HB696 - Governor Sununu, don't veto this Elder care bill (it's no longer an anti-gun bill). Part 1 - Granite Grok

HB696 – Governor Sununu, don’t veto this Elder care bill (it’s no longer an anti-gun bill). Part 1

help the elderly

This also could have been labeled a “Facebook Doodlings” post because a lot of what is about to be put in here comes directly from a post in the Republican Liberty Caucus of NH group.

There is a lot of controversy over this bill where in its original form, more references were made about firearm confiscations than protecting the financial well being of vulnerable senior citizens.  It really was another attempt by the Democrats to willfully discard the “shall not infringe” clause of the Second Amendment (as well as totally ignoring Article 2-A of the NH Constitution: All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state).  What’s that phrase they keep yelping about – oh yeah: “IT’S SETTLED LAW”.

Except for when it goes against their agenda and then not even our Constitutions are off-limits to their ignoring (ignorance?) them. But here’s one example when they were brought back from the brink.

After HB696 was passed and went over to the Senate, a Conference of Committee, along with a few gun groups and the elder care lobby, took out all of the references to firearms.  ALL of them – see for yourself by readying the text of HB696 here.  I’ve read it now; several times, in fact (and found some errors that the Legislative Office staff had “missed” – the corrections are not in there.

But there are those, notably the NH Firearms Coalition (remember, those are the folks formerly headed by Alan Rice who took the stance that if you don’t play by our rules and do our survey, we’ll give you an F and label you an anti-Second Amendment candidate.  They caused several good people to lose.), who are STILL adamant that this is a gun grabber bill.

Really?  Really – JR Hoell and Grokster Dan Itse put an editorial into the Concord Monitor.  Too bad the Fishwrap still hasn’t turned on their comments back on but Hoell and Itse decided to put their Op-Ed into the RLCNH page.  So here’s what transpired (edited a bit, emphasis mine) and I think you may well find it informative. So JR starts off with this missive:

There are 4 nasty anti-gun bills headed to the Governor’s desk. Currently they are awaiting signoff by the Senate President. This is the final step before the bills get to the Governor.

The most dangerous bill is HB696, which mandates that a police officer confiscate firearms on a mere accusation. So much for the 4th amendment protections, so much for being able to defend yourself in court, so much for not seizing property without a court order. This bill destroys all of those principles in one shot. [no pun intended]. However the Governor can veto this bill and ask that the legislature draft a bill that protects the elderly without violating the rights declared in the US and NH Constitutions.

Here is an op-ed summarizing the issues regarding HB696. Here is a list of bills that need to be vetoed by the Governor. Call his office at 603-271-2121

HB 109, sell a gun to a friend and go to jail;
HB 514, up to 12 day wait between purchase and delivery of a firearm and a new, mandatory training requirement for gun owners;
HB 564, criminal safe schools;
HB 696, elder care gun confiscation.

He’s wrong – both of them – on HB696Dead wrong – ginning up a problem where one no longer exists so I weighed in:

HB 696 had all of the anti-gun clauses removed (originally, there were more references to firearms than to financial issues). There is now only ONE reference to deadly weapons left and that comes down to those that are INVOLVED in the actual crime of elder abuse at the scene.

Should the Police Prevent Abuse, Neglect, or Exploitation of the Elderly?

HB696: Who You Gonna Believe?

And given our current Alexa rankings, I felt comfortable leavening it with a bit of snark, well, because that’s who we are:

So, who you gonna believe: the Concord Monitor or GraniteGrok?

Obviously, that didn’t go over well so a bit of chest puffing was encountered:

I think the actual question is: Who are you going to believe, two former reps with a combined 25+ years of fighting to protect the rights of the citizens, members who had an “A” average HRA and NHLA records, or an attorney who supported 2014 SB244, “See a Shrink, lose your guns”?

PERFECT!  My use of Trump’s Shiny Object maneuver was deployed and the bait taken.  And just like Trump, when the MSM, Dems, Socialists, and Never Trumpers are looking up into the sky, I started on the meat of the problem (posts combined – for the original format, go to the post):

OK JR, bring it. I’ve already had this out with Dan Itse. There is one, ONE clause left that could only be remotely considered to be related to guns and a careful reading of it shows it isn’t. The only answer that Dan had at the end of that string was “search warrant”. You know what it reminded me of? During the first Iraq war when Liberals were screaming “HALLIBURTON!” – as if that meant anything at all.

The key word in that clause is INVOLVED. Here’s the clause (173-D:11): “(a) Confiscating any deadly weapons involved in the alleged abuse, exploitation or neglect”.

That could be a gun. It could also be my Katana sword, a mace, nun-chucks, flying stars, a carving knife, a chain saw….a butter knife. Heck, I can make a deadly weapon out of a pen or rolled up newspapers, for that matter. The key word is INVOLVED.

Having that (a) clause in it doesn’t make it anti-gun. It states “deadly weapons involved”. And most likely, a criminal charge, in addition to elder abuse charges, WILL be made just like if I’m shooting you, pistol whipping you, or slashing you with my hatchet at the time the police show up, that deadly weapon will be confiscated for safety reasons. Just like in any other crime scene. Note that the “deadly weapon” is on site because it is INVOLVED. They can’t take what isn’t on site and can’t take what isn’t INVOLVED.

Not that you happen to HAVE it but that you USED it. The difference is INTENT and ACTION. Just because I have a gun (and I wouldn’t want the Sig P365XL I just bought taken away just because I’d be up for elder abuse) doesn’t mean it is automatically taken away – it has to be USED in the commission of elder abuse.

It would then follow the legal path of having any type of property returned after the commission of a crime using it.

So what was the upshot back from either JR Hoell or Dan Itse on this line (you know, actually parsing the actual text of the bill)?

So far, <crickets>.  Nada, nein, nothing. Now, I am no lawyer, only a lowly political blogger but I have learned that words have meanings.  Specific meanings.  Like INVOLVED and that “deadly weapons” are not just firearms.  Being a software engineer means that I also look at the “system” a bill sets up and then try to see how it can be exploited AS WRITTEN.  But this ordinary schlub from Central NH doesn’t see ANYTHING in this bill that would make it the anti-gun bill Hoell, Itse, and others are trying to make it look like – the authorizing verbiage just isn’t there anymore.  Certainly, they didn’t make ANY attempt to engage in debate about what I said (above) in trying to combat their redefinition of our common language.

But there is a Part 2 to this as JR decide to switch gears.

To be continued…