New Hampshire’s moving towards Constitutional Carry. If so, it would be the fourth state to do so, after Alaska, Arizona and neighboring Vermont. unionleader.com reports that New Hampshire State Police Capt. John Lalacheur is upset. The New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of Police are upset. Rep. Lyle Bulis, R-Littleton is upset. I think it’s an excellent idea.
New Hampshire should look closely at neighboring Vermont’s experience with Constitutional Carry. It works and it’s safe. The state loses money that it would collect in permit fees, which I think is the real issue in the current economic climate. The rest is Lyle Bulish*t.
I don’t quite understand why the police chiefs always get worried when things like this come around. Are they afraid that they are going to get their budgets cut when crime goes down or that more criminals will illegally purchase and carry firearms?
Montana is moving toward something similar with HB 271.
http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_863452f6-3dff-11e0-978c-001cc4c002e0.html
Permit-free carry is also on the table in South Carolina. It was proposed in Kentucky last year. There was some movement toward it in Utah, but the state makes a lot of money on nonresident permits so it probably will never pass. Colorado is also deliberating, but there is a surprising number of libtards out there. There’s a strong grass-roots movement toward ConCarry in Wisconsin, too. We’ll see where it all goes. It seems likely that at least one state is going to join the other three this year.
One of my arguments against gun control is how safe Vermont is, despite an almost total lack of it.
Not a single anti-gunner seems to have a good answer as to why that state is so safe in spite of this.
I don’t think that’s true, Aaron. I’ve seen a few things written about population density and urban-inner city problems, about education and a number of other factors that distinguish Vermont from New Jersey, for example. In Vermont there’s nothing even close to Newark, isn’t that right.
What this says is that gun availability is only one of the many factors that goes into criminal violence., something by the way, which we gun control folks are well aware of and don’t deny.
My contention is that gun availability is the most concrete factor and the one about which something could be most easily done.
“In Vermont there’s nothing even close to Newark, isn’t that right.”
Yes, that’s right. And if Vermont maintains constitutional carry, there never will be.
“My contention is that gun availability is the most concrete factor and the one about which something could be most easily done.”
That’s the same thinking that fueled the enormously successful prohibition movement.
More government, less freedom. Gee that seems to be a solution that’s been tried with great results throughout history, yet some people just refuse to see it.
On the other hand, and along that same river of thought, the best way to limit gun availability south of the border would seem to be to dismantle the ATF. In my opinion that’s just a good start.
Newark and NYC have both seen dramatic reductions in crime, although Newark’s ‘comeback’ is far more recent. To the best of my recollection, both places had existing “tough gun laws” with a regulatory regime that hasn’t become any stricter or looser during the last 10-15 years.
The key in both cases was active, aggressive police work and community engagement, not increasing control over private firearm ownership.
I give Bratton and Giuliani a lot of credit for success in NYC (and Bloomberg and Kelly for holding onto those gains), and Corey Booker *Major* props for his crime reductions, as well.
See, it’s quite easy to pass “new gun laws” but it takes manpower, effort and caring to actually combat crime.
I’ve seen a few things written about population density and urban-inner city problems, about education and a number of other factors that distinguish Vermont from New Jersey, for example.
Thank you for once again confirming that gun control and people who support gun control are racist.
Colorado too with HB1205. “House Judiciary Committee passes Constitutional Carry 8 to 3” according to the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners (RMGO) organization.
http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2011A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/15608113E583112C8725781E005F3120?Open&file=1205_01.pdf
“shall not be infringed”
has such a nice ring to it.
I attended the Second Amendment March in April 2010 in DC. One of the most common slogan signs was “what part of ‘Shall Not Be Infringed'” do you not understand?
Our gun hating friends are going to blow a gasket. LOL
I kinda wish they left the bit about sale out. While I agree with the part about not needing a license/permit/background check, I suspect that this might shoot down the bill. It’s easy enough to point out that one can easily pocket anything if they so choose (regardless of CCW license), it’s another to point to the relative hardness of obtaining a gun in the first place if one would not pass a background check. [That is, if a background check is required for selling and purchase, then blackmarket sales wind up requiring multiple people breaking the law. Not that it stops anyone, but it is something of a deterent. Possibly.]
Even though I don’t think it should be an issue, there are probably enough people who would be swayed by the “but how would we prevent normal people from selling guns to wackos” argument.
It’s necessary. Currently you need a pistol license to buy a pistol in a private party sale. It’s an unnecessary delay and expense to exercise your rights. Eventually it could get some poor abused woman killed when she tries to buy a pistol from a friend and she has to wait two weeks and her crazed ex only waits one week before coming to kill her.
Long guns are much more powerful and require no license. It makes no sense to require one to buy a less powerful weapon that you have a right to buy.
“Eventually it could get some poor abused woman killed when she tries to buy a pistol from a friend and she has to wait two weeks”
So what happens, legally, if the friend loans it to the target?
Is there any difference if the loan happens before the agreement on the sale of the gun or after?
Who enforces the 2-week wait, and how do they know when it starts? I mean, this is a private sale of privately owned property between 2 consenting adults, right?
NH has a great motto “LIVE FREE OR DIE” These folks don’t want these gun hating loons telling them how to run their lives. The same goes for Vermont, another great free state. I fell bad for all the poor souls living in states where only the govt. knows how to run their lives like a puppet show.
I suggested that NH change it’s motto to LIVE FREE OR NOT, but they wouldn’t bite.
I’m with you Ralph, I think NOT is a better option than DIE. LOL
Wyoming, Montana, and probably New Hampshire will very soon have constitutional carry. Wildcards are Colorado, South Carolina, and Wisconsin. Also, Florida will probably legalize open carry. I don’t know that it has been done before as the specific goal of a bill (SB 234) anywhere in the union.Things are moving very fast towards more gun rights and it’s awesome.
+1
“Constitutional Carry” should be a federal law enforced in every single state. They made the truck drivers get CCL licenses covering the entire country, and these guys kill more people than guns.
Wyoming just this week passed Constitutional Carry. They’re now the 4th state to stop infringing the rights of citizens.
Others in the works are: Maine, Utah, Idaho, West Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, Iowa, Kentucky.
And of course, Wisconsin, once the Republicans remember their party platform. They could have repealed the statues infringing on gun-carry rights while the Democrats were AWOL.