New Hampshire "Constitutional Carry" is moving along!

[FeelsLikeFlying]

The New Hampshire House of Representatives passed HB330 with a vote of 244 - 109. It's on its way to the Senate right now.
It's a "Constitutional Carry" bill, allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons without a permit.
http://e-lobbyist.com/gaits/text/154280

The Senate introduced SB88, which is a "stand your ground" bill. It goes into committee on Thursday, the 31st.
http://e-lobbyist.com/gaits/text/159742

Good job, New Hampshire! Taking "Live Free or Die" seriously!

[Jim March]

Cool. One more NH bill to watch, which I consider just as important: the one that explicitly allows filming/recording cops or other officials on the job in public.

Trust me, a micro-recorder or on-body video setup is THE best defense you can have against rogue cops or officials.

[FeelsLikeFlying]

Been actually going over that bill. There was an amendment added before it passed the house, which disallows the filming of public officials if it interferes with their duty (not sure of the direct wording at the moment). This makes the bill basically useless, and might even give police officers more leeway in arresting people for video recording them.

[HoraceHogsnort]

FeelsLikeFlying wrote: "Been actually going over that bill. There was an amendment added before it passed the house, which disallows the filming of public officials if it interferes with their duty (not sure of the direct wording at the moment). This makes the bill basically useless, and might even give police officers more leeway in arresting people for video recording them."

Hogwash, it certainly does NOT make the bill "basically useless". Somebody filming police activity from across the street or with a hidden camera cannot be convicted of interferring with an officer's duty. A couple of nasty lawsuits will get their attention if they think otherwise.
__________________

[Aguila Blanca]

Having a video recorder running from a fixed position in your vehicle also does not interfere, nor does having a "pen" recorder in your shirt pocket.

[Tom Servo]

This makes the bill basically useless, and might even give police officers more leeway in arresting people for video recording them.

Actually, enforcement of that provision might lead to some 1st Amendment challenges.

So, at this point, we've got unlicensed carry in Alaska, Arizona, Vermont, and recently Wyoming. Bills are advancing in Colorado, South Carolina, Montana, and Tennessee.

[davebig]

maybe im not getting this, but unlicensed concealed carry sort of scares me. at least with most concealed carry permits you are required to background check, psychological assessment and, in some states, ballistics training to make sure you can actually hit what your shooting at...but some joe shmo being able to stuff a revolver in his pocket and go on his merry way doesnt seem right to me. talk me through this if you can....

[Usertag]

I heard on the news in Kentucky where I live. That law will pass in a year.

[Don H]

Originally Posted by davebig

maybe im not getting this, but unlicensed concealed carry sort of scares me. at least with most concealed carry permits you are required to background check, psychological assessment and, in some states, ballistics training to make sure you can actually hit what your shooting at...but some joe shmo being able to stuff a revolver in his pocket and go on his merry way doesnt seem right to me. talk me through this if you can....

Three states currently permit unlicensed concealed carry and there have been no reports of issues developing from this practice. Several states issue CCW permits with no training or demonstration of proficiency required and report no issues with this practice. Several states allow open carry with no requirement of training or demonstration of proficiency and report no issues with this practice.

If these states with a track record to examine aren't experiencing any problems, what then is the purpose of requiring training or licensing if not just to make some people feel better? If you stop and think about it, if there's no demonstrable evidence that training/ proficiency requirements actually make carrying safer, then there's really no point in such requirements other than providing a warm and fuzzy feeling for some.

I've yet to see anyone advance factual proof that training/proficiency standards/licensing has actually made a difference to public safety regarding carrying a firearm.

[Tom Servo]

if there's no demonstrable evidence that training/ proficiency requirements actually make carrying safer, then there's really no point in such requirements other than providing a warm and fuzzy feeling for some.

Well, there's the money the issuing bureaucracy needs to stay solvent

The other, far less savory, reason is class separation. Consider restrictive "may issue" states such as Maryland. If I want a permit to carry a weapon, I have two choices.

The first is to prove prior harm and/or present jeopardy to an unsympathetic issuing agency. The determination is entirely up to their whims. The second is to know somebody. In both cases, the potential for discrimination and nepotism is huge, and despite his qualifications, Joe Schmo will likely never get a permit.

Maryland is no safer than many permissive states. In fact, it's quite the opposite.

Davebig, I'm glad you asked the question. In answering, many of us have to articulate arguments we've long taken for granted.

[FTG-05]

maybe im not getting this, but unlicensed concealed carry sort of scares me. at least with most concealed carry permits you are required to background check, psychological assessment and, in some states, ballistics training to make sure you can actually hit what your shooting at...but some joe shmo being able to stuff a revolver in his pocket and go on his merry way doesnt seem right to me. talk me through this if you can....

I've yet to see anyone advance factual proof that training/proficiency standards/licensing has actually made a difference to public safety regarding carrying a firearm.

For both of you, here you go. Not mine, but taken off a thread over on another TFL.com thread (emphasis mine):



"Are you, personally and individually, safer and better able to protect yourself if you've had some decent training? Absolutely. The better trained you are, the better able you are to protect yourself and thus the safer you'll be. If you want to carry a pistol and don't get training, you're a fool.

But are you a threat to people around you without that training? Statistically speaking, the almost certain answer is, "No."

Here in the Pacific Northwest, we have two states very similar demographically -- Washington and Oregon. Right next door to each other on the edge of the continent, the states feature similar crime rates, similar population sizes, similar geographies, and similar political climates.

Washington is one of the few states which had shall-issue laws long before the wave of concealed carry reforms swept the country in the late 1980s. Washington's shall-issue law passed in 1961, and the state has never had a training requirement. In Washington, to get a concealed pistol license, you go to the local cop shop, let them take your fingerprints, and give them some money. A few weeks later you get your license in the mail. No class, no test, no demonstration of proficiency or safety.

Oregon's law is more recent, going back to 1989. Because it's a modern law instead of an old one, Oregon's statute does require that applicants take a class before they may receive a permit to carry. The statute does not specify the length or content of the class, but does require that the instructor be certified by the NRA or a law enforcement agency and that the class must include firearms safety as a component.

With no training requirement at all in Washington, one would expect that all the untrained concealed carry people surely must cause problems here: more unintentional shootings, more accidents with firearms, more misbehavior. Something, right?

Not so. There's no statistical difference at all between Oregon's accidental shooting rate and Washington's. None. There's no blood running in the street here.

There is one measurable difference between the two states, however: measured as a percentage of the adult population who have carry permits, Washington has roughly twice as many permit holders as Oregon does.

In other words, the only measurable result of Oregon's training requirement seems to be a chilling effect on the number of people exercising their right to carry a concealed handgun.

pax"


Original TFL thread: http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=443538

Read the above and then let's discuss.

Regards,

[Don H]

FTG-05,
My point exactly, just articulated more elegantly.

[Jim March]

Go look at Alaska's data from before and after their 2003 conversion to "Vermont Carry". Start with the US-DOJ "uniform crime" reports available online.

When I looked about a year ago, I found that no crimes increased post-change. No surprise. The only detectable drop was in rapes...for some reason Alaska has long had a major rape problem and that was pretty obviously affected in a good way.

I suspect that a lot of women didn't have the permit before either due to "not wanting to come out of the gun closet" or not having the time and/or money (working moms?). So the number of armed women may have jumped. Just with people I know here in Tucson since the AZ change, I know a couple of women now carrying who weren't before.

Remember folks: most murders fall in the general category of "crook versus crook" and are not going to be affected by any carry law of any sort. More or less ditto "in-home murders". Street crime that leads to murder is uncommon and is the type of murder most likely to be affected in a good way by carry rights of any type, CCW or "Vermont".

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by davebig

... but some joe shmo being able to stuff a revolver in his pocket and go on his merry way doesnt seem right to me. talk me through this if you can....

Well -- ya see, awhile back (oh, about 235 years, give or take), a bunch of guys sat around a table in a big room in Philadelphia and they came up with a bunch of words on a piece of paper. I think it was called the "Constitution," or something like that. And they actually decided that it might be cool to, like, use that bunch of words to try to run a country.

Well, of course that didn't work. Right away a bunch of negativists start whining about this and that, so the dudes who wrote this 'Constitution" thingie sat down again, and came up with a bunch of changes, called amendments. Some of them (ten, IIRC) were actually agreed upon as being less dumb than the rest, and they were approved. They called the bunch of 'em the "Bill of Rights."

And one of 'em said "The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

So, ya see, if'n ya think yer an Amurican, and you believe in that "Constitution" thingie -- ya sorta hafta agree to let anybody who isn't in prison carry a gun -- because that's what "bear arms" means.

Ya know?

[Standing Wolf]

So, ya see, if'n ya think yer an Amurican, and you believe in that "Constitution" thingie -- ya sorta hafta agree to let anybody who isn't in prison carry a gun -- because that's what "bear arms" means.

Oh, there you go again, Aguila Blanca! Injecting a note of reason into a perfectly irrational discussion.

In full seriousness: the one firearms-related law we've never actually tried is the Second Amendment.

[Kreyzhorse]

I heard on the news in Kentucky where I live. That law will pass in a year.

Permitless carry in Kentucky? I think with the wave of states going that direction that Kentucky will eventually go that route as well.

[FTG-05]

Don, as long as you understand I'm not the author, I just C&P from another forum or thread.

[hogdogs]

maybe im not getting this, but unlicensed concealed carry sort of scares me. at least with most concealed carry permits you are required to background check, psychological assessment and, in some states, ballistics training to make sure you can actually hit what your shooting at...but some joe shmo being able to stuff a revolver in his pocket and go on his merry way doesnt seem right to me. talk me through this if you can....

davebig, So what scares you about me carrying a concealed firearm? I am legally NOT forbidden by law... I shoot pretty square... I am not adjudicated mentally unstable in any way... I am just your average "joe shmo" who refuses to shell out dollar bills to PAY for the RIGHT to carry.

Brent

[jimpeel]

Three states currently permit unlicensed concealed carry and there have been no reports of issues developing from this practice.

I believe that number is four -- Vermont, Alaska, Arizona, and Wyoming. In that order.

[FTG-05]

I believe that number is four -- Vermont, Alaska, Arizona, and Wyoming. In that order.

The number is currently three. WY comes into effect July 1.
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=6366

[BlueTrain]

You know, we got along years without a constitution. Why do you think those guys got together behind closed doors in Philly to write one?

[ammo.crafter]

I'd rather stay in NJ...........NOT!

[jimpeel]

FTG-05,

Thanks for that. I stand corrected.

[TeamSinglestack]

Good for the citizens of New Hampshire!

I reckon I'll have to start excluding y'all, along with the good people of Vermont, when I complain about damn yankees.