RKBA Takes a Stand in NH

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."

Needless to say, as is generally the case in NH when the right to keep and bear is assaulted, a firestorm has ensued. Press. Press releases. Much collective consternation. Petitions. Protests. Legislative responses. Um... Videos...

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.

This just in from Rep. Dan Itse (here's the Facebook event):

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...

EDIT: More press...
Activists protest weapons ban in NH State House
Gun ban draws rapid fire
Capitol gun ban draws fire
GOP House leader plans bill to allow guns in State House