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 to the jail. 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. Yep, that's about fully informed juries, or FIJA. 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. 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.
