In the unofficial transcript of Senator David Pierce’s comments opposing SB 116 – Constitutional Carry – on Thursday, January 29, the Senator said: “And there was one gentleman in particular, I didn’t get his name, he was standing on the left side of the audience, he went into Article 2-a of the NH constitution that says that “all persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state… He didn’t say it but, what he was going to say, you know, but what he was advocating for is a very strict reading of that and he’s saying that “All persons means all persons.”
That “gentleman” is Ian Underwood who readers of Granite Grok and 2 Amendment folks know well. After reading the unofficial transcript, Ian has responded in a piece he has entitled “SB 116 for Idiots”, reprinted in its entirety below:
As a matter of constitutionality, this bill is a referendum on a very basic question: Does the constitution still apply, even when we are afraid? Or is fear sufficient justification for ignoring the plain language of the constitution in lieu of taking the trouble to amend it?
But setting aside constitutionality for a moment, as a more practical matter, we can divide people into four categories:
1.People who qualify for a license now, and have no special reason why they can’t wait two weeks.
If this bill becomes law, these people will be spared the humiliation of having to pay to exercise their rights. We got rid of poll taxes. Getting rid of the self-defense tax would likewise be a good thing.
2. People who qualify for a license now, but because of imminent danger cannot afford to wait two weeks.
If this bill becomes law, these people will no longer be placed in the unconscionable position of having to choose between obeying the law, and defending their lives — a choice no one should ever have to make. Eliminating this dilemma would be a good thing.
3.People who qualify for a license now, but are being denied because of police bias.
If this bill becomes law, these people will be spared the frustration of having their civil rights violated under color of law, without due process. Eliminating this kind of discrimination would be a good thing.
4.People who do not qualify for a license.
It’s people in this group who are creating all the confusion. The main argument presented by opponents of this bill is that if it becomes law, these people will somehow be granted permission to carry a gun, when they would not qualify for that permission now. Children will be taking guns to school! Convicted felons will be carrying guns in Walmart!
That prospect is certainly scary. However, it is also false. People who are prohibited from carrying guns now will still be prohibited from carrying guns after this bill becomes law.
They will, however — along with the people in the other three groups — be accorded the presumption of innocence. That is, the mere fact that someone is carrying a gun will no longer provide the police an excuse to demand proof of innocence, in the form of a license. Rather, the burden of proof will be shifted to the state, which is where it belongs.
Presumption of innocence is a very, very good thing. This bill would prevent the state from withholding it.
So, vote for this bill if you believe that
– the constitution applies even when we are afraid
– people should not have to pay a fee to exercise a right
– in the presence of imminent threats to life and limb, a waiting period is unconscionable
– the violation of civil rights under color of law cannot be sanctioned, and
– the presumption of innocence must be accorded to everyone, not just to people who don’t scare you.
Of course, if you disagree with these, you should vote against the bill… and immediately afterwards, resign from office.
