December 28, 2009

N.H. Reps Ban Guns from State House

CONCORD, N.H.--A mix of pro-gun activists and Republican legislators are protesting a new rule that bans weapons from the State House, according to a report in the Concord Monitor newspaper.

"My reaction is outrage," said Rep. Daniel Itse, a Fremont Republican. "It's a serious restriction on a constitutional right."

On Monday, the legislative facilities subcommittee, which includes House and Senate leadership, voted 8-3 to ban individuals from carrying firearms or other deadly weapons into the State House, the Legislative Office Building, the Upham Walker House or any of the underground tunnels connecting the buildings. Only law enforcement will be allowed to carry guns into the building. The ban applies to both open and concealed weapons.

The vote fell along party lines, with Democrats supporting the ban and Republicans opposing it.

Sen. Maggie Hassan, a Democrat who supported the bill, said the ban was reinstituted after several lawmakers said they felt threatened during a vote last March relating to states' rights, when about 15 armed individuals "shouted threats at members of the House from the gallery," Hassan said.

Hassan said the ban carries no civil or criminal penalties. "It's the reinstituting of a policy we had for a decade. It seemed to us not something that needed a great deal of review," Hassan said.

But Senate Minority Leader Peter Bragdon, who voted against the ban, said people work at the State House late at night, and sometimes have to walk through an alley to the Storrs Street garage. "Representatives have been threatened going back and forth," Bragdon said. "People need to be able to protect themselves."

Read the complete story here.











An Important Note for GunReports.Com Readers:

Our goal on this website is to foster a free expression of views while reining in language that crosses the line of civil discourse. Accordingly, the comments areas are intended to expand the knowledge of all users of this site. But site administrators wish to discourage the use of profanity, insults, disrespect, the advocacy of lawlessness, violence or sedition, or attempts to impinge on the rights of others.

While GunReports.Com encourages robust discourse that furthers our understanding of all the issues affecting gun owners, comments that break GunReports.Com’s rules will be removed. In addition, we reserve the right to edit or delete individual comments, and in extreme cases, to ban commenters at our discretion.

--Tim Cole
Publisher, GunReports.Com

Comments (4)

David B, you're exactly right! There are all kinds of self-deceptive mental gymnastics and rationalizations that marginally sapient proto-simians can use to feel safe, but if one actually wants to be safe, the only viable option is concealed carry with training.

Unless, of course, our Elected Masters decide to (more) hire bodyguards on our nickle.

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | January 1, 2010 7:24 PM    Report this comment

Well, here we go again..... The air-headed legislators and policy makers have just advertised an open for business killing field.
By keeping lawfully carried firearms out of the state house, they have put the folks who enter there into a higher risk environment than one in which only the cops are armed. One more time: More guns = less crime! Less guns = more crime! Texas adopted its concealed carry law to be effective in 1996. While there were, and still are some stupid provisions wherein killing zones are advertised as "no carry zones", Texas never has banned CHLs from carrying in the State House. As for me, I refuse to surrender my capability of self-defense in any environment, unless I have to pass through a metal detector.
I have addressed this in past postings when I stated that I would rather be taken to court on a weapons charge than be taken to the mortuary, because some scum bag intent on killing people took advantage of my lack of
self-defense tools.

Posted by: canovack | December 31, 2009 11:43 AM    Report this comment

These folks walk thru an alley to get to their cars but ban guns from the State House?

Morons. Like a guy couldn't walk out of the building, get his gun from his car and whack them in the alley? Or follow them home and hit 'em at a stop light? How stupid can they be?

I suggest that if the legislators want to 'feel safer' they should carry their own guns and learn to shoot them effectively.

Posted by: david b | December 31, 2009 9:51 AM    Report this comment

It never fails to amaze me that these hot-air-filled punching dummies cannot figure out that their little speeches and signed pieces of paper mean less than nothing to a criminal with a gun. They refuse to accept, in the face of overwhelming evidence, not to mention common sense, that the only effective deterrent to a criminal with a gun is a righteous citizen with a gun and the training to use it.

"Hassan said the ban carries no civil or criminal penalties. "It's the reinstituting of a policy we had for a decade. It seemed to us not something that needed a great deal of review," Hassan said.

You mean it's not something that needed a great deal of thinking, which is good, because you can't. Because, according to you, even if you catch a criminal with a gun in your victim-disarmament criminal-empowerment zone, you can't prosecute him because he hasn't broken any law. He's just "violated the policy." What a bunch of geniuses.

As always, for me, concealed means concealed. Bite me, you deaf, blind, arrogant British Upper-Class Twit of the Year.

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | December 29, 2009 6:15 PM    Report this comment

Add your comments ...

New to Gun Tests? Register for Free!

Already Registered? Log In