Jeanne “The National Debt Machine” Shaheen is up for reelection in 2026, which means a few things. First, it will be used by the proglodytes to funnel obscene amounts of money into the state to help Dems up and down the ticket. Lots of television and radio. All the usual ridiculous lies. Republicans need to be ready, and they need to start now.
Second, speaking of starting now, insiders suggest to me that the State Republican Party is ready to get behind former Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown – who moved to Rye, New Hampshire, and lost the 2014 contest against Shaheen.
Ambassador Brown has since hosted presidential candidates and hinted at a return to politics. And he allegedly had a recent meeting with high-ranking NH state party Republicans. None of that is unusual or suspicious. He likely has some financial interest in the party. He is a former US Senator. But the inside of baseball is that he will run against Shaheen in 2026, and Granite Stater’s need to remember that up until now, he has a lot of room for improvement on private ownership of firearms.
To quote one local gun group guy, “he’s terrible on guns, and New Hampshire needs to do better.”
On the Issues has some receipts.
Ok’d federal ban on assault weapons after Newtown shootings
Some Republicans said a bigger problem here [than missed views on abortion rights] would be his support for the federal ban on assault weapons, which he declared last year after the shootings at a school in Newtown, Conn. “Certainly in New Hampshire, Second Amendment issues are a really big deal,” said [one Republican party official]. “He’d have to really address what his reasoning was for that.”Source: New York Times on 2014 New Hampshire Senate race , Dec 11, 2013
Extend the state assault weapons ban, but not federal
Warren’s positions are largely in line with those of gun-control advocates, while Brown had long been endorsed by gun rights groups until he recently broke rank on a high-profile issue.
The candidates are most sharply divided about whether to renew the federal assault weapons ban, with Warren supporting an extension of the ban that expired in 2004 and Brown saying it is an issue best left to the states. But gun rights proponents argue that tight controls prohibit would-be victims from defending themselves from attackers, who will acquire guns whether they are legal or not.
Brown, who has tried to walk a difficult middle ground on the issue, takes a different tack. “Scott Brown supports the state assault weapon ban here in Massachusetts and believes that states are the appropriate venue for making these types of decisions,” Brown’s campaign said.
In the Legislature, Brown was a reliable vote for gun rights, with one major exception: He supported the state version of an assault weapons banSource: Boston Globe on 2012 Mass. Senate debate , Jul 27, 2012
Reliably pro-gun, but opposed right-to-carry reciprocity
In the Legislature, Brown was a reliable vote for gun rights. Several of his votes earned top marks from gun rights groups, including an A-plus in 2008 from the Gun Owners’ Action League. Among them was a vote against a 2004 measure that sought to ban assault weapons manufactured prior to 1994. While serving as a state representative in 2002, he sided with a number of Democrats in allowing residents who had certain felony convictions to get gun licenses after seven years.
But last year, Brown broke with the NRA to oppose a bill that has been the gun rights lobby’s top priority in Washington. Known as the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, it would allow gun owners with permits from their own states to carry concealed weapons across state lines, regardless of local and state restrictions. Brown said he would vote against granting that permission.
Brown’s nuanced position has drawn criticism from both sides and has caused gun rights groups to cool in their support of him.Source: Boston Globe on 2012 Mass. Senate debate , Jul 27, 2012
Scott Brown is no Conservatarian, so he’s not great on many issues, but we are not unfair. If he is running (and I think he is), what are his positions after a decade of claiming to be from one of the least restrictive states in the nation for firearms laws with consistently low crime and low violent crime? Has his emersion demonstrated that the notions to which he has pandered in the past have zero impact on gun crime and violent crime? That all they do is create target-rich environments for people who aren’t going to follow the laws he used to support?
We’d be open to Candidate Brown’s thoughts once he’s officially announced.
