Shagoury_small

Three New Hampshire states representatives have proposed a bill that would remove restrictions for persons who can legally own a firearm to carry it them in a concealed fashion without needing a separate license, reports the Concord Monitor. “New Hampshire law requires gun owners to obtain a separate license from their local law enforcement officials if they want to carry the firearm concealed, in a holster under a coat, for example. The new law would eliminate the licensing requirement, allowing anyone who can legally purchase a gun to carry it out in the open or concealed.” . . .

“(This bill) doesn’t expand the number of people that are legally entitled to carry weapons, nor does it expand the number of weapons that are already legal in the state,” said Majority Leader Jeb Bradley, a Wolfeboro Republican who is the bill’s prime sponsor….

Eliminating the additional license is estimated to cost the state $900,000 in fees.

After a quick scan of SB-116, it appears that the bill won’t eliminate the licenses altogether, but remove the requirement for the license to carry a concealed firearm in the New Hampshire. That means residents could continue to obtain and use licenses to carry in states that have reciprocity with the Granite State.

That would act as a little bit of a firewall against efforts by anti-gun pols in other states to restrict non-residents from carrying on non-resident permits that were issued by a third state (like Utah). This is something that Vermonters, whose state has ‘constitutional carry’, but no licensing schema, have to contend with.

(I’m sorry, after thinking through and writing that last paragraph, I just have to take a break for a mocking laugh at people who think owning and carrying a firearm somehow involves less regulation than owning and driving an automobile. Okay, I’m good now, thanks. Back to the article.)

Anyway, the chief of police of Tuftonboro, Andrew Shagoury, expressed his displeasure with this proposed civil rights measure.

“It gives an element of surprise,” said Tuftonboro Police Chief Andrew Shagoury, who spoke at Thursday’s hearing on behalf of the New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of Police.

Federal law prohibits felons, fugitives, people with mental illness, people who have been convicted of domestic violence or drug addicts from purchasing guns. But the permitting process gives police officers an added layer of discretion over who should be able to carry their guns out of sight. An officer, for example, could deny a concealed carry license to someone who has gotten into a bar fight or been repeatedly accused of domestic violence but never convicted, Shagoury said.

“Here’s the guy who goes out to the bar on Friday nights, gets hammered and he gets into fights — he’s not a felon,” Shagoury said. “He’s going to be able to get a concealed weapon. I would say this guy shows poor discretion.” (Emphasis added).

Ah yes, “discretion”. That’s the thing civil servants typically shouldn’t be able to use in determining who can or can’t exercise their civil rights.

It’s more than a little astonishing that Shagoury mentioned a list of people who are prohibited by federal statute from purchasing or owning firearm…and then went on to say that the list apparently isn’t long enough. And that his officers should be able to have their own input into the process.

We can spend a long night drinking glasses of Armagnac and talking about whether or not anyone who isn’t currently incarcerated or institutionalized should have the ability to exercise their civil rights to vote, own and a gun, or live wherever they want immediately upon release. But if we’re going to go down that path (which, for good or ill, we currently are,) the question of who does and doesn’t get to exercise their civil rights can’t be left up to the gaseous standard of “I would say this guy shows poor discretion,” offered off-the-cuff by a police officer.

How on Earth did we get to the point where we’re asking civilian police for permission to exercise our rights?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes, indeed.

Recommended For You

66 Responses to OMG! NH Bill Would Expand Right to Carry! OMG!

  1. Good. Some faith in humanity is being restored.

    This trend needs to keep continuing across the country. Never rest on these laurels as the anti’s won’t call it quits and will be fighting to get these laws overturned.

    • +1

      Something like this is what Ohio badly needs. A CHL system for those who want reciprocity with other states and constitutional carry for those who don’t travel or simply refuse to take a license to bear arms.

    • Can you just imagine if Kansas, Texas, Indiana and New Hampshire all passed constitutional carry in the same year?

      The anti’s would go apeshit.

      • Thatt would be awesoome, especially since I live in the me too state that is Michigan, if our neighbors start picking up steam usually someone in our State level government attempts something similar. I just wish our (R) Governor didn’t flip flop every other weapons bill to hit his desk.

        • That’s because your Governor, Mrs. Snyder-Bloomberg, will do whatever her husband tells her to do, in order to maintain her addiction to his bank accounts.

  2. Yeah what the cop said was discusting. Anyway, glad to see this move forward, it’s gaining popularity and there is more support in other states for this. I think the biggest hurdle against constitutional carry though is state revenue- even the most pro gun state legislatures like having that revenue from liecenseing come in. Like here in GA, very pro gun, nothing needed to get a carry permit other than your money. You pay, you get it. That extra cash is the only thing preventing it here.

    • I propose a $5 tax on pistol models made specifically for concealed carry to make up for the lost revenue. The tax will be paid at time of purchase to the dealer(FFL only, not private sales). Also make a stipulation that if we ever go back to the permit system that tax goes away. I bet they’d make more money. Which would make it harder to give up.

      Edit: I live in NH so I do have some skin in the game

      • Not a bad idea, I could go for that. I hate taxes and all this nonsense, period. But I also understand this is politics and the name of the game is cash. Like when they put in the 400 hwy north of Atlanta, they put in toll booths they said would go away after the hwy was paid for. A decade later and the hwy long since paid for the toll remains…

        • You’ll be happy to know that GA 400 is now toll-free abeit 10 years or so delayed. Still waiting for the same deal on the Pinellas Bayway.,.

        • Damn is it? Well color me suprised. I ain’t been up that way in awhile and figured it wasn’t going away. Glad to learn I was wrong. Thanks Gary.

        • Now they have converted so the interstates have a Lexus Lane that charges u per mile. Much more efficient that way.

      • That’s a good idea, and it would certainly be easier to stomach paying an extra $5 on a $600 purchase than to pay hundreds in fees.

      • I feel the same way about gun mufflers. Let me pay the $200 tax and walk out the shop without the ATF headache. Before anyone jumps on me about gun trusts and the like, I am not going to give the ATF permission to “fondel my goodies” and shoot my dog.

    • Given that there are several states that insist on a permit from a person’s home state, I’m not convinced all NH folks will simply stop getting a permit.

      • You’re right. They aren’t doing away with the permits completely; just the need to have a permit to excercising your roght while in this state. They are still issuing permits for the reciprocity bonuses. So they will still have *some* revenue from issuing permits.

        • I believe, at this time, that is the best solution, be proud of your legislators. Hopefully, someday every state will be exactly the same, and licenses can disappear altogether.

      • In the big picture, it will negatively impact licensing and training revenues. When these other states also jump on the bandwagon of constitutional carry then there won’t be a need for reciprocity there. If NH enacts constitutional carry it potentially adds momentum for other states to do likewise. Long term it would impact those revenues.

    • It’s not just state revenue. Some of those who provide mandatory training for a license and some who feel “special” because they are licensed also are an influence against constitutional carry. We also have a special interest group that helped write CHL legislation in Ohio that has resisted even open carry for years. In Ohio these influences have become a strong back room lobby against constitutional carry. Traitors and sell outs, in my opinion.

  3. That always annoyed me as a Vermonter. I could carry in-state without a permit, but if I want to go an hour south to NH, I couldn’t…just because NH doesn’t recognize FL out-of-state permits.

    It’s nice being in Texas now.

    • It would have been nice if the Monitor had pointed out that Vermont has had constitutional carry since, well, forever, and it hasn’t caused any problems there.

      After all, they devoted plenty of ink to the insane fantasies of a mentally disabled cop…

    • I contend with something similarly quirky here in Texas. I can open carry all day long in Oklahoma, based on my Texas license, but in my own state of Texas, that same Texas license only legally permits me to carry concealed.

  4. I guess like Shannon, Mr PO PO Chief has a problem with Negroes and Coloreds from getting a permit to carry.

  5. You shouldn’t be able to deny someone a right because he was arrested but not convicted. That is absurd.

    I would propose, if it is not already law (which it probably is), simply adding an amendment that makes it a crime to carry a gun and be drunk in public at the same time, or to do dangerous things with a gun in public. Call it mishandling of a firearm. So if Bob gets in fights and chooses to carry a gun and get drunk and get in fights, then when you arrest him for a bar fight, you could charge him also for having a gun while drunk. Make it a big fine or community service (assuming he didn’t actually criminally use it). There problem solved.

    • I don’t get in fights when I go to the bar with my friends. I don’t hang out with people who would behave like that. Do you think I should have to forfeit my right to self defense because I had a few beers? If the answer is yes than you should work on your projection issues. If the answer is no than you realize that the only thing that a person should be punished for is criminal activity. And carrying a gun responsibly while drinking should NOT be a criminal act.

      • I am going to say this as kindly as possible… y

        I chose my words carefully. I said “drunk” I mentioned dangerous handling of a weapon. My example was a guy who gets drunk and goes into bar fights. If you think any of those descriptors fits in with “responsible”, well who is projecting then? If you have a beer and carry, that is none of my business. If you are in public drunk and are carrying it is. Drunk /= responsible drinking.

        But why argue? Infinitus numerus stultorum, etsi stultior majori tu.

        • I’ll say this as kindly as possible: English!
          Getting drunk and getting into a fight falls under the category of criminal activity. That’s why the cops usually show up. So that’s not being responsible in general. But why regulate everyone because of the actions of a few?

        • You guys are pissing about a minor item. The concept of “mishandling a firearm” is superb, and I had never thought of it. No you should not have any hassle for carrying while drunk, IMHO, but drunk or sober, waving your gun around in public should get some serious attention. I would suggest forfeiture of said firearm, but open to argument. But punishment should be related to actions, not what you own or conceal or think or want, what you DO! Like wave around a dangerous weapon. Leave it holstered and have fun.

        • @LarryinTX: We aren’t that far off in opinion. IMHO, there are already laws related to endangering and disorderly conduct to cover such an action by an individual. I’d rather the state not have the incentive of forfeiture of the firearm though. Thirty days in the county jail and a hefty fine is more palatable to me. But, I don’t think that laws need to specifically mention firearm or be tailored specifically about arms in general. IMHO, that’s where the system runs afoul of shall not be infringed. The only real difference between the tools used in the criminal action should be reflected in fine and/or jail time. The more serious, the higher the fine and/or jail time. Juries are capable of figuring out the reasonableness of the sentence. For example, endangering with a stick of dynamite and a flame ought to warrant more jail time and/or a higher fine than say someone was drunk and muzzle swept an entire room multiple times. Set a maximum jail time and fine in the law then let the jury decide how serious the punishment ought to be.

    • Nah. I’ve been in fights (did not start them and could not safely retreat – usually got my ass beat too 😉 ) drunk and sober. My firearm wasn’t part of equation. There shouldn’t be anything criminal about bearing arms unless the tool was an integral part of the crime. I rarely drink now, BTW.

    • I don’t agree. If the guy was simply having some fun in a bar fight but showed the appropriate restraint in not pulling a gun while doing so, then he showed good judgement.

      Again, only a thug or a criminal would pull a knife or a gun during a friendly bar fight.

      And yes, there is such a thing as a friendly fight. I refereed such an incidence when two groups of guys faced each in a parking lot behind a restaurant.

      One guy from each group faced each other and exchanged blows, both doing a good job and both playing by tournament rules. Then the cops sirens could be heard approaching and so I told everyone it was time to leave; so the two individuals shook hands showing mutual respect for each other and we all Left.

      Old school. It was refreshing to see.

  6. Cause the only thing stopping violent lunatics from carrying guns now is the absence of a little plastic card…

    If you can buy a gun, you can carry one. Come on people, its 2015. Lets get on board with common sense gun regulation.

  7. The stupidest part about what Chief Dumbass Shagoury said, is that he appears to believe that the inability to obtain a piece of paper from a cop will keep his hypothetical wife-beater or drunk from carrying a gun if he wants to do so. The guy who is going to commit a crime with a gun is not going to care if carrying the gun is also a crime. Why is this concept so hard for people to understand?

    • Wait … you mean that someone who is willing to commit a violent crime with a gun won’t be stopped from committing the violent crime with a gun because he’d have to commit a crime in order to carry the gun concealed?

      No way!

  8. Reminds me of the first scene in the movie Selma. Oprah Winfrey’s character puts in her papers to vote assuring the clerk that everything is in order. The clerk responds “I’ll be the judge of that!” Then the clerk asks the character a question about the county, she responds correctly. The clerk is not amused. He then asks “How many judges in the county?” as if it were a piece of knowledge everyone should know and something that would be essential to exercise the right to vote, the character responds “67” Undeterred the clerk then responds “name them!”

    Until we stop treating the 2nd amendment like its some privilege, until we stop entertaining arguments that treat it as such we are going to lose. There is no right to drive a car, but we constantly allow owning and carrying a gun to be talked about and put in similar regulatory perspectives. Free Speech and Guns! They should be limited with the same care and light touch.

    • Arghhh … why do we not have an unalienable right to drive a car? Because it involves a machine? Does that mean we do not have an unalienable right to use a computer to exercise our right to free speech? After all a computer is a machine.

      Yes, we do have an unalienable right to drive a car. Unfortunately our government has saw fit to infringe on that right.

    • C.Z., it was my understanding at the time that that was not a joke. Many, many places, particularly in the south, bragged about the fact that their “darkies” knew their place, and that the laws concerning requiring a measure of literacy in order to qualify to vote were routinely misused to ask minorities (particularly black, but also Indians or Mexicans depending on where you were) questions worthy of a PhD, while not bothering to ask Bubba squat. I never personally witnessed such, but I have heard blacks say that they never attempted to vote because they knew that would happen. SCOTUS knocked down the whole concept, and a damn shame it had to be done, but they were absolutely correct because of the abuse.

    • I’m pretty sure we have a right to travel via the normal conveyances of the day.

      Or a right to privacy (4th/5th).

      The 9th and 10th cover pretty much ever unalienable right the framers never knew we might need.

      As long as your right isn’t adversely impacting MY rights, why should the government be allowed to control it?

  9. how dare they! Arizona turned into Venice, only the canals ran with the blood of the childrens when we enacted this law years ago!

    oh wait i mean none of that happened.

    • Maine’s own constitutional carry bill will be going through the pipeline soon. Sen. Bracket of Auburn and two other legislators have introduced LR’s on the topic. We should see the text published shortly. More info at gunownersofmaine.com.

  10. How on Earth did we get to the point where we’re asking civilian police for permission to exercise our rights?

    When the People allowed the first infringement without putting up a fight and the same for each and every infringement since. Beware though, when the People refuse to bow down, politicians might install panic buttons and some of your own will write serial hit pieces against you. Just sayin’…

  11. Uhmm, hear that? The sound of freedom ringing out across the land.

    Smell that? The noxious stench of the smoke streaming out the ears of all freedom hating gun grabbers.

  12. “But the permitting process gives police officers an added layer of discretion over who should be able to carry their guns out of sight.”

    In my view, that’s a “may issue” permit system.

    Chief Andrew Shagoury repeats the often heard rationalization of “may issue” pistol permits as “The police know who the bad people are, even if they have managed to avoid getting caught. The cops have to have discretion on who gets a pistol permit.”
    About a dozen of the hoodlums and mobsters rounded up at the Apalachin, NY “crime convention” were holders of pistol permits. The host, Joe (The Barber) Barbara, had a character reference written by a local chief of police as part of the application for his permit.
    Corrupt police are only too willing to arm their “business partners”. They are not so willing to “permit” those citizens (who employ them) to be armed. They consider that to be their exclusive right, to be shared with no common citizens, but only their “friends”.

    All that “may issue” permit laws do is encourage police corruption by increasing police “discretionary” powers.

    “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

  13. why do law dawgs have their pics taken in front of american flags like they’re soldiers or something? shouldn’t they have their respective state flag in the background? am i weird for even noticing this?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *