Dear Mr. Macdonald,
I feel your article was pretty biased because it was factually incorrect. Perhaps we can discuss where we agree or at least what is indisputable.
Related: New Hampshire’s “Red Flag” Camel’s Nose is Back! [Updated]
1. If you are involuntarily committed under our law in effect right now, you are automatically a “prohibited person” by federal law.
2. If you disclose this on your 4473, you will be denied
If you don’t, you’ve committed a felony.
3. Under current law, if you become a “prohibited person” for mental health reasons, you are banned for life unless your state has a “Restoration of Rights” law in place.
4. New Hampshire has no such law and therefore if you are prohibited for mental health reasons in NH you are banned for life.
5. You’re being a prohibited person is not dependent on the state reporting it. The federal law relies on the underlying condition that caused the prohibitions and not the state sharing the information with NICS. In other words, if you get convicted of a felony, and the state forgets to share it with NICS, and you lie on your 4473, you may purchase a gun, but you’re still guilty of being a felon in possession and of lying on the form. This applies to all prohibited persons.
Those are all indisputable facts.
We want to thank Rep. Terry Roy for this Contribution – Please direct yours to Steve@GraniteGrok.com.
You can review our ‘Op-Ed Guidelines‘ on the FAQ Page.
Now for some lesser known facts.
1. There are, at best guess, 1000 people in the NICS registry from NH for mental health prohibitions
2. Doctors and therapists are mandated reporters in New Hampshire. If they have reason to believe one of their patients presents a realistic threat to themselves or a specific person, they must report it to the Department of Safety. The Department of Safety reports these to NICS. This is why I was an advocate of doing away with the New Hampshire Gun Line. If you recall, the big argument was they “have local information not available to NICS.” Ever wonder what that was? These people, whenever reported are banned for life from ever owning a gun again. They may have had a bad day. Their wife may have died. They may have said in a moment of weakness, “I just want to die”. Well they continue therapy and pull through it. They decide to get a new hunting rifle. They are denied. It takes them an enormous effort to figure out why, and when they do, there’s literally nothing they can do.
3. Yes, HB1711 would have reported the involuntarily committed to NICS, but as I said, they already are prohibited persons by that point. But more importantly, now they know it and aren’t surprised at the gun store, and they know exactly what they must do to get off the list.
4. This is the reason 48 other states submit these. Even the most progun states like Florida, Texas and Alabama. They do it because the people are already prohibited but need a way to fix that. They cannot take advantage of the law restoring their rights, of whichb they never got notification that they were reported in the first place.
Look, this is a very complex issue and I clearly did a poor job of explaining it to the members, but I can assure you thay I researched the Hell out of it. I even called the ATF and made them explain the process of people being able to get their rights back. You MUST have the Restoration of Rights in state law and it MUST meet the ATF requirements for people to be no longer considered prohibited. I followed it to a T. I even put a safety valve at the end that said no names could be provided until the ATF approved our Restoration of Rights laws.
Finally, bringing up my employment dispute from 30 years ago was a low blow. Yes, my PD tried to use the gun laws against me, but that leaves out a lot of information, like that it was immediately after I arrested a city councilor for OUI, and that I sued in federal court and they settled restoring my gun rights, withdrawing the termination, paying me back pay, and giving me a positive job recommendation. That being said, I am extremely sensitive to the system being used to take people’s rights, including the mentally ill. They are being reported now, and even the ones who aren’t, are still prohibited persons and are banned for the rest of their lives for something that may have been a temporary situation. This law would have helped them.
I picked David Meuse because he would deliver all the Democrat votes and, more importantly, keep them from campaigning on “Republicans refuse to do anything in the wake of the New Hampshire Hospital and Maine mass shooting.” If you notice, we heard none of the usual “we must bam guns” or “we need waiting periods” arguments for the last seven months since the shooting.
I think the 2nd Amendment community has to be more strategic and proactive if we want to continue winning on these issues. The other side is not sitting around waiting. They are constantly scheming for new ways to infringe on our rights. We are always reactive, trying to defend the indefensible. This was our chance to show the public, that we can do more than thoughts and prayers. When in the rare incidences where legislation is necessary, for Republicans, it is laser-focused and not broad, sweeping up everyone but the people who are actually causing the problem. Furthermore, where someone’s rights are impacted, we provide a pathway for them to get them back. Not one Democrat bill has ever done that.
As you said in your article, and I agree, it is my baby and I failed to properly sell it to everyone, but that doesn’t change any of the facts about it. It may be a camel’s nose under the tent, but it’s the camel trying to get out and get his rights back.
Editors Note: Earlier today, the NH Senate killed HB1711 for good this session. While that is what I was after, I did want to get Rep. Roy’s take published before that, but due to delays in approval for publication, we were not able to make that happen.
