Former NH State Representative, inaugural NHLA Political Director, and 2000 candidate for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination, Don Gorman leads a NH Liberty Alliance training session for potential candidates and supporters, at Murphy's Taproom, Manchester, NH, 2/6/2010.
From the announcement:
The NH Liberty Alliance will hold a training session on how to get elected to State office in New Hampshire. Whether you are considering running yourself, or just want to help get good, pro-liberty people elected.
Consider: in 2007, medical marijuana was defeated in the NH House by a margin of five votes. Five more pro-liberty people would have changed that outcome. Margins of less than 2 dozen happen over and over for issues like seat-belt laws, home schooling, jury nullification, taxation, state sovereignty, and regulation of all kinds. A few hours of your time at election season can provide the "swing votes" on all these issues for two solid years. And if you can run for State Rep -- and win -- you can be one of those who casts those critical votes.
Thanks to the generosity of Murphy's Taproom, this session will be free of charge. Please help Murphy's defray costs by consuming their delicious food and drink.
Hit the NHLA site for updates on future sessions...
The NH House Transportation Committee holds consecutive hearings on 2 motorcycle-specific bills, HB1261, "relative to motorcycle noise emission controls," followed by HB1162, "relative to the wearing of motorcycle protective headgear," 1/28/2010. I must say I was pleasantly surprised that there was far less "nanny-state"-style opposition than at last year's identical-concept seatbelt bill.
Note in the HB1261 video how indignant sponsor Rep. Day is made by the notion that the electorate is actually made aware of her incessant shenanigans. She certainly does get a lot of consistent pushback on her bills, doesn't she? I can see how it might eventually get frustrating for her. Why, oh why can't they just let her do what she wants to them...?
But first, a couple highlights, each grasping the essence of their respective bills. Plus a, um... "bonus"...
The NH House Legislative Administration Committee takes up HB1654, relative to state house security, in Executive Session, 1/26/2010, following the 1/11 public hearing. The gun grabbers would appear to be running out of ammo, as the Committee quickly ITL'd the bill -- unanimously -- eventually placing it on the Consent Calendar, although there's little likelihood it'll stay there.
Disregarding the legal proscriptions, including NH Constitution Part First Article 2-a and "preemption" -- a daunting task on its own -- if one's goal is safety, then disarming law-abiding citizens -- and make no mistake that's exactly and only what's proposed -- will be counterproductive. See Ft Hood or VATech or Columbine or Luby's Diner or...
For the proponents to actually cite these tragedies in defense of their misguided scheme, as they did at the public hearing, is to fundamentally, profoundly, even jaw-droppingly misunderstand the entirely avoidable condition that precipitated them.
Manchester 4:20 celebrations return from hiatus, 1/23/2010, earlier than planned, in response to the Manchester PD overreaction to an impromptu 4:20 celebration on 1/16 that was precipitated by an early spring-like day. And you know what spring conjures in young men's minds, right? That's right: freedom.
Anticipating a vigil like so many other jail vigils, I didn't tag along. But according to early reports, it did get interesting for a few minutes...
What we are treated to are three sponsors blithely unacquainted with the concept of cognitive dissonance. Then three solid, uninterrupted (although often electronically unintelligible, unfortunately) hours of opposition.
But first, some appetizers. From the hearing, here's your latest YouTube hero. UNH student, honorably discharged Marine Sergeant Andrew Cullen, from Fremont, NH. I wish I'd caught the dramatic shedding of his overcoat to reveal his uniform as he stood. You can hear the murmurs ripple through the room. (And remember kids, applause is a no-no. No biscuit next time...)
And by special request, Rep. Jenn Coffey. But we lead off with some shock video. Bill co-sponsor, the horror show that is micromanaging, Utopian nanny-stater Rep. Judith Day. You rememberher, right? The legislator who's never seen a piece of liberty-sapping legislation she didn't drool over, ever confused as to why anyone would oppose her meddling in their lives. Her determination would almost be cute, in a revolting sort of way, if her anti-Constitutional collectivist opinions didn't potentially carry the force of law. Are her constituents paying attention?
Then, at about 4:30pm, the Criminal Justice Committee finally gets around to hearing the philosophical twin, HB1635, prohibiting the open carrying of a firearm in a public building. Or "place." Like parking lots. Or hunting forests. Or roads. 'Cause, you know, it's only scary if they can see it. And the right to feel safe shall not be infringed, an' all. Nevermind that, as we all know, guns can do nothing but make you unsafe...
Anyway, mostly the same arguments, being essentially the same unconstitutional crap, which was fortunate given that battery life and recording media were rapidly reaching their usable extents. Here, then, is attorney Penny Dean's testimony highlighting only a few of the likely unintended (but not to be claimed unforeseen now, fortunately) consequences.
The NH House Judiciary Committee hears testimony regarding HB1347, relative to the right of jury nullification, 1/7/2010. We've been here many times before, of course. But not with nearly as much apparent sympathy from the NH House Judiciary Committee. Refreshing. And hopeful, eventually culminating in tactical testimony from NHCLU Executive Director Claire Ebel that could just win the day.
Also, bill sponsor, Representative Lars Christiansen (first testimony of part 1) and former Rep. Dick Marple (first testimony of part 2) were guests on Capitol Access later that day (I'll update with the direct link once the episode is posted...). It was, umm... lively.
Submitted by your humble chronicler to Committee members on 1/3/2010...
I don't believe there is any substantive academic opposition to the concept that citizen jurors retain the power to judge the laws their delegates pass. Indeed, the Founders, and even the courts, themselves, have recognized this fundamental authority. At least in theory, anyway. In practice, however, the courts are still, even increasingly, rather a bit too full of themselves. They've forgotten their place, if you will.
But those who are charged with upholding "the law" have been delegated no authority whatsoever to overrule a jury's opinion of that law, or even to suggest, by forced omission, that it has no right to such (binding) opinion. That the judicial branch might not like the idea of losing some of its unconstitutionally arrogated power is entirely irrelevant. Mere usurped possession does not establish actual (in this case originally intended) ownership.
HB 1347, relative to the right of jury nullification, is intended to correct this particular bit of governmental hubris. It is, make no mistake, a watershed bill here in the "Live Free or Die" state, and will speak volumes regarding the legislature's reverence for liberty and the supreme rule of Constitutional law over servant government. It needs to pass so that the electorate can, without fear of capricious and unauthorized retribution by its servants, be better informed of its unalienable rights, and begin to reclaim its limited government.
I intend to be at your hearing for HB 1347, Jan 7th, committing the arguments to video, for all your constituents to see. [Said video, through the miracle of time shifting, now appears a few quotes' lengths below...]
"I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." -Thomas Jefferson- to Thomas Paine, 1789. ME 7:408, Papers 15:269
"It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. ... Both objects are lawfully within your power of decision." -Chief Justice John Jay- Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794
"The judge cannot direct a verdict it is true, and the jury has the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of both law and facts." -Justice Holmes- Horning v. District of Columbia, 1920
"If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence. ... If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision." -4th Circuit Court of Appeals- United States v. Moylan, 1969
"We have four boxes used to guarantee our liberty: The soap box, the ballot box, the jury box and the cartridge box." -Ambrose Bierce- (1887)
In this last 4-box sequence of "bad/unresponsive governance assessment," when "soap" and "ballot" have failed, if "jury" is prohibited from fully serving the necessary relevant function, if liberty-antithetical judicial tyranny is allowed to self-enshrine, what is left to retain any semblance of a free society, citizen? What would the Founders do?
Part 1
Part 2
And here, some selected testimony from John Connell, Rich Angell, and Denis Goddard.
On 12/21/2009, a majority of the NH legislature's Joint Committee on Legislative Facilities (no web page: they appear to be about as shadowy as the NSA used to be...), in a closed-door session, arrogantly, unilaterally and without notice or discussion, voted to impose not a law (a bill to impose such a law -- HB1354 -- was soundly trounced in 2008, and the sponsor even lost her subsequent primary election), but a "rule" to instill a false sense of security by banning (merely a subset of) "deadly or dangerous weapons" (presumably primarily guns and knives, but what can't be a weapon? Ask TSA...) from buildings they don't own and don't possess super-Constitutional authority over, but have only been delegated by their constituents the temporary privilege -- yes, privilege -- to occupy. Even those carried by their own legislative peers (as servants of the people, are they your peers?) as defense against these "dangerous hordes." The text:
"No person, except for law enforcement personnel in active duty, shall carry a firearm or other dangerous or deadly weapon or an explosive, openly or concealed, while inside the State House, the Legislative Office Building, the Upham Walker House, or any of the underground tunnels connected to these buildings. Law enforcement personnel, when requested by State House security staff, must produce sufficient identification establishing their status as law enforcement personnel."
Certainly, gun-grabbers -- merely one not terribly uniquely venal clan of those who prefer a particular selective reading of ostensibly unalienable rights -- choose to ignore inconvenient truths like the disturbingly consistent correlation between mass shootings and so-called -- and empirically misnamed -- "gun-free zones." Let's be clear: they have voted to abdicate even their own basic human right to self-defense. Do they have the authority to also renounce that of their fellow representatives? Of State House employees? Of yours? Should you expect to surrender one right in order to exercise another? On (legitimately) "public" property that you ostensibly own, and allow them to occupy at your pleasure? Against Constitutional guarantees?
So here, a select subset of "representatives" chose to ignore NH Constitution Part First, Articles 2-a, 8 and 29, Part Second, Articles 5 and 8, and RSA 159:26's "preemption," just for starters, and prohibit legal and guaranteed taxpayer access to the taxpayers' own, in this case actually "public," property.
And herewith, from 12/23/2009 -- a mere 2 days later -- the (first) resultant protest. I'd be very surprised if they actually saw this coming when they schemed to slip this through Christmas week. I really don't think they have a clue what's going on here in the Free State yet. And they're increasingly responsible for bringing it on themselves. 'Course, that condition would send a certain message, too, wouldn't it...? How many of them would, say, happily join Oath Keepers? What, one must wonder, would be their excuse for not?
Had enough? Inundate the NH House Speaker's Office at 603-271-3661 and the NH Senate President's Office at 603-271-2111 to complain against this "dangerous weapons" -- or is it dangerous "weapons"? -- ban.
I expect you all know by now that the Facilities committee has banned "dangerous weapons" from the State House, LOB and Upham Walker House.
The feedback that I have gotten is that you are all anxious to express your displeasure to the majority party which perpetrated this act. I am hoping to have hundreds of citizens roaming the halls of the State House the morning of Jan 6, the first Session Day between approximately 9A to 11A, wearing empty holsters.
Please spread this far and wide.
Dan
Hon. Daniel C. Itse
The purpose of our governments was not to redistribute wealth, but to prevent involuntary redistribution. We have forgotten a founding principle: no man, king or common, has a right to, or is entitled to another man's wealth.
Hey, there's one interesting factoid: at Concord's November 420 celebration, we were told we couldn't demonstrate (well, we had signs, so it must be a demonstration, right?) in front of the State House without government's permission. No such complaints this time...
Every year, the NH Liberty Alliance tackles the monumental task of analyzing and rating each and every bill submitted to the NH legislature, in preparation for advocacy efforts in and around the halls of power, as well as rating our "representatives" based on their voting records. To that end, each year new volunteers need to be brought up to speed with the process, and old hands need to be apprised of any improvements to the ever-evolving rating software. Herewith, this year's first effort, 12/12/2009, with over 2 dozen in attendance, as an introduction to the process.
Anyone, anywhere can participate in the bill review process. If challenging NH state government's interpretive monopoly on legislative voodoo sounds intriguing to you, visit the NHLA website and get involved.
NH 420 celebrations come to the halls of power, the NH State House, this Guy Fawkes Day, 11/5/2009. Celebrants are threatened with free speech limitation infractions, and not with controlled substance violations. Go figure...
I had to leave for a Capitol Access taping, but from what I hear, the supply having been merrily spent, the scofflaws dispersed naturally a few minutes later.
Rep. Itse first references last term's SB153, "relative to business practices between motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, and dealers," specifically. But he could just as easily have used as examples the recently eviscerated payday loan industry. Or any of the far too numerous professional licensing boards and mandatory requirements in NH (one of the most onerous lists in the country), and all of which directly restrict the forms of contracts into which your state "allows" you to enter. Our government is flatly prohibited from passing such legislation by the Constitution, by rule of law, and all these are just violations of merely one particular Constitutional provision.
Then Rep. Itse goes on to cite intentional Constitutional limitations on the imposition of taxes. You know, like income taxes?
And what is the reaction of this august body to the notion that they've violated their oaths (which they took most recently less than a year ago), and that violation thereof is, in fact, a serious matter for honest citizens? Chortles. Snickers from the peanut gallery, so to speak. It's just so much mindless trivia, not an intentional proscription on the expansion of government's delegated authority that they should be remotely expected in any substantive way to adhere to. And then -- get this -- they quite vocally don't want a record of his chiding published! Stunning.
But I suppose no criminal wants evidence laying around, though, right? Well, by request of the orator, here it is, dear viewer, for all posterity. Including the "honorable" House's reaction... <shudder>
Hey, I just thought of a great statist campaign slogan:
"He simply knows better than you. And the Founders. So just let him run your life, already!"
Posts
