Part 1 - Testimony on behalf of HB564 - relative to possession of firearms in safe school zones - Granite Grok

Part 1 – Testimony on behalf of HB564 – relative to possession of firearms in safe school zones

I am here in Concord to both record and to testify on HB 564 (“relative to possession of firearms in safe school zones.”).  It’s not a good bill – one that I would suggest is a nuisance bill that just makes it harder for law abiding gun owners to exercise their Second Amendment and Article 2-A rights in and around schools zones.

To be perfectly blunt, I have taken a far different approach to my testimony that directly speaking to the bill and why it should be ITL’d (Inexpedient to Legislate).  Instead, it is taking the Democrat / Progressives to task for continuing to reduce the Freedoms and Liberties that we as free citizens possess (and are being denied, IMHO).  Here is the first Part:


My name is Skip Murphy from Gilford, NH. Thank you for this time but I can guarantee that many of you will not like my testimony (as you may have already surmised). Let me begin with this quote from Daniel Henninger of the Wall Street Journal who perfectly summarizes what we engineers call “the root problem” of the Progressive philosophy:

“The essence of modern Democratic Progressivism is: You will participate in what we have created for you, and you will comply with the law’s demands.”

Once again this session, Democrats are proposing yet another law that infringes both the Second Amendment and Article 2-A, parts of our Foundational and bedrock law of the land. It should be clear:

I will not comply; we will not comply.

Why? Because you do not comply. Both in NH and across the nation, I see politicians refusing to honor their oaths of office to OBEY and DEFEND both the Letter AND Spirit of the US and NH Constitutions. Words have meanings and words have Power but only if politicians pay heed to them. I make the call you all are not.

After all, it is clear that many of you (in the collective) have decided that there are laws which you yourselves have decided not to follow. A quick example is that of establishing Sanctuary Cities / Counties / States for illegal immigrants. If such local lawmakers decide to violate Federal Law, you send a message to the rest of us that we can now also decide to follow your examples – else you are being hypocrites.

Let me repeat this: the ramifications of such examples should be self-evident – if you are not willing to follow the Constitutions which we on the Right cherish, if you are not willing to follow Federal Law, why should we follow the State Law you create? If you pick and choose, why can’t we? If you refuse to follow the “Big Laws”, why should we follow your “littler” laws?

I, and many like me, used to believe that before pen was set to legislative paper, our elected officials WOULD contemplate a most basic question: “is this Constitutional?”. That you don’t shows the elitism of the Democrat Party and it lines up with your ideology of collectivism and control. THIS, my friends, is Totalitarianism written kinda slow.

Hard to hear? It is worse watching this rollout in realtime. It does seem to be the case of “The Bigger the Government, the smaller the citizen” for nothing says Big Government than piling on more and more laws on those formerly viewed as free citizens. From our Declaration of Independence (in part):

… We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…

To secure these Rights – not to water them down, not to dismiss them, and not to actively diminish them.