National Right to Carry And Its' Opponents From Within

"Much of the self-righteous nonsense that abounds on so many subjects cannot stand up to three questions: (1) Compared to what? (2) At what cost? and (3) What are the hard facts?" —Thomas Sowell

 The Union Leader's Mark Hayward features a front page story today entitled, "Activists: Feds’ bill would lead to gun control". The thesis of Hayward's article is that two activist are against the bill because it gives the federal government a toe-hold into states' rights and is a pretext to arbitrary national gun control.

 The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, HB 822, passed in the U.S. House yesterday and enjoyed strong support. The intent of this legislation is to allow law-abiding citizens with a concealed-carry permit in one state to carry concealed in states with similar systems. Obviously, the bill must have some strong support because Charlie "the RINO" Bass is a co-sponsor.

 Yet my good friend and esteemed fellow gun advocate Representative J.R. Hoell opposes the bill.  J.R. asserts, "The federal government will then want a photo ID for concealed- carry. Then a microchip Real ID card."  J.R, the feds already want that, irrespective of "how" or "who" regulates guns. And numerous attempts at nationalizing gun registration, gun control, microstamping of ammunition, suing gunmakers, the assault weapons ban and any other novel, unique or creative trick, dreamed up by the pablum-puking, ant-gun liberals has already dawned within the halls of our congress...irrespective of this legislation.

 But I do not discount or dismiss J.R's reasoning...To be sure, one (or many) of those anti-gun liberals may (or will) seize this legislation as an opportunity to try and do the very things J.R. warns of here. For that very reason we cannot underscore the principle enough that electing responsible people to do the right thing is paramount to our liberties.

 I respect J.R.'s assertions here, but to simply do nothing is not an proactive alternative. One cannot simply do nothing based on a bunch of suppositions. Moreover, name one aspect of our lives that the Federal government has not attempted to monkey around with?  Violation of our 10^th Amendment protections is not only a way of life for the federal government, but a factor in proposing legislation. It is for that reason we must undertake the arduous task of pushing back, piece by piece, aspect by aspect.

As for the New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of Police and their leader chief  Robert Wharem, feel free to dismiss them out of hand because that organization reflects only a handful of flatlander chiefs who come here from other places like New Jersey, New York and Massachusetts by virtue of their employment and do not reflect the community cultures they serve.  The majority of New Hampshire Police Chiefs focus on law enforcement and the needs of their communities, not leftist liberal activism we see today.

 I whole-heartedly support this bill. There are times when I need to slip down across the border to the People's Republic of Massachusetts, but cannot do so because I have a loaded handgun. If a New Hampshire citizen who exercises his or her right to carry goes to the Pheasant Lane Mall, there is a section of the parking lot there that one cannot legally drive upon because it lies in Tyngsborough, MA.

 As a general rule, going to Massachusetts is problematic, not withstanding a firearm. Before crossing state lines I am also given to surveying the interior of my vehicle top to bottom for the wayward brass shell casing under the seat or on the floor so that I am not committing the crime of having reloadable components in my vehicle. But that is another topic for another day.

 I travel to Pennsylvania frequently to visit my daughter, son-in-law and grandchildren. I do bring a handgun with me. But because I have to travel through the People's Republic of Massachusetts, Connecticut and New York State, I am resigned to having the handgun unloaded, locked in a case, and stowed away in my luggage. In Pennsylvania, I can carry just like I do here in the Granite State as PA gun laws are nearly identical. The only variable that has changed on my trip is the fact that three states between NH and PA have uber-restrictive gun laws. My intent and use have not.

 National Right to Carry is good law. But like any other good law, it has its opponents. First there is the anti-gun left who will oppose it for obvious reasons. Second, there is the so-called "pro-gun" advocates who will oppose it based on some perceived arbitrary faux expansion of federal authority. The "do-nothings" who have virtually the same net effect as the anti-gun left.  Third, the  "Fiscal Pedantics" who oppose the legislation because it has nothing to do with taxes or fiscal policy, and, finally, the "Congressional Patricians" who will vote based on how much love they get from liberals.  But groups that can always be counted on are the opponents within.

CROSS-POSTED

A 63-YEAR OLD REMINDER OF FREEDOM

CROSS POSTED

Guns In Church

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal signed into law today House Bill 1272 allowing church-goers to bring their guns to church. And right out of the gate was the Huffington Post's Jason Linkins implying an insanity to the measure. Writes Linkins, "The Times-Picayune notes that the same law permitting houses of worship to gun up also allows them "hire off-duty police or security guards to protect congregants" which, on balance, would seem to be the saner option..."  Hardly a new or deep response to this Louisiana law: guns+law-abiding citizens= whacky. It's a mantra the anti-gun leftists parrot, recite and reiterate along with the other useless anti-gun pablum.

The Reverend Jonathan Wilkins, pastor of the Baptist Tabernacle of Thomaston Georgia has filed a lawsuit in Atlanta challenging The State of Georgia's prohibition on guns in churches. This suit comes in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in McDonald v. Chicago, overturning the city's ban on all ownership and possession of handguns.

In Louisville Kentucky, Pastor Ken Pagano of the New Bethel Church encourages and urges his flock to bring guns to church. "God and guns were part of the foundation of this country,” says Pastor Pagano, “I don’t see any contradiction in this. Not every Christian denomination is pacifist.”  The New York Times reported that one of Pastor Pagano's sermons was on “God, Guns, Gospel and Geometry.” Pastor Pagano hosted an event characterized as, "Bring-your-gun-to-church-day," where a raffle featured a handgun give-away, firearms safety lessons and a picnic.

Here is the problem with all of this: Why the heck are states regulating what goes on inside Churches? Seems to me these days with all the widespread persecution and demagoguing of people of faith that takes place, the statist pandering liberals want to have things both ways. They want a clear unequivocal separation of "church and state", but want to wrest control of activities taking place in Church. This issue of guns in Church is nothing more than pure, unadulterated liberal hypocrisy.

It is right for Pastors to advocate for guns in church because the constitution does not become inoperable at the doors of the sanctuary. This is purely an issue between a Pastor and his congregation, not state government, but leave it to the panderers to try and tell us otherwise.  For a State to have the unmitigated gall to inject itself into houses of worship is just intolerable.  To Pastor Pagano and Reverend Wilkins, I say God bless you...God Goes with you and fight on!

I find it truly astonishing how all the liberals now whining and carping about the issue have taken a new tact. Louisville Public relations consultant Pam Gersh laments “We’ve definitely been marginalized,” In 2000, Gersh, helped organize a rally in Louisville that coincided with the Million Mom March in Washington...against guns.  Gersh further bemoans to the New York Times, “The Brady Campaign and other similar organizations who advocate sensible gun responsibility laws don’t have the money and the political power — not even close,”  “This pastor is obviously crossing a line here and saying ‘I can even take my guns to church, and there is nothing you can do about it.’ ”

I view the Gun issue is a mere foil here. The real issue is the sought-after ability of pro-statist liberals advocating to inject government controls into religious houses of worship. While they insist on a distinct separation of church and state, they also want to stick their beaks into what a church as a body, might decide is right for themselves.  If these liberals get away with this, there is nothing to stop further encroachments into our nation's religious freedoms (or what are left of them).

I am not going to sit here and re-advocate for the rights of law-abiding citizens to be armed wherever they have a lawful right to be because we know that sadly, shootings have occurred in churches. People have died because the only armed person was the crazed shooter.  Inversely, we also know that lives have been saved by armed parishioners.  Jeanne Assam of New Life Church in Colorado Springs fired her weapon, killing lunatic fringe gunman Matthew Murray, in defense of her fellow parishioners! Based on other mass shootings a common factor emerges here: the most carnage was inflicted where law-abiding citizens were unarmed. 

Example after Example after Example, show us it's not a stretch to conclude that armed, law-abiding citizens undoubtedly save lives. Professor John R. Lott Jr. has written exhaustively on the topic, yet anti-gun liberals simply choose not to get that. 

Politics, Guns and Waffles in Nottingham

 “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.” - Sen. John Kerry Jan 2004

The town of Nottingham's 10-year-old "no guns" in the workplace policy was rescinded by the town board of selectman on June 21.  While it was not a pure, Chicago or DC-styled "no guns" in the workplace policy, it required those seeking to retain their constitutional right in the workplace to request special permission from the town selectman.  This flawed policy's original formation arose from a single incident where a town employee allegedly drew a gun on her husband.  While the incident did not happen on town property, it served as the driving mechanism for the policy.  The discussion failed to include the circumstances...whether such gun use was lawful or unlawful.  Nevertheless, the select board "got it right" in its rescission of the flawed town policy.

   At the July 7 meeting however, Selectmen Peter Bock and Gary Anderson moved and voted to rescind their previous vote, returning to the prior policy citing "they could better study the issue."  "Study" the issue?  What is there to study?  And if there are issues that require "studying", why did they not do this prior to their cowardly vote?  Both cited concerns over "liability" and whether the town could ban guns on town property at all, or if only the state has that power.  How many times have we heard public officials hide behind the false yolk of "liability"?

   The latter legal concern is an easy one to address.  New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated 159:26 I. clearly states in part, "[T]he 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, or firearms supplies 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 to be studied there.  This is black letter law and for a municipality to suggest a need for studying this should be cause for concern. 

 Paragraph II of the statute continues, "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, or firearms supplies shall be null and void..."  (Emphasis added)

    Part First, Article 2-a of the New Hampshire Constitution affords even greater protections than the U.S. Constitution.  [The Bearing of Arms]  "All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state."  There is nothing vague or ambiguous about this statute.  While the constitution states "all persons", however, RSA 159:3  and 159:7 place narrow restrictions on "all persons" and the New Hampshire Supreme Court found in 1990 that such restrictions were constitutional.  (See, State v. Smith 132 N.H. 756 (1990)).  

 Legislative intent can be found in the very words of N.H. RSA 159:4 Carrying without License which states in part, "No person shall carry a loaded pistol or revolver in any vehicle or concealed upon his person, except in his dwelling, house or place of business, without a valid license therefor(sic) as hereinafter provided..."  (Emphasis added) The legislature, in crafting this law, specifically excluded licensing in personal dwellings, houses and "places of business."

    While private employers have taken up a legal challenge asserting their rights to ban guns from workplaces, those same employers also seek to regulate the content of a person's vehicle, thus extending the policy to vehicles driven to workplaces.  Alaska, Kansas, Kentucky and Minnesota have approved laws allowing employees to take their guns to work, but an Oklahoma judge struck down a similar law, saying it violated federal employment laws.  Clearly, the battle between a private employer's ability to infringe on gun owners and the rights of gun owners is hardly a settled matter of law.

   The Town of Nottingham is not a "private company," but a municipal entity.  Under the present law, I am hard-pressed to see where they can regulate employee firearms.  Moreover, I am hard-pressed to see what events or circumstances arose for the need to implement such a policy.

   Clayton Namuo's July 6 Union Leader story characterized Gail Mills as, "an outspoken critic of the new policy..."  It was Mills who sought to have the item placed on the agenda Tuesday night because she favors, "not allowing anyone to bring guns onto town property."  Gail Mills does not care about the law, obviously.  Anyone who advocates for such broad anti-gun restrictions is about circumventing the law for their own personal agenda as she so publicly demonstrated in USA Springs. 

   With USA Springs now defunct, bankrupt and out of the way, Gail Mills is little more than a classic textbook NIMBYist in search of another pet cause.  Gail Mills is just another selfish, self-centered demagogue out to enforce her personal worldview on the community in which she lives. I have never met Gail Mills and certainly do not know her.  But one thing I have had a lot of experience with is NIMBY's and Gail exhibits classic NIMBYism.

   "I have a right to walk into a public building and not have to be concerned about people carrying firearms," Mills tells the Union Leader.  Actually, Gail, YOU DO NOT!  No constitution anywhere has conferred any such right to be free of unreasonable or irrational fears.  That is what fear of guns is...unreasonable, irrational and misplaced.  

   Reasonable people are afraid of criminals and their criminal acts, not the tools they choose to use.  If a handgun is used by a criminal to kill a person while committing a crime, that very same handgun can be used by a law-abiding citizen to shoot holes in paper targets, hunt game and protect ones family.  The fallaciousness of Gail's argument is that she demonizes the handgun, but not a criminal.  If that reasoning and rational is acceptable, then a ban should be in place for ball bats, claw hammers and automobiles.  Gail then gives the red herring proviso, "I am not stopping anybody from carrying them any other place."

   One should choose one's words carefully.  "I am not stopping"...So she admits she is all about stopping lawful possession of firearms for no other reason than people being employed by the municipality, much less any other citizen who has a car to register or a tax bill to pay.

   UL Correspondent Clayton Namuo provided some kitschy context to the story in pointing out that Mary Bonser is the owner and operator of Cedar Waters Nudist Park.  I do not pretend to know what context was intended, but where Mary is a long-standing resident of Nottingham and pays considerable taxes, she is well suited and qualified to sit on the select board.  Neither Peter Bock's nor Gary Anderson's vocations were ever referenced in the article.  

   Serving as a town selectman can be hard work and sometimes dirty business.  By putting oneself out there to be elected, one is making a personal commitment to conducting a town's business in a lawful, fair and judicious manner and adhering to all laws and the constitution of the state.  When Bock and Anderson reconsidered their prior action, they demonstrated cowardice.  They allowed themselves to be bullied by the likes of Gail Mills and her ilk.  Like the flawed policy implemented ten years prior, they saw the flaws and corrected it.  That is until Cheryl Mills showed up cowing them into reversing it.  Mary Bonser stood up for what is lawful, constitutional and right.  Bock and Anderson did not.  

   If town officials will not stand firm when the law and the facts are plainly in front of them, how can the citizens of that town possibly trust them not to be bullied by the few that might want their way regardless of law, adding one more chapter to our culture of unaccountability.

Perhaps folks might support Mary Bonser and send the other two selectmen each a pair of bright red flip flops and a package of waffles.