A double error, in my eyes. In a piece about banning bump stocks (SB 492-FN), the Senate Minority Leader shows two things; can you guess what they are from this snippet”
Sen. Jeff Woodburn, a Democrat from Whitefield, sponsored the bill in response to the mass shooting in Las Vegas in October, when a man killed 58 people during a country music concert. Weapons found in his room reportedly were equipped with bump stocks, accessories that speed up their firing rate. At a public hearing on the bill, Woodburn said there’s no need for such firepower for recreational or hunting purposes. Critics called the bill poorly worded and overly broad. The Senate Judiciary Committee has recommended further study.
Besides that I agree that this bill is poorly written (hey Jeff! This would include all competition triggers that people that are serious about the shooting sports often use to be able to “speed up their firing rate” – after all, there are a lot of shooting sports that are “on the clock” and these would NOT fit your intent – you need a rewrite! Plus there is a real Constitution problem you blithely forgot about (and probably don’t care about either because IDEOLOGY and GUN HATRED!).
I think you all have probably figured out the first baddy real quick like: Woodburn said there’s no need for such firepower for recreational or hunting purposes
Let’s push his nose into this one, shall we? Maybe bringing in the relevant text into closer view may of some use (what, who am I kidding?):
Second Amendment: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed
I’m guessing that Jeff can’t properly diagram a sentence, either, as he wouldn’t have said what he did if he properly did understand that sentence construction. Now, I did embolden the operative clause just for effect. What’s missing that would bolster ole’ near sighted Jeff here? Well, let’s look at our own Constitution to see if it gives him an escape hatch
Article 2-A: All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.
Hmmm, in BOTH cases, neither one of them talk about a constitutional Right to have firearms for strictly recreational use or for “hunting purposes”. So why is he lying by omission? Why is it that he thinks what he said should have ANY weight at all when it doesn’t as a justification for his intent? It shouldn’t at all. Either he is as dumb as an ox (apologies to the oxen that live down the street), ignorant of actual Constitutional Rights (seriously, you get to the level of being the NH Senate Minority Leader and you don’t know this???), or outright lying (commission, omission – take your pick).
How DARE you mislead both your constituents up there in the North Country and the public in general? Should we now be expecting you to behave like NH State Rep Katherine Roger (another Democrat, btw) any time soon?
But wait, there’s more! I easily detect the most blatant of the Progressive “tells” in his verbiage – You don’t need that. I don’t need that, nobody I know needs that, so YOU don’t need that. After all, I know better than you – and your Freedom comes secondarily to what I want. In fact, in line with most Progressive Democrats, your Freedom can’t hold a candle to “the Common Good”. In fact, it is goodness to snuff it out.
You see, Progressives hate Freedom and on the actions of one bad actor, he is willing to show us what Progressives have been showing us for years – the willingness to punish everyone for the sin of one or a few. It doesn’t matter to him (or them) as they believe in collective guilt – that the sin of one convicts all of us as a Society. Again, the Collective over the individual.
Now, trolls will be trolling and they tell me I am going to be responsible for the next set of deaths because BECAUSE <insert the usual here>! Nonsense – if I haven’t done the wrong, I’m not guilty but if you want to go there, then try this on for size: didn’t the Bernie-bro that opened fire at a baseball field that almost killed Steve Scalise, a sitting Congressman, and wounded others make Bernie personally culpable? Sword of Damocles, rhetorically speaking, is a two edged weapon boys and girls.
Oh, that Constitutional problem that NH State Senator Jeff Woodburn has? Here’s the entire bill’s text – tell me what you DON’T see in there:
SENATE BILL 492-FN
AN ACT prohibiting bump stocks in New Hampshire.
SPONSORS: Sen. Woodburn, Dist 1; Sen. Cavanaugh, Dist 16; Sen. D’Allesandro, Dist 20; Sen.
Feltes, Dist 15; Sen. Fuller Clark, Dist 21; Sen. Hennessey, Dist 5; Sen. Lasky,
Dist 13; Sen. Soucy, Dist 18; Sen. Watters, Dist 4; Rep. Shurtleff, Merr. 11; Rep.
Berch, Ches. 1; Rep. Chandley, Hills. 22; Rep. Cushing, Rock. 21
Hmm, I think every stinking one of the sponsors is a Democrat – what does THAT tell you?
This bill establishes a misdemeanor offense for the manufacture, sale, possession, or use of a multiburst trigger activator, known as a “bump stock.”
Yeah, but that is not how the bill is written (a “bump stock”)
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
Matter removed from current law appears [
in brackets and struckthrough.]
Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.
SB 492-FN – AS INTRODUCED
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Eighteen
AN ACT prohibiting bump stocks in New Hampshire.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 New Subdivision; Bump Stocks. Amend RSA 159 by inserting after section 26 the following new subdivision:
159:27 Definition. As used in this subdivision, “multiburst trigger activator” means either of the following:
I. A device designed or redesigned to be attached to a semiautomatic firearm, which allows the firearm to discharge 2 or more shots in a burst by activating the device.
II. A manual or power-driven trigger activating device constructed and designed so that when attached to a semiautomatic firearm it increases the rate of fire of that firearm.
Like I said, the above would cover a competition trigger that would replace a stock trigger and allows a competition shoot to shoot more rapidly. Still only one shot per trigger pull but because the inner workings have been “smoothed out” and a lighter trigger pull (less than the standard o 5-8lb pull needed). Thus, more pulls than a “right out of the box” pistol, rifle, or shotgun would normally allow.
The marketplace for bump stocks is rather miniscule – higher grade triggers is MUCH, much larger. The two are not equivalent but with this, Woodburn would burn us all. Or, at least cause us to have criminal records as the below states:
159:28 Penalty. Any person in this state who manufactures, causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, offers or exposes for sale, or gives, lends, or possesses any multiburst trigger activator is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.
Now we see the conflict – II merely says “increases the rate of fire” while 159:28 says multiburst trigger activator. Which would apply in court? A plain reading would say yes, yes – both could be used to obtain a conviction.
159:29 Exceptions. The provisions of this subdivision shall not apply to:
I. A multiburst trigger activator that is possessed by a federal, state, or local historical
society, museum, or institutional collection that is open to the public if all the following conditions
(a) The multiburst trigger activator is properly housed.
(b) The multiburst trigger activator is secured from unauthorized handling.
(c) The firearm to which the multiburst trigger activator is attached is not loaded.
But shouldn’t the Progressives’ use of the Precautionary Principle be invoked here – that if anything can go wrong, stop it from happening in the first place. Woodburn is being two-faced here – if it is BAD, shouldn’t it be banned in ALL places? What if the “authorized” person goes rogue (like the Progressive watermelons hold here)? Would Woodburn be held personally responsible a la “no one needs it (even if they steal it)”?
Or this exception? Why doesn’t Woodburn want to protect us from rogue movie employees? It is possible they can go bad, too, right? Isn’t this the argument they use all the time – “if it only saves ONE LIFE!”. C’mon, Jeffrey, invoke that ole’ saw “safety and security” bit for us, huh?
II. A multiburst trigger activator which is possessed or used during the course of a motion picture, television, or video production or entertainment event by an authorized participant therein in the course of making that production or event or by an authorized employee or agent of the entity producing that production or event.
And of course, The State automatically gets a pass (even as he either knows already or SHOULD know already that concealed carriers are a couple of orders magnitude safer when it comes to crime than law enforcement officials are:
III. The sale to, possession of, or purchase of a multiburst trigger activator by any federal, state, or political subdivision of the state agency that is charged with the enforcement of any law for use in the discharge of its official duties.
IV. The possession of a multiburst trigger activator by any law enforcement officer of any federal, state, or political subdivision of the state or state agency that is charged with the enforcement of any law, when the officer is on duty and the use is authorized by the agency and is within the course and scope of the officer’s duties.
If they are so inaccurate and so dangerous, Senator, how could you condone usage by law enforcement? If they are too dangerous for recreational or hunting purposes, think of what would happen if a law enforcement officer opens up on a crowd in trying to stop a single person? After all, it has already happened with semi-automatic pistols, hasn’t it, that innocents get caught in a law enforcement cross-fire?
Or is this just the usual “you peons can’t but The State can” schtick? Thankfully, more law enforcement agents have more sense than you do than to use a bump stock
V. A multiburst trigger activator that is sold by, manufactured by, exposed or kept for sale by, possessed by, imported by, or lent by, a person who is in the business of selling multiburst trigger activators for a use authorized in paragraphs I-III.
VI. A multiburst trigger activator that is found and possessed by a person who meets all of
(a) The person is not prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition under any provision of New Hampshire statute.
(b) The person was in possession of the multiburst trigger activator for a period of time no longer than was necessary to deliver or transport it to a law enforcement agency for that agency’s disposition.
(c) If the person is transporting the multiburst trigger activator, the person is transporting it to a law enforcement agency for disposition.
(d) Before transporting the multiburst trigger activator to a law enforcement agency, the person has given prior notice to that law enforcement agency that the person is transporting the multiburst trigger activator to that law enforcement agency for disposition.
VII. The possession of a multiburst trigger activator by a forensic laboratory or by any authorized agent or employee thereof in the course and scope of the person’s authorized activities.
2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2019
So, did you catch the problem? I kinda gave you a hint a couple of lines above. When it comes down to it, Woodburn wants to use the same tactics of New York and California here in the Live Free or Die State – immediately criminalizing otherwise law abiding citizens simply because they legally possessed such a device previous to this law. Isn’t THAT a Progressive mantra – make us lawbreakers at the drop of their hats simply to keep us in line (and, aha!, to be able to take our guns and other rights away at their whim without review the plain words of the Constitution?
It’s also an illegal taking – something of value that is, by dint of this law, being taken from us BY THE STATE – (d) above “for disposition“. Nowhere in this proposed law is any clause present that THe State would give full value to the owner of a bump stock – these things just don’t spring into existence in someone’s gun locker, do they? Just like privately owned land, shouldn’t The State be required to purchase these items IF they become illegal at a full and fair marketplace price?
It is this part that should be bothersome and make us all, Right or Left, rather angry and upset. It may be bump stocks today, but with a precedent set, what could it be tomorrow or the next day? What if the right-of-center politicians decide to politically retaliate (after all, we have been seeing part of the Federal govt being politically weaponized both during and after (“The Resistence!”) the Obama Administration) on something that the Left values?
It shouldn’t get to that – this should be dropped like a hot shell coming out of an AR-15.
(H/T: Concord Monitor)