“What I find truly disheartening is that the NH GOP condones officers threatening sitting Republican senators”
Oh Gosh! In part, I find myself having to defend NH State Senator Jeb Bradley???
The discussions on HB696 are raging all over the NH political blogosphere and it is my understanding that this bill has now been “enrolled” and is heading to the Governor’s desk. How long it will be before Chris Sununu decides to sign it / not sign it / veto it is anyone’s guess. In this regard, I have no information at all. All I can do is to reiterate:
- This is no longer a gun grabber bill as it was in its original form
- F.U.D. is being spread by the NHFC (NH Firearms Coalition – you know, the group whose survey I tore apart during last election because it called out people that didn’t sign their survey as AUTOMATICALLY being Anti-Second Amendment for no other reason than they didn’t want to play with the NHFC’s ball. As a result, several good Second Amendment candidates lost that shouldn’t have).
I was going to make Part 2 more of my arguments against some of the strawman arguments / incorrect reading of the bill but this morning I saw this from Bob Clegg on the post in the RLCNH Facebook page and I thought it was important enough to put before my intended Part 2 because it has a lot of “behind the curtain” items that *I* certainly wasn’t aware of (lightly edited to make it a bit more “bloggish”, reformatted, emphasis mine) and I think ‘Grok readers should know.
<redacted> show the entire paragraph “ not limited too” not just the words you want.
This is the first time a domestic violence law specifically states what can be taken. Only the “dangerous weapon involved”, and that’s only if there is probable cause to believe it was used in the crime being investigated. All the other statutes say confiscate all until the accused can prove innocent. JR [Hoell] and Alan Rice using NHFC demanded the confiscation be left in the bill as did NHCADSV and Moms Demand
What the heck is with the NHFC if it is agreeing with Moms Demand Action, a Bloomberg funded radical civilian disarmament group?
Senator Bradley admitted he was threatened by JR [That would be JR Hoell, the NH GOP Area 5 Vice Chair -Skip] and NHFC with a primary if he didn’t change his position on the C of C bill that ended total confiscation so he did. The last time cost him $60k and he felt it would be better spent holding a majority but it was a threat. But there was no roll call in the senate because at least 5 of the 10 republicans wanted the CofC.
As for the House, all I spoke to had no real idea total confiscation was gone because JR told the party leaders it was in. And to those who didn’t know JR also told them and the governors office that making it a confiscation bill allowed republicans to raise money to take back the house and senate.
And this is why GraniteGrok is raising the alarm because the Law of Unintended Consequences will wreak havoc come the election for the NH GOP. Like the following:
Some of us know that leaving elderly vulnerable so NHFC can raise money is going to be used against Republicans. The Democrats who had agreed to work with NHFC to kill the CofC in the first vote call the roll call the “Republican rosters of pro elder abuse advocates “. Even NHCADSV knew by supporting the CofC they allowed the Republicans to be hoodwinked and they can stand up and be proud. Did anyone notice the senate speaker in the CofC was also a member of NHCDSV? She stated that while disappointed the confiscation was gone she and others saw the elderly abuse issue far more important and therefore they would support the bill .
Go back and read that last sentence again.
If the governor vetoes the Democrats will continue to state the Republicans also believe total confiscation is necessary in domestic violence cases. NHFC wrote and told legislative members to leave it in and now fights side by side with Moms Demand to have the governor veto.
Susan and I worked hard and we are both proud to be the ones to remove total gun confiscation and limit any weapon confiscation to only the one that may have need used in the crime, it’s already the law but adding it specifically states that’s what police get. The courts have said if that’s what you mean say it so we did . That may not be good enough we know. Alan Rice testified a few years back that you shouldn’t lose your gun for pistol whipping your wife , it’s not like you shot her.
JR Hoell talked about air rifles being used to hunt game now being part of dangerous weapon definition. “ what if a member or NHFC shot his wife in the butt with an air rifle…..”
Republicans have a choice to make. Read the bill and tell the Governor what to do. Total confiscation for the same issues will be the result next year when it’s simply added to the domestic violence statute. There will be no sense in fighting it since the bill without total confiscation isn’t what Republicans want.
Susan and me, we did our work. The Legislature can decide total confiscation raises money and so it’s worth losing more Rights, or it can take the first non confiscation bill and use it to prove we don’t need total confiscation.
To be continued…