HB 330 came before the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee yesterday. As expected both bills were opposed by law enforcement community and as often is, it’s reasonably predictable what the nature of those objections are.
New Hampshire State Police Capt. John Lalacheur told the committee that changes in the law will make it difficult for police to fight gang and drug violence. Lalacheur also citied issues with the Outlaw 
Motorcycle group and an upcoming Hells Angels World meet slated for this summer. Captain Lalacheur also made another statement to the committee that caught my attention. In speaking of the current laws supposed limitations, he asserted to the committee that only felons are precluded from receiving a license so a person with a history of misdemeanor assaults can legally obtain (and must be issued) a New Hampshire Pistol Revolver License. We all know full well that simply isn’t true.
On March 31, 2006 Dover Police Chief William Fenniman sent a letter to Edward J. Bleiler, notifying him that his New Hampshire Pistol Revolver License was revoked citing that Bleiler was, “not a suitable person at this time.” Bleiler appealed the revocation in District court as prescribed by statute and the District Court upheld the action by the Dover Police Chief. This case was heard in the New Hampshire Supreme Court which upheld the District court’s affirmation of Bleiler’s revocation.
It is important to point out that Bleiler was never charged with a crime. The Dover Police Department revoked his license on the basis that his haughty, raucous behavior was such that he has caused several people to be alarmed by his inappropriate firearms handling, silly statements, and refusal to address them when asked to do so. (It doesn’t matter whether one agrees or disagrees with the court’s holding in this case. All who possess, handle and carry guns know there are things one simply does not say or do when exercising constitutional rights)
The court in Bleiler set a standard for an issuing authority’s discretion in the issuance or denial of New Hampshire Pistol Revolver Licenses; that standard being, “suitability.” So, if the logic follows, why would a “suitable person” be somebody with a lengthy history of misdemeanor assaults and convictions? Consequently, to suggest that petty criminals must statutorily be issued a pistol revolver license, irrespective of a checkered past is factually untrue. (see, also Dan Garand v. Town of Exeter)
Salem Chief Paul Donovan worries that a change in the law will increase gang and drug activity crossing into New Hampshire from our neighbors to the south. The problem with that is other states who also have “constitutional carry” (Vermont, Arizona, Alaska) also have gangs and drugs. Arizona in particular has a massive gang problem, in spite of its gun laws. Moreover, the influx of gang-like people from the People’s republic of Massachusetts was most notable in 2002 and 2003 in the wake of the state’s welfare reform laws which cut off vast numbers of people. Changes in gun laws rarely ever attract criminals. Why should they? Criminals are never bound by laws, no matter how restrictive as evidenced by the Michael Addison convictions
When such gun bills come to the fore, there is this constant tendency of the Law Enforcement Community to make noise about these changes. The discussion becomes more about their constituencies (criminals) who should not have guns, and far less about the liberties and freedoms of the law-abiding citizens, such changes are intended to serve.
Representative Lyle Bullis, a Republican lawmaker from Littleton opposes the bill for safety reasons, asserting concerns over gun discharges in a variety of situations. I don’t know why this reason is any more of a compelling reason to kill this bill, because the potential for firearm discharges in and of themselves exist with the mere handling and carrying of any kind firearms of firearms and ammunition.
And as can be expected, some outright liars showed up to confabulate and advocate for their left-wing, progressive, gun-grabbing agenda, couched in faux suicide statistics (Silly me, should have taken her name down).
One glaring disparity that manifested in testimony were legal interpretations of both Penny Dean and Evan Nappen. It is clear that Gun groups in New Hampshire are clearly on the same page for advocacy of the second amendment, but are otherwise miles apart on how we get to the principles that best enhance and preserve those very rights.
This seems like a no-brainer. Law-abiding citizens should be able to exercise a constitutional right to carry firearms, whether concealed or openly. Vermont has had this provision for many years and other states have adopted this principle recently. Obtaining a license should be optional and should remain in place to maintain the lawful reciprocity we have with other states.
I have no idea whether or not either HB 330 or HB 536 achieves the goals lawmakers intended. But assertions that the bills violate, trump or otherwise allow inappropriate persons possess guns is patently false.
