maintenance care of, or preventive care for, the human body or the care or treatment of an illness or dysfunction of, or injury to, the human body. “Medical services” includes, but is not limited to, physician care, inpatient care, hospital surgical services, emergency services, ambulance services, laboratory services, pharmaceutical supplies, prescription drugs, and medical equipment and supplies.
I’m no legal expert, but to my untrained ear this prohibits carrying any firearm anywhere there is any service, supply, or drug intended for the maintenance care of, or preventive care for, the human body or the care or treatment of an illness or dysfunction of, or injury to, the human body.
Where that “isn’t” is troubling.
And since “Medical Services” defined includes, but is not limited to, I’m taking this to (at least potentially) mean that HB1566 could prohibit the carrying of any firearm on your person or among your possessions in the home, office, car, or anywhere there are prescriptions (drugs) or band-aids, (a very common every day medical “supply” used to “treat” injury to the human body).
Given this loose use of language, it would take less time to guess all the places where HB1566 would not prohibit the carrying (open or concealed) of a firearm or other deadly weapon. But the list continues none the less.
(b) Any place holding a valid liquor license under RSA 178 where liquor is sold or consumed.
(c) A polling place during a federal, state, or municipal election.
(d) Houses of public worship, parish houses, church parsonages occupied by their pastors, convents, monasteries, buildings and the lands appurtenant to them which are owned, used, or occupied directly for religious training or for other religious purposes by any regularly recognized and constituted denomination, creed, or sect, organized, incorporated, or legally doing business in this state and the personal property used by them for the purposes for which they are established.
(e) Any entertainment venue which seats more than 5,000 people.
(f) Any public building. In this subparagraph, “public building” means any building, structure, or place owned or operated by the state or one of its political subdivisions, including the university system of New Hampshire and the community college system of New Hampshire.
I think (b) through (f) are more distractions than anything else but no reason to stop there. At the end of this ridiculous scrabble of rubbish are a list of exceptions to the restrictions which can be summed up as follows: only guns for the government.
Delmar may or may not be a great guy, but this sort of thing is typically reserved for third-world despots and moonbat Democrat governors of coastal states (if and when they are not the same thing).
Now, I’d like to give Delmar credit for proposing this for the sole purpose of advertising (for political gain) the names of those who oppose it, but this is so badly written that we can’t even resuscitate it for that sad, partisan purpose.
It should die in committee, but someone may take it upon themselves to try and fix the language.
Don’t bother. It’s not going to pass. Just ITL it and call it a day.
H/T CNHT
