So this looks good for us.


https://newhampshirebulletin.com/2022/01/07/senate-passes-bill-blocking-local-firearms-restrictions/?utm_source=Ammo.com+Newsletter+List&utm_campaign=ab90a47af3-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_1_14_22&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_835c3fc179-ab90a47af3-323251219

IMO still a good bill, but the Senate cut the nuts off by removing the word "use" from the House's last amendment.  

House version:  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/billinfo.aspx?id=536&inflect=2

Passed by Senate version:  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/billinfo.aspx?id=536&inflect=2

Control F for use in both versions and see where the Senate removed it.

If I am reading it correctly a town can take their "town forest" and make it a no shooting zone.

Both versions still allow zoning to fuck with all firearms users.

Now it goes back to the house to approve the amendment.  

Figures.

I still think it is a good thing as it will hopefully force some towns to look into the limits of their authority before they jump and do stupid things.

That said.  X town bans the "use" of firearms in a certain fringe town forest.  What happens if you have to defend yourself against a random moose or methhead?

It would be an ordinance violation which would not carry a risk of jail.  You would have more serious concerns after a self defense shooting than an ordnance violation.  Carry on and stay safe.

Of course, but it points out how incongruous the state's preemption and the ability to carry is with the municipality's ability to restrict use.

After following the conversation on NES, I've come around to the point that HB307 is a bad bill as amended by the senate.  It essentially neuters state preemption and allows towns to ban the use of firearms.

While penalties for overreach is good.  This bill creates the loophole which towns can and will use to ban the "use".  See ya backyard ranges and random shooting spots in some towns.  Allowing zoning to prohibit it is bad enough, but this allows separate town ordinances to prohibit it.  

I know GOA doesn't agree with that, but here you have an R senator's own words.  This statement matches how HB307 is written now.  

patch/indepth article

If we have anyone in her district, please convince to move on to something more useful like knitting.  Listening to her argue for gun bills last year and then seeing this statement, she is obviously no friend of the 2A.  

IMO, the house needs to kill this bill with the senate's amendment.

This bill will likely be heard at the House session this week.  House Session 16th at 1PM and 17th 9:30 AM-UTC.  Once again we have differing opinions from the "gun rights" organizations.  Unlike last year with SB141(gun line) where NHFC was wrong and out of touch and GOA was right, for this bill(HB307) GOA is way out of touch and NHFC is right.

This is 100% a bad bill as amended by the senate.  It allows municipalities to restrict the use of firearms and destroys the state preemption.  Oh boy, you can carry.  The Senate's amendment paves the way to restrict shooting on public land.

Why GOA thinks it is great when there is clear evidence that this has become an anti gun 2A bill is beyond me.

The only positive outcome will be for the house to reject the Senate's amendment.

for those not on fb-this discusses the senate removing the word "use" from the bill and town's looking forward to applying those restrictions.



In fairness, here is the note from GOA that came out last night.  They are pro passing it even if it allows towns to restrict firearm use.  

https://newhampshire.gunowners.org/01192021/


Glad I didn't donate to GOA.  I'm still annoyed that I donated to NHFC and they screwed us with SB141, but GOA's support of HB307 is MUCH worse.

This is the kind of things that drive me nuts. One group says this,another says that. You have to wonder sometimes of who really looks out for us gun owners be it state or nation wide.

So I understand where you'll have some special interest groups, like maybe a hunting org head off on their own little tangent, these are two basic gun rights groups.

You would think they would have something of a uniform message to help the community as a whole, but no.  Saw it last year and seeing it again this year.

On another board, we have Alan Rice(from GOA) criticizing via proxy JR Hoell(from NHFC and a few others).  While Hoell has certainly earned a lot of the criticism against him, some of it is pretty immature.

NHFC just sent out a blast on HB307.  It is actually a reasonable read and highlights the slippery slope of the senate allowing towns to ban the "use" of firearms.  The formatting at the link is easier to read than pasted here.  They have highlighted and bolded key parts.  I bolded a couple parts, but it is better at the link.

HB307 has a serious flaw and needs your help to correct

Dear Dumb Retired Artillery Guy,

This week in the House there are two bills that House committees recommended correctly:

HB 1310, prohibiting the discharge of a firearm in the direction of a building, livestock, or pets. INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE. (A bill that was unnecessary and negatively impacted the rights of gun owners was recommended to be killed)

HB 1052, relative to the number of rounds of ammunition allowed for hunting regardless of firearm capacity. OUGHT TO PASS. (Minor change that is a small net positive change regarding hunting)

There is one Senate message that we need to pay attention to:  This year a bill (HB307) was filed to ensure that public officials were finally held accountable for breaking the law when it comes to infringing on the rights of gun owners.

For years, the gun owners have had to be hyper-vigilant to make sure local officials did not create local ordinances that restricted our rights to use a firearm on private or public property.  Although we had in statute a prohibition that prevented this type of behavior from selectmen and other officials; local officials routinely went ahead and did this anyway.

Imagine what would happen if a small group of local officials who hated hunting were suddenly elected and that favorite hunting spot in the local town forest just became a ‘no-hunting’ zone.  Or what about finding out that one of the local landowners who had a large parcel of land was suddenly prohibited from using a home range that they had built years ago.

Don’t think this could happen, well it does:  Just a few weeks ago in the town of Washington, a group tried to ban outdoor ‘commercial’ shooting via a warrant article. The good news is the current RSA 159:26 prohibited this from happening and once the selectmen were made aware of the prohibition, the warrant article was withdrawn.

Now fast forward to this year, where the bill that we hoped would penalize this type of mis-behavior was gutted by the NH Senate and if passed into law, this bill would actually take away the protections we currently have, instead of expanding them as we expected.

The following has been law for almost 20 years:

    159:26 Firearms, Ammunition, and Knives; Authority of the State. –

I. To the extent consistent with federal law, the state of New Hampshire shall have authority and jurisdiction over the sale, purchase, ownership, use, possession, transportation, licensing, permitting, taxation, or other matter pertaining to firearms, firearms components, ammunition, firearms supplies, or knives in the state. Except as otherwise specifically provided by statute, no ordinance or regulation of a political subdivision may regulate the sale, purchase, ownership, use, possession, transportation, licensing, permitting, taxation, or other matter pertaining to firearms, firearms components, ammunition, or firearms supplies in the state. Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting a political subdivision's right to adopt zoning ordinances for the purpose of regulating firearms or knives businesses in the same manner as other businesses or to take any action allowed under RSA 207:59.

We have bolded the critical sentence and underlined two sections of importance.  First local officials are prohibited from regulating “use”.  “Use” includes things like shooting on private land,  hunting on town or state owned properties and even hunting along things like the power lines. Second, “or any other matter” was already in law.  Now they want to take out “use” and relay on just ‘any other matter’ as the only protection.  

Some of the Senators are claiming that they are protecting the rights of the citizens by making these changes. Nothing could be further from the truth.  What they did was remove the one word that is at the forefront of the discussion.

One should note that on the same day that the NH Senate killed two good gun bills that were passed by the House last year (HB196, HB197) they also gutted HB 307.    

During the Senate Debate on the floor, the Chair of the Justice committee made the following two remarks in reference to this bill: "Municipalities can regulate the use of that gun" and "You can have it, but you can't use it".

Here is the text of what the Senate adopted

159:28  Prohibitions; Penalties.

I.  No public entity shall, and no private entity leasing or operating in any manner on any property owned, whole or in part, by the state, a political subdivision of this state, committee, or other governmental unit thereof, including a school district or school administrative unit shall regulate or attempt to regulate the sale, use, or possession of firearms; ammunition; ammunition components; knives; firearms components; firearms accessories; and firearms supplies on any property owned, whole or in part, by the state, political subdivision, committee, or other governmental unit thereof, including a school district or school administrative unit, unless explicitly authorized by statute.

Gone is the most critical word in this sentence: ‘USE’.  While it is important to possess, if you cannot practice, possession is nothing more than a hobby of collecting carefully machined pieces of metal.

Local selectmen do not have the power to tax firearms, and that would never fly if they tried to do that.  Instead, what they attempt to do is to regulate the USE of firearms.  They try to regulate when and where they can be used.  They attempt to ban shooting ranges and to ban hunting.  We cannot allow this!

This upcoming House session, we have the chance to correct this.  Either we give up rights that we have had for years and adopt the Senate version of the bill, or we ask for a committee of conference and push to get the necessary word “USE” put back into the bill.

NHFC is requesting that you correct the bill and not let this go forward without the word “use”.  There are potentially other issues with HB307 that might end up in a court battle if this does become law.  For example the Governor is not allowed under the NH Constitution to do what the bill requires.  The Governor cannot just fire the local town employee or official.  

All of these issues can be worked out in a committee of conference, so please ask your State Rep to vote to “Non-Concur and ask for a Committee of Conference”.  As always, when you contact your State Representatives, by courteous and limit phone calls to before 9pm.


CALL WRITE ATTEND

BECOME AN ACTIVIST FOR THE 2ND AMENDMENT

NO COMPROMISE


For Liberty,


JR Hoell, Secretary
New Hampshire Firearms Coalition

I just got this also today. Is it confusing or is it just me?

NHFC doesn't use the bottom line up front or clear concise communication model that some do.  They also tend to go way down that slippery slope ahead of a bill which is both good and bad.

Basically summarizes their positions and concerns with removal of the word "use" while using snippets of the current law(which grants the use), and asks everyone to tell their rep to reject the Senate's amendment and ask for a committee of conference so they can fix the bill instead of kill it entirely.  

IMO asking for a committee of conference on a 21 bill this late is probably something of a pipe dream.  Who knows.

My 3 reps here are anti gun clowns, so I'm stuck asking Sununu(like he would ever read an email) to veto if it does pass.


ETA:  lol, I guess you weren't the only one.

Gun Owners of America says its still a good bill:

Final Push to Enact Enhanced Preemption — HB 307!

NSSF Says its a good bill also

New Hampshire Enhanced Preemption HB 307 Needs Your Support

Yet the removal of use, the statements by Senator Carson, and reading the bill/applying basic reading comprehension makes it a bad bill for anyone that enjoys shooting in NH.  

The amended version of HB307 actually weakens our rights by removing use from the existing state preemption law.  

GOA and NSSF would allow us to carry the firearms, but allow the towns to prevent their use, which includes hunting, shooting on public property, and could further slide down a slippery slope.  I mean I suppose if you go by a methodology that I don't hunt or shoot in public, it's OK to ban the use I suppose I could be behind that.  

but hey, I would prefer not to neuter state preemption and let the towns do their thing.  and you know there is no safe towns-heck Whitefield of all places just banned fireworks without a one day permit.  You can bet they're waiting on this one because HB307 will allow them to ban shooting outside the compact area of the town.  

They are waiting for it to pass.

NHMA Legistlative Bulletin 5 Jan





https://www.nhmunicipal.org/legislative-bulletin/2022-nhma-legislative-bulletin-03



https://www.nhmunicipal.org/

Im no lawywer but I suppose all those gun groups have lawywers.  NRA is also backing this:

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20220214/new-hampshire-important-preemption-legislation-could-receive-vote-tomorrow

Is it banning use altogether or on town land or does anyone really even know?

I saw somewhere, and I cant remember where that included in the list of things with guns that towns cant regulate after all the names it says other matter.  All the other things list are sale, purchase, ownership, possession, transportation, licensing, permitting,
taxation, or other matter pertaining to firearms; ammunition; ammunition components; knives; firearms components; firearms accessories; and firearms supplies in this state.

does other matter mean anything that they forgot to add?  see the bill
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/billinfo.aspx?id=536&inflect=2

The NRA rep doesn't live in NH.  I heard her speak after Alan Rice during the committee hearing for the new OHRV bill.  

They are allowing the banning of use.

There is a reason use came out of the Senate's version.  There is a reason the NHMA, who also has lawyers, is interpreting it the same as the Senate.  

Municipalities may govern the use of firearms in the Senate's version.  It starts on public property, which is fine if I've got my own hunting preserve or private range.  

Other matter doesn't matter.  It is in the existing RSA 159:26  There is a reason "use" was removed and it has been spelled out in interviews with a R Senator, it has been spelled out by NHMA, and it is being spelled out by NHFC.

159:26 Firearms, Ammunition, and Knives; Authority of the State. –
I. To the extent consistent with federal law, the state of New Hampshire shall have authority and jurisdiction over the sale, purchase, ownership, use, possession, transportation, licensing, permitting, taxation, or other matter pertaining to firearms, firearms components, ammunition, firearms supplies, or knives in the state. Except as otherwise specifically provided by statute, no ordinance or regulation of a political subdivision may regulate the sale, purchase, ownership, use, possession, transportation, licensing, permitting, taxation, or other matter pertaining to firearms, firearms components, ammunition, or firearms supplies in the state. Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting a political subdivision's right to adopt zoning ordinances for the purpose of regulating firearms or knives businesses in the same manner as other businesses or to take any action allowed under RSA 207:59.
II. Upon the effective date of this section, all municipal ordinances and regulations not authorized under paragraph I relative to the sale, purchase, ownership, use, possession, transportation, licensing, permitting, taxation, or other matter pertaining to firearms, firearm components, ammunition, firearms supplies, or knives shall be null and void.

Source. 2003, 283:2. 2011, 139:1, eff. Aug. 6, 2011.