Neither guns nor weed are within any delegated 'prohibition' purview of any government legitimately authorized by this US Constitution. It's that simple.
With hoplophobic hysteria (among other problems already, to be sure) having gleefully descended on the freshly Democratically-controlled NH legislature this term, the several state RKBA groups have been working overtime endeavoring to get their constituents out to relevant committee hearings and contacting their ostensible "representatives". Thus, I've expected that the public hearings for these bills would be well-enough attended and sufficiently reported that my own camera wasn't needed -- indeed, unnecessarily taking an SRO spot from someone else, who just might provide compelling testimony, too.
Plus there are the obscene parking problems in the State House's vicinity lately, even without high turnout, what with construction and the booted meters and garage spaces reserved for the Privileged Class as far as the eye can see. It shouldn't be too easy to instruct your servant government, after all...
But this day, 5/14/2019, is the typically far less well-attended Senate Judiciary Committee Executive Session to hash out and arrive at said committee's official mob-rule/damn-our-constricting-lawfully-delegated-authority recommendations to the full body on, among others, 4 of those gun bills (so there's still time to contact your Senator), all beginning at about the 9:20 mark:
HB109, "requiring background checks for commercial firearms sales", ("Ought To Pass" 3-2), HB514, "imposing a waiting period between the purchase and delivery of a firearm", (OTP/As Amended 3-2), HB564, "(New Title) relative to possession of firearms on school property", (OTP/A 3-2), HB696, "establishing a protective order for vulnerable adults" (here are overviews on this one), (OTP/A 3-2).
So much head-smackingly self-assured cluelessness that cries out for addressing here, certainly -- not that it hasn't been addressed before, ad nauseam, to no effect. But I'll confine myself to arguably the most egregious: the empirically false, addle-pated conviction, at base, that criminals obey laws. And further that if the children can be assured that if the rights of (only, since they're the only ones who will comply, duh) law-abiding citizens may be violated (without Constitutional authority, needless to say), then the children will rest easy that they are somehow now made safer. That the children would buy that speaks mostly to their government-school education, seems to me. The "gun-free" school bill stops everyone but the individual it (says it) wants to stop -- and, indeed, assures him publicly of that fact. What could possibly go wrong...?
And if you haven't stopped the criminal -- and again, unauthorized statutes stopping the law-abiding by definition won't stop him -- then "feeling safe" is, at best, entirely illusory, is nothing at all but a potentially more deadly "false sense of security", because you've purged the killing zone of any effective defense against those whom your statute won't stop. The school shooter is still coming. Seriously, have you not been following the news? All you've accomplished is to reassure him that his victims will be unable to defend themselves. The belief that an individual who would shoot up a school will still heed your prohibition on peaceful carry is flat-out delusional.
But first, they 'Exec' HB399, "relative to annulment of arrests or convictions for possession of a certain quantity of marijuana" at about :40 (OTP/A 3-2) and HB481, "relative to the legalization and regulation of cannabis and making appropriations therefor" at about 6:45, ("re-refer to committee" 5-0 -- merely returning toward Constitutional constraints should get more study...!), legislative hearings for which may be viewed here and here (House) and here (Senate).
Consider. Both of these topics, guns and weed -- each of them (one explicitly, even) undelegated "prohibitions", functionally -- concern what, in a free society (hell, even in this one), should be jealously-guarded fundamentally-protected civil liberties: unilateral control of your own body, and the ability to effectively defend that right from those who, whether with or without a fancy hat, would presume to violate it.
How can the Constitution-averse Duopoly -- that assures you that it is government, and will be respected, even if ultimately it has to kill you to "earn" it (because make NO mistake, every statute is backed by a gun) -- so easily and recalcitrantly trade sides on them?
Does that seem right to you...?
From MPP New England Political Director Matt Simon, 6/14/2019, because it needs to go somewhere (and tell Sununu about the rest of your rights, too, while you've got him on the horn):
New Hampshire friends, as you may know, I have been trying to convince the state to allow patients to grow their own cannabis for more than a decade. In the fall of 2008, with support from MPP, I began meeting with patients all over the state and encouraging them to share their experiences to help educate policymakers. Since then, countless patients have testified at public hearings to explain why they need to be able to grow their own cannabis as an alternative to opioids and other potentially dangerous pharmaceuticals.
The House of Representatives has listened, voting to pass *eight* medical cannabis home cultivation bills (in 2009, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019.) Sadly, the only time the Senate agreed with the House was in 2012, and the bill was vetoed by then-Governor John Lynch (D).
It's good that we finally have a functional medical cannabis program and a few tightly regulated dispensaries, but many patients continue to suffer because they are unable to afford a regular supply of cannabis from the dispensaries. Since medical cannabis isn't covered by insurance, many patients simply can't afford it and are left with no choice but to continue taking opioids. Maintaining felony penalties against patients who cultivate cannabis for their own use is an insane, authoritarian policy, and it has no place in a state that has the temerity to call itself the "Live Free or Die" state.
I got into this intending to help *all* patients who could benefit from cannabis, and that is why I refuse to give up this fight.
This year, the Senate has once again listened to the needs of patients, and it has agreed with the House to allow limited home cultivation. HB 364 is on its way to the desk of Gov. Chris Sununu, who has not yet indicated whether he intends to sign it or veto it.
This morning, HB 364 even got an endorsement from Granite Grok, which bills itself as "the conservative voice of New England" and strongly opposes legalization for adults' use. And yet, because it is opposed by the police chiefs' association, the bill's fate remains uncertain.
On behalf of all the patients who have been asking for more than a decade, including many who have since passed away or moved to other states in disgust (note: home grow is now legal, not only for patients, but for all adults in all three neighboring states), I ask that you please take a moment to call Gov. Sununu's office (603-271-2121) and politely urge him to sign this critically important bill.
You don't even need to trouble yourself over whether it's a violation of your liberty, subject. They'll decide that for you, too. Indeed, they already have.
And they'll decide that driving on roads that you are compelled to pay for is nevertheless somehow a mere government-granted "privilege" -- despite the fact that even the Supreme Court has acknowledged that travel is a Constitutionally protected natural right, the mode of which is nowhere authorized to be constrained, any more than are the modes of, say, speech or self-defense. We've simply allowed government, relentlessly operating well above its pay grade, to decide otherwise. (Time to regain some control, mayhaps? Is there a better place to make that stand than the "Live Free or Die" state...?)
So just submit. No need to thank them, really; surrendering to them control over your choices is thanks enough. Ok, almost enough...
HB1259, "relative to passenger restraints", gets an airing out -- yet it still stinks in here -- before the NH House Transportation Committee, 2/6/2018. And how 'bout that? Your humble chronicler was called upon to deliver the "rebuttal". No time to get (more) nervous, at least...
We've been here before, of course. But mercifully not since 2009's HB383 (this really is an awesome tool). But sadly yet entirely predictably, "the usual tired parade of government authoritarians and Utopian socialists" hasn't gotten any less tired over the intervening 9 years.
Herewith, testimony before the NH Senate Judiciary Committee on HB133, "relative to a jury's determination as to the applicability of law." 4/25/2017. The question of whether juries have the rightful authority, regardless of the State's preferences, to judge not only the facts of a case, but the offended statute at issue -- jury nullification -- was settled (again) in NH in 2012, with the eventual gubernatorial signature on 2011's HB146, which at least restored the right of the defense to present to the jury the possibility of it exercising its collective conscience. The intention of this bill is to settle whether servant government, itself, needs to outwardly come to terms with that established fact.
But first by request, the isolated testimony of NH Liberty Alliance Political Director, the Honorable Dan McGuire.
And, of perhaps most note here, some of the historical (even official judicial) recognition (that the self-interested Attorney General and police prosecutor and Judicial Branch attorney in attendance this day, you will surely note, nevertheless choose conveniently to ignore) of the jury's clear and necessarily rightful authority to judge both fact and law. The People run this shop, and the juries that by design represent and run interference for them -- "12 good men and true," and not the government they hire, not their servants -- are the final arbiters of the society that they want.
"We recognize, as appellants
urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is
contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence.
This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict
in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to
find the basis upon which they judge. 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 of passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts
must abide by that decision."
-U.S.
4th Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Maryland-
Source: US vs
Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969) http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/U.S..Court.of.Appeals.for.the.District.of.Maryland.Quote.E7D7
"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
"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
"If a juror accepts as the law that which the judge states then that juror
has accepted the exercise of absolute authority of a government employee and
has surrendered a power and right that once was the citizen's safeguard of
liberty, -- For the saddest epitaph which can be carved in the memory of a
vanished liberty is that it was lost because its possessors failed to
stretch forth a saving hand while yet there was time."
-George
Sutherland-
(1862-1942) U. S. Supreme Court JusticeSource: 2 ELLIOTS
DEBATES, 94, BANCROFT, HISTORY OF THE CONSTITUTION, p.267, 1788
"If a juror feels that the statute involved in any criminal offence is
unfair, or that it infringes upon the defendant's natural god-given
unalienable or constitutional rights, then it is his duty to affirm that the
offending statute is really no law at all and that the violation of it is no
crime at all, for no one is bound to obey an unjust law."
-Harlan
F. Stone-
12th Chief Justice U.S. Supreme Court
"The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be
decided."
-Harlan
F. Stone-
12th Chief Justice U.S. Supreme Court
Source: 1941
"For more than six hundred years -- that is, since the Magna Carta in 1215
-- there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional
law than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of
juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral
intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary
and paramount duty, to judge the justice of the law, and to hold all laws
invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust, oppressive, and all persons
guiltless in violating or resisting the execution of such laws."
-Lysander
Spooner-
(1808-1887) Political theorist, activist, abolitionist
Source: AN
ESSAY ON THE TRIAL BY JURY p. 11 (1852)
"The pages of history
shine on instances of the jury's exercise of it's prerogative to disregard
instructions of the judge."
-U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia-
Source: US v. Dougherty,
473 F 2nd 1113, 1139, (1972)
"To render the magistrate a judge of truth, and engage his authority in the
suppression of opinions, shews an inattention to the nature and designs of
political liberty."
-Robert
Hall-
(1764-1831)
Source: An Apology for the Liberty of the Press, 1793
"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts."
-Samuel
Chase-
(1741-1811) Signatory to the United States Declaration of
Independence as a representative of Maryland, Associate Justice of the
United States Supreme Court
Source: 1796
"... Jury nullification is the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even
if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge and contrary to
the evidence."
-State v. Hokanson, 140 N.H. at 721B906-
cited and reiterated
in State of NH v Sanchez, 2005
"It is clear in our criminal justice system that the jury has the power to
nullify -- that is, the power to acquit or to convict on reduced charges
despite overwhelming evidence against the defendant. ... In a criminal
trial, the court cannot direct a verdict of guilty, no matter how strong the
evidence. In addition, if the jury acquits, double jeopardy bars the
prosecution from appealing the verdict or seeking retrial. Similarly, if the
jury convicts the defendant of a less serious offense than the one charged,
the prosecution cannot again try the defendant on the more serious charge.
This result occurs regardless of whether the jury consciously rejects the
law, embraces a merciful attitude, or is simply confused concerning the law
or facts. Thus, nullification -- with or without authority, intended or not
-- is part of our system."
-Anne
Bowen Poulin-
Professor of Law, Villanova School of Law
Source: Article:
The Jury: The Criminal Justice System's Different Voice, 62 U. CIN. L.
REV. 1377, 1399 (1994)
"The power of nullification plays an important role in the criminal justice
system. ... Because an accused criminal is restricted in the defenses he or
she can raise, the law recognizes only certain defenses and justification,
and correspondingly, limited evidence. The jury's power to nullify
provides an accommodation between the rigidity of the law and the need to
hear and respond to positions that do not fit legal pigeonholes, such as
claims of spousal abuse before the battered-spouse syndrome received
acceptance. Jury nullification permits the jury to respond to a position
that does not have the status of a legally recognized defense. The power to
nullify guarantees that the jury is free to speak as the conscience of the
community."
-Anne
Bowen Poulin-
Professor of Law, Villanova School of Law
Source: Article:
The Jury: The Criminal Justice System's Different Voice, 62 U. CIN. L.
REV. 1377, 1400 (1994)
"But, sir, the people themselves have it in their power effectually to
resist usurpation, without being driven to an appeal of arms. An act of
usurpation is not obligatory; it is not law; and any man may be justified in
his resistance. Let him be considered as a criminal by the general
government, yet only his fellow-citizens can convict him; they are his jury,
and if they pronounce him innocent, not all the powers of Congress can hurt
him; and innocent they certainly will pronounce him, if the supposed law he
resisted was an act of usurpation."
-Theophilus
Parsons-
(1750-1813)
Source: in the Massachusetts Convention on the
ratification of the Constitution, January 23, 1788, in "Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal
Constitution,"
Jonathan Elliot, ed., v.2 p.94 (Philadelphia, 1836)
"The Jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in
controversy."
-John
Jay-
(1745-1829) first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, First
President of the united States after the American Revolution - preceding
George Washington, one of three men most responsible for the US
Constitution1789
"Why do we love this trial by jury? Because it prevents the hand of
oppression from cutting you off ... This gives me comfort -- that, as long as I
have existence, my neighbors will protect me."
-Patrick
Henry-
(1736-1799) US Founding Father
Source: 3 J. Elliot, The Debates In
The Several States Conventions On The Adoption Of The Federal Constitution
545, 546 (1901)
"Jury lawlessness is the greatest corrective of law in its actual
administration. The will of the state at large imposed on a reluctant
community, the will of a majority imposed on a vigorous and determined
minority, find the same obstacle in the local jury that formerly confronted
kings and ministers."
-U.S.
Court of Appeals District of Columbia-
Source: U.S. v. Dougherty, 473
F.2d 1113, 1130 at note 32 (1972)
"From now onwards the jury enters on a new phase of its history, and for the
next three centuries it will exercise its power of veto on the use of the
criminal law against political offenders who have succeeded in obtaining
popular sympathy."
-U.S.
Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit-
Source: U.S. v. Wilson, 629 F.2d 439, 443
(1980)
"The drafters of the Constitution clearly intended [the right of trial by
jury] to protect the accused from oppression by the Government. Singer v.
United States, 380 U.S. 24, 31, 85 S. Ct. 783, 788, 13 L. Ed. 2d 630 (1965).
... Part of this protection is embodied in the concept of jury
nullification: 'In criminal cases, a jury is entitled to acquit the
defendant because it has no sympathy for the government's position.' United
States v. Wilson, 629 F.2d 439, 443 (6th Cir. 1980). The Founding Fathers
knew that, absent jury nullification, judicial tyranny not only was a
possibility, but was a reality in the colonial experience. Although we may
view ourselves as living in more civilized times, there is obviously no
reason to believe the need for this protection has been eliminated. Judicial
and prosecutorial excesses still occur, and Congress is not yet an
infallible body incapable of making tyrannical laws."
-Judge
Thomas Wiseman-
Source: U.S. v. Datcher, 830 F. Supp. 411, 413 (M.D.
Tenn., 1993) case dismissed Sept. 1, 1994, 6th Cir. Ct. Of Appeals, Case No.
3:92-00054 certiorari denied U.S. Supreme Court Case No. 94-8767, May 15,
1995
"The jury possesses a general veto power and may acquit when it has no
sympathy for the Government's case, no matter how overwhelming the evidence
of guilt. A jury acquittal is final and unreviewable; a judge may not direct
a jury to convict or vacate an acquittal, nor may a prosecutor appeal an
acquittal on grounds of judicial error or erroneous jury determination."
-Lieutenant
Commander Robert E. Korroch-
Source: Lieutenant Commander Robert E. Korroch and Major Michael J. Davidson, (LTC Korroch serves with the U.S.
Coast Guard; B.S., U.S. Coast Guard Academy (1981); J.D., Marshall-Wythe
School of Law, College of William and Mary 1988) (Maj. Davidson serves with
the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General Corps, Litigation Division), in Jury
Nullification: A Call for Justice or an Invitation to Anarchy?, 139 MIL. L.
REV. 131 (1993)
"Jurors should acquit, even against the judge's instruction ... if
exercising their judgment with discretion and honesty they have a clear
conviction that the charge of the court is wrong."
-Andrew
Hamilton-
(c.1676-1741) Scottish lawyer in colonial America
Source: August
4, 1735, advice to jurors to acquit against the judge's instructions in the
seditious libel trial of John Peter Zenger; Rex. V. Zenger, How. St. Tr.
17:675 (1735)
"[That] the Jury may determine the law and the fact of the case, has been
supported by every English judge, except Chief Justice Jeffries .... And to
their credit be it spoken that the Juries have always been right on
fundamental questions of liberty and popular right."
-Georgia
Supreme Court-
Source: Keener v. The State, 18 Ga. 194, 231 (1855)
"[T]he Jury have not only the power, but the right, to pass upon the law as
well as the facts..."
-Georgia
Supreme Court-
Source: Keener v. The State, 18 Ga. 194, 231 (1855)
"In 'A jury's duty' (11/8) by Mike Romano, John Junker asserts that juries
have the right to nullify laws in principle but should not use this right in
practice. Would he then be willing to give up the rights of free speech,
freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom to organize a labor union,
abolition of slavery in the North, and the repeal of alcohol prohibition --
all of which were given to us by juries who put the principle of
nullification into practice? Without jury nullification no systematic veto
exists for the people and tyranny ensues."
-Patricia
Michl Sumner-
Source: November 29, 1995, Necessary nullification, letter
to the Seattle Weekly
"If a jury have not the right to judge between the government and those who
disobey its laws, the government is absolute, and the people, legally
speaking, are slaves."
-Lysander
Spooner-
(1808-1887) Political theorist, activist, abolitionist
"Jury lawlessness is the greatest corrective of law in its actual
administration."
-Roscoe
Pound-
Legal scholar1910
"[The] purpose of a jury is to . . . make available the common sense
judgment of the community as a hedge against the overzealous or mistaken
prosecutor and in preference to the professional or perhaps over conditioned
or biased response of a judge."
-U.S.
Supreme Court-
Source: Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 530 (1975)
"My own view rests on the premise that nullification can and should serve an
important function in the criminal process ... The doctrine permits the jury
to bear on the criminal process a sense of fairness and particularized
justice ... The drafters of legal rules cannot anticipate and take account
of every case where a defendant's conduct is 'unlawful' but not blameworthy,
any more than they can draw a bold line to mark the boundary between an
accident and negligence. It is the jury -- as spokesmen for the community's
sense of values -- that must explore that subtle and elusive boundary. ... I
do not see any reason to assume that jurors will make rampantly abusive use
of their power. Trust in the jury is, after all, one of the cornerstones of
our entire criminal jurisprudence, and if that trust is without foundation
we must reexamine a great deal more than just the nullification doctrine."
-Chief
Judge David L. Bazelon-
U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
Source: U.S. V. Dougherty, 473 F. 2D 1113, 1141-42 (Dissent) (1972)
"If the question relates to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of
those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to
decide both law and fact. If they be mistaken, a decision against right,
which is casual only, is less dangerous to the State, and less afflicting to
the loser, than one which makes part of a regular and uniform system."
-Thomas
Jefferson-
"Since it was first recognized in [the] Magna Carta, trial by jury has been
a prized shield against oppression ...."
-U.S.
Supreme Court-
Source: Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 84 (1942)
"Nullification is not a 'defense' recognized by law, but rather a mechanism
that permits a jury, as community conscience, to disregard the strict
requirements of law where it finds that those requirements cannot justly be
applied in a particular case."
-David
L. Bazelon-
(1909-1993) Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit
Source: U.S. v. Dougherty, 473 F. 2d 1113,
42 (dissent) (1972)
"Therefore, the jury have the power of deciding an issue upon a general
verdict. And, if they have, is it not an absurdity to suppose that the law
would oblige them to find a verdict according to the direction of the court,
against their own opinion, judgment, and conscience? ... [I]s a juror to
give his verdict generally, according to [the judge's] direction, or even to
find the fact specially, and submit the law to the court? Every man, of any
feeling or conscience, will answer, no. It is not only his right, but his
duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his own best
understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the
direction of the court."
-John
Adams-
(1735-1826) Founding Father, 2nd US President
Source: Diary entry
February 12, 1771, reprinted in The Works of John Adams, 254-255 (C. Adams
ed. 1850)
"Jury Nullification encourages participation in the judicial process, which
in turn furthers the legitimization of the legal system. Jury Nullification
also serves to inject community values and standards into the administration
of our laws. Ordinary citizens are given the chance to infuse community
values into the judicial process in the interests of fairness and justice
and at the same time provide a signal to lawmakers that they have drifted
too far from the Democratic will... History is replete with examples that
Jury Nullification serves as a corrective 'veto' power of the people over
both legislative and judicial rigidity and tyranny."
-Justice
William C. Goodle-
Washington Supreme Court
"The right of juries to decide questions of law was widely accepted in the
colonies, especially in criminal cases. Prior to 1850, the judge and jury
were viewed as partners in many jurisdictions. The jury could decide
questions of both law and fact, and the judge helped guide the
decision-making process by comments on the witnesses and the evidence. Legal
theory and political philosophy emphasized the importance of the Jury in
divining natural law, which was thought to be a better source for decision
than the 'authority of black letter maxim.' Since natural law was accessible
to lay people, it was held to be the duty of each juror to determine for
himself whether a particular rule of law embodied the principles of the
higher natural law. Indeed, it was argued that the United States
Constitution embodied a codification of natural rights so that 'the reliance
by the jury on a higher law was usually viewed as a constitutional
judgment.'"
-Kane
& Miller Friedenthal-
Source: Civil Procedure, p 476-77, chapter 11, Jury
Trial; 2 The Judge Jury Relationship (West Publishing Company 1985)
"Jury nullification is a doctrine based on the concept that 'jurors have the
inherent right to set aside the instructions of the judge and to reach a
verdict of acquittal based upon their own consciences, and the defendant has
the right to be so instructed.' Though jury nullification may seem like a
shocking proposal today, it is by no means a new idea. In fact, jury
nullification was first espoused nearly three and one half centuries ago."
-M.
Kristine Creagan-
Source: Jury Nullification: Assessing Recent
Legislative Developments, 43 CASE W. RES. 1101(1993) quoting Alan W. Scheflin, Jury Nullification: The Right to Say No, 45 CAL. L. REV. 168
(1972)
"It is left, therefore, to the juries, if they think the permanent judges
are under any bias whatever in any cause, to take on themselves to judge the
law as well as the fact. They never exercise this power but when they
suspect partiality in the judges, and by the exercise of this power they
have been the firmest bulwarks of English liberty."
-Thomas
Jefferson-
(1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of
Independence, 3rd US President
Source: Letter to Abbe Arnoux, Paris, July 19,
1789
"Oh noes! Muh feelz...!" Prison and sex offender registry. For exposing nipples. Because that's "reasonable". And rational. Because, too, nipples are exactly as "objectively" horrifying as fornicating in public (which is the Draconian penalty already in the existing statute).
But despite Part First Articles 2 and 22 of the NH Constitution -- they cover "equal protection" and "free speech" -- only a female nipple, mind you, is the object of this, um, heightened scrutiny. Male nipples would still be a-ok -- just since the '30s, though, 'cuz that's allowed to change over time (and even if he's taking hormones to enlarge his breasts, well, as long as he has a penis -- even if you can't see it, can't know that -- there's no problem). But nothing now can change anymore. Societal norms should henceforth be frozen in time. It's for the children, y'see -- who nevertheless see a lot of nipples very early in life, and don't seem traumatized at all -- until they're trained to be. Oh, the humanity...
HB1525-FN, "relative to the circumstances that constitute indecent exposure and lewdness," before your buds and mine, the NH House Criminal Justice Committee, 2/29/2016, where you'll hear, at just a bit after the hour mark, a testifying attorney, who understands what the Constitutions protect, matter-of-factly say "fuck the draft" in a public hearing (which still doesn't warrant hysteria equivalent to that engendered by a female nipple, given the serene reaction). Because apparently there's nothing more pressing -- let alone more rights-affirming or less presumptuously patronizingly paternalistic (even from 20-year-old women with confused arguments) -- for them to be doing...
At a press conference on 2/3/2016 in Manchester, NH, Free State Project
principals Matt Philips, Jason Sorens and Carla Gericke announce the
completion of the first "deliverable": the 20,000th signer of the FSP's Statement of Intent, thus "Triggering the Move." Now comes the fun part.
Minus the "Early Mover" cachet (let's be fair), it's not too late to join in, y'know. But if ya need more convincing, 101 Reasons: Liberty Lives in New Hampshire.
As of today, The Free State Project is the most successful intentional migration movement in American history. This is because today the organization has announced that 20,000 participants have signed the Statement of Intent to move to New Hampshire, where they will “exert their fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of government is the protection of individuals’ rights to life, liberty and property.”
The 20,000 mark is significant, because it ‘triggers the move’ – the mass migration of the Free State Project participants who have all agreed to move to New Hampshire within the next five years. So far, almost 2,000 have already relocated to the state.
“In the last few months, using various social media targeting tools, we expanded our audience and a significant number of new people signed the pledge,” says Carla Gericke, President of the Free State Project. “Early movers have already made their mark on the Granite State by passing life-saving drug reform legislation, expanding school choice and protecting first amendment rights – this has drawn in a whole new crowd of participants. Just imagine what can be accomplished with 10 times as many people.”
Since the first early movers flocked to New Hampshire, Free State Project participants have followed their individual passions to the center of some of the state’s most contentious political fights. They were instrumental in organizing resistance to Real ID in 2008, legalizing same-sex marriage through the legislature in 2009, and establishing a medical cannabis program in 2013.
The Free State Project started in 2001 with an essay by Jason Sorens, who was then a graduate student at Yale. Sorens, who is now a lecturer at Dartmouth College, theorized that if 20,000 committed activists moved to a single state with a small enough population, they could push policy and culture in a more free, open direction. In 2003, early participants chose New Hampshire as the state to migrate to. Now that the move has been triggered, the Free State Project will continue the effort to attract more participants, and inspire signers to move to the Live Free or Die state sooner rather than later.
"I'm thrilled by how far the Free State Project has come since the essay I wrote 15 years ago. Freedom lovers from around the country have turned concept into reality by moving to New Hampshire and building all kinds of exciting efforts to secure liberty and prosperity for all--efforts I could never have imagined back in 2001. Good ideas are powerful, and the idea of freedom is spurring many thousands of Americans to commit to move to the Granite State for a better life."
This news comes on the heels of the announcement that NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden will be the headline speaker at the Free State Project’s 9th annual Liberty Forum, held in Manchester, New Hampshire from February 18-21.
“This is the culmination of over a decade of grassroots and volunteer work, and I am thrilled to be announcing that the Free State Project has surpassed the 20,000 signer mark,” says Gericke. “Early movers are bringing their businesses, families and charities with them to New Hampshire – not to mention disposable income. So far we’ve purchased more than $30 million in real estate alone, and I can’t wait to see what kind of larger impact will be made as a result of individual efforts within this growing and thriving community.”
The Free State Project will hold a press conference to announce this news at 11AM on February 3 in the Frost Room of the Radisson Hotel in Manchester, NH. If you’d like to reserve a media pass for the press conference, or want to interview Carla Gericke or Jason Sorens, please contact Brinck Slattery at brinck(at)contentfac(dot)com or at (603) 703-2846.
Or is the State the reason religious liberty is explicitly protected -- from the State -- in the first place? And yet, here we are, 10/15/2015, asking the State to rule on the State's authority. To quote a different favorite cultural reference (and seriously, nobody's isolated Jubal Early...?), "Does that seem right to you...?" As the Concord Monitor article starts out...
"A 5-year-old, nontheistic religion founded in New Hampshire – unusually characterized by its reverence for sword fighting and its meeting place, a Concord bar – argued its case for a property tax exemption before the state’s Supreme Court on Thursday.
The leaders of the Church of the Sword said they were treated unfairly when a Westmoreland home owned by the church and occupied by a pastor was denied tax-exempt status last year. They said it should qualify as a 'parsonage' under state law.
In March, their appeal to the Cheshire County Superior Court was dismissed. The court issued an opinion stating the Church of the Sword 'is neither religious nor a church,' but rather it 'is clearly a social organization that uses religious vocabulary to describe its practices' and that its doctrines 'are far more related to politics and self-improvement than to religion.'
By taking the case to the Supreme Court, the libertarian activists and Free State Project members who comprise church leadership brought themselves to the fore of a trend in the state. At least three newly created churches with Free State Project ties have sought tax exemption in varied court cases in 2014 and 2015. ...
Sorry, Silas. To riff further on "The Big Lebowski," anarchism and nihilism are not the same thing (yet even the nihilists chose to belong to a group)...
Taking property from those whom you have not convicted of any crime -- and as I understand it, are, in fact, therefore innocent until proven guilty -- is stealing. Even -- perhaps especially -- when government does it. "Equitable sharing" is equitable only among the thieves.
Last year's bill to restrict such actions (just a little, since it has no effect on the feds) has been retooled, and today, 2/19/2015, the NH House Judiciary Committee hears testimony on HB636, "relative to forfeiture of property" -- civil asset forfeiture.
When it turns out it's a session to discuss scheduling work sessions. This is the billed-as interim study work session of the NH House Criminal Justice Committee, 9/17/2014, addressing:
HB1550, "permitting the audio and video recording of a public official while in the course of his or her official duties," (10/8)
HB1204-FN, "relative to perjury by a law enforcement officer," (nope -- or...?)
HB1607-FN, "relative to limited driving privileges after revocation for certain financial obligations," (10/7)
HB1575-FN-A, "requiring state police to wear a camera when interacting with the public," (10/1)
HB1485-FN, "relative to vulnerable users of highways, (10/7)
HB1566-FN, relative to warrant requirements," (10/1)
HB645-FN, "relative to an extended term of imprisonment for persons with 2 prior convictions," (uh-uh)
The work product was if and when they'll actually have work sessions (parenthetically appended to the above bills that made the cut, if you're interested). But as the Chair reminds the assemblage, pretty much all that can come of a bill consigned to "interim study" (over the interim in which an election is held) is a recommendation from the Committee that, well, somebody next session should sponsor such a bill. Wonderful. Although, a representative so inclined and paying attention can certainly glean some idea of what aspects might or might not win the Committee's coveted "Ought To Pass" recommendation. 'Course, the Committee might well have an entirely different make-up following the intervening election, so...
So utterly banal and pointless, I almost wasn't going to bother posting until Rep. Vaillancourt and Chair Pantelakos favored us with some of their trademarked, delightfully combative repartee near the end. After several reps in attendance specifically inquired as to my plans, I decided I couldn't just keep it to myself. And it is mercifully short. Comparatively...
A few historical notes to enhance your viewing pleasure:
"Recording of a public official while in the course of his or her official duties" is, at this point, settled law in NH. You're welcome -- not remotely that I did it alone, of course...
While even the notion of just state police SWAT teams wearing cameras was laughed out of its committee hearing just 2 and a half years ago, the zeitgeist has clearly shifted, particularly following the law enforcer horror show that has been Ferguson, MO. And driven in part by the previous note, Weare PD, at least, is now wearing chest cameras.
You read that right, faithful reader. "Regret and apologize." And that's the US Constitution's 1st Amendment 'free-speech' protections and the NH Constitution's Part 1st (the state Bill of Rights equivalent) Article 8 'government accountability' mandates (as well as Article 22 'free speech,' of course), particularly, exercise of which on the fateful night of 7/10/2010 eventually earned your humble chronicler, over 7 months later on 2/22/2011, service of a belated but by then presumably quite carefully considered -- yet still profoundly misguided -- felony 'wiretapping' warrant.
These violations were in addition to their demonstrated serial contempt (and, in fact, uniquely demonstrated, WPD being the only NH police department ever to not eventually, wisely, in a nominally Article-8-'the-boss-has-given-us-our-orders' self-preservation sort of way, drop such charges for recording an employee cop) for NH statute RSA 570-A:1's clear definition of "oral communication." This state law stipulates prevailing circumstances justifying an expectation of privacy first before audio (the only type even at issue) recording can be considered "illegal". You say, officer, that you can't be overheard on a public street -- to say nothing of while coercing a non-voluntary conversation, on highly suspect pretext, as a public servant? I don't think so.
And I really did try to explain all this to them that night. Had they listened -- or hell, just subsequently taken the time to research it, themselves, in the convenience of their lair in the ensuing 7 months -- they could have saved us all a lot of time and aggravation, the taxpayers yet another liability insurance premium increase, and WPD considerable -- additional, I mean -- embarrassment and ultimately (finally) compelled public contrition. 'Course, by then they were "in for a penny" anyway, as the saying goes, with 2 if not 3 other 'wiretapping' cases simmering away already. Then they hit me with a felony charge, which in the booking room I also explained wasn't possible, since the recorder (me) was a party to the conversation. And eventually, while I sat waiting for the bail commissioner, a small voice (earlier that evening, the lead officer on the warrant service) from behind the desk was inspired to offer -- as a result of doing actual research, one might suppose (he's gone now, btw) -- "Y'know? I think you're right..." Hmm. But yeah, the charges were carefully considered, alright...
And other aspects, most notably the Article 15 right to produce potentially exculpatory evidence -- which ya can't "produce" if ya can't "produce," if ya know what I mean -- particularly when dealing with rogue servants with a legal monopoly on force (and a state-sanctioned license to kill, we've since learned, along with historically conveniently unreliable recording equipment of their own) and on top of it all, despite it all, somehow, long-established government permission to lie.
But the courts have all agreed that WPD should have already known they were acting illegally by arresting citizens recording their servants -- before I helpfully tried to explain it to them, detained against my will (and the law, for that matter) on the public roadside of a public thoroughfare. So again, no special some-pigs-are-more-equal-than-others "qualified immunity" (at least not on this particular issue anymore, in this jurisdiction, anyway...). Bottom line, if you're arrested in NH for recording cops, call a lawyer. No-brainer. (And no great surprise, I have an excellent experienced suggestion for ya...)
Yet all along, they and their (also -- and far too often and easily) tax-funded legal representation insisted on disdainfully maintaining their defiant denial of the ever-growing clarity of their situation's stark reality. Always petulantly (yet somehow still self-assuredly) behind the curve. Kicking and screaming and digging their hole. And it certainly did cost them. Repeatedly -- and, it should have been, entirely predictably. It all really could be terribly amusing if they weren't so terribly dangerous to life and liberty and town budgets...
Sidebar, your honor: One might posit that in the Grand Scheme, all this might not be all that important on its own, in isolation. I'd still object, but... An "alternative timeline," a "thought experiment" -- and a call to action -- that I think should be considered here, too, is that had the stunning exposures of 'Hodgdon' and 'Chatel' (even a cop/lawyer they attempted to destroy) and 'Gericke' and 'Kostric' and 'Alleman' (and...) all somehow been able to have run their collective legal course and exerted their collective influence only a year sooner, had activists (reluctant or otherwise) intent on reform somehow compelled from the grassroots up the long-necessary fundamental change (that very clearly was never going to be driven from anywhere else, anywhere with a metaphorical sceptre and fancy hat, any government entity actually stepping up and accepting responsibility, anywhere with effective jurisdiction and control and something remotely resembling an ethical code or even earnest fiducial concern for the ever-mounting tax impact), succeeded in compelling that real change in the Weare police department just a measly year sooner than they (hopefully) did, then Alex Cora DeJesus might very well still be alive today instead of having been murdered in a lunatic clusterfuck of contemptuous, incompetent, unsupervised (and ultimately unaccountable) cowboy police-state authoritarianism. In fact, the new chief, despite the "Thin Blue Line" traditionally separating employer and habitually insular and recalcitrant employee (so props for that), has invoked the "c" word. That's right, corruption.
Don't let this shit slide, people. Hold "troublesome servant and fearful master" government (excellent advice, disputed provenance or not) accountable and tightly tethered. Always. That's your responsibility if a free society is to be retained. If ya give 'em an inch, suddenly they think they're a ruler. They work for you, gorram it. Aim to "misbehave". Somebody's life could depend on it, after all -- could depend on you. Take a stand. Never forget, never dismiss, never underestimate the tangible cost of complacence and inaction.You, too, cancompelpositivechange. Hell, someday soon we might even be able to stop the BEARCATs...
"We are not powerless. We have tremendous potential for good or ill. How we
choose to use that power is up to us; but first we must choose to use it. We're
told every day, 'You can't change the world.' But the world is changing every
day. Only question is...who's doing it? You or somebody else?"
-J. Michael
Straczynski-
Apologize. With a formal letter. From the Weare police department. Yes. I don't know what it may have cost during settlement negotiations in terms of potential maximum monetary damages, but it was my (perhaps unrealistic) objective from the beginning. And my attorneys got it. And it was so worth it... (Although, formal "free speech violation" apologies from police chiefs might just be becoming a "thing"...)
Oh yeah, and $35K is nice, too, particularly given that my property taxes will likely be going up -- again -- to pay "my fair share" of so very much restitution for all WPD's arrogant transgressions against its employers, AKA humanity, and humanity's inalienable rights. And with it, too, WPD might just discover that they're helping to fund some more "projects" they'd probably still rather not be associated with...
And again, a profoundly heartfelt "thank you" to the Free State Project community, as well, for rallying to my financial and emotional support, desperately needed for me to wage this small, but I believe significant, and now finally successful fight against today's aggressively metastasizing police/"security" state. And thank you, Carla, for (being forced to) taking point in the 1st Circuit so I didn't have to. ;-) Hey, you got this kind of community where you live now, dear reader...?
So here's the letter of regret and apology, originally received via PDF'd fax on 6/25/2014 during final negotiations, 15 days shy of 4 years since the start of this oppressive odyssey -- again, one for which, as a Weare taxpayer, I've been "privileged" to fund both sides. Given the department's apparent cultural transformation (so far), I believe it was worth it. "No admission of wrong-doing" standard boilerplate? Ri-i-ight...
Although, the courts said that this, specifically, wasn't "new case law." That this was already established law. That's why we're here, after all, isn't it? "New law," unfathomably granting the protection of "qualified immunity," was expressly not the problem in this case. 'Feel-good aspirations going forward' are fine, but not keeping up with old established law was what got them in so much trouble. They clearly need continuing ed on the influence of old case law, too, seems to me.
Or, hell, maybe screw the ever-mounting self-serving conveniently-servant-government-interpreted court-decreed "precedents," and just review the actual, authorizing Constitution(s) and some "Andy Griffith Show" reruns -- you know, from back before the "War On People Who Use (Some) Drugs"™ and the "Perpetual Global War on Tactics" somehow eradicated the (supposedly binding) enumerated powers and the Bill of Rights, and rendered us all prisoners of our own ostensibly servant government.
I was recently approached at a local charity event by one of the principals in this particular adventure in the free state, to assure me that the change in his department is real and permanent. Only time will tell, of course, but I still want to see less "enforcement" and more "keeping the peace." As the new chief, himself, put his perception of what the people want (and what took them so long, anyway?)...
Even the unit’s longtime motto, “Maintaining Unity in the Community,” was overhauled. It now reads: “Preserving the Peace.”
“That’s what our community wants us to
do,” Velleca said. “They want us to understand, ‘Look, it’s peaceful
here. Try and keep it that way. Don’t disrupt it. We’ll call you when we
need you, and when we need you, please be professional and intelligent
and know your job. But until then, let us be.’”
Good advice. But for whatever apparent deliberate change may have been implemented so far -- and given the above-related ignominy, where the hell else could they be at this point without sparking a sequel to the Pine Tree Riot (celebrated by the town's own historical society)? -- we're not quite there yet, young fella. Always out on the prowl, looking to start trouble, rather than just quietly sitting on your hands waiting for that call for assistance. From my perspective on the opposite side of the police radio scanner, "Sheriff Taylor" is still just an aspirational objective. Why can't police departments be more like fire departments? Weare's 2015 Town Meeting sure should be interesting...
Anyway, take it away, Martin & Hipple. Following, victories first in my criminal case (a 'Golden Oldie' from 11/4/2011 -- and is it just me, or does Seth look a little like Malcolm Reynolds...?), and then (eventually, as soon as my attorneys return from their well-deserved 'victory lap') in my freshly settled civil case (hey, ya knew there'd be video here eventually, right?)...
Addendum. "It could be worse." I hear that occasionally, usually voiced with at least mild exasperation -- "What's wrong with you? Be happy you're not in a gulag...!" The suggestion, apparently, being that incessantly compounding rights violations by ostensibly servant government are trivial and inevitable, and we simply shouldn't poke the deadly and conscience-free dragon.
I concede that I'm not in an actual gulag (yet -- although how far off is the "effective" border fence, which necessarily works both ways? And the metaphorical "border fence" of the capriciously pulled passport, or the secret "no-fly" list clearly already exist -- 'cuz obviously people need government's gracious permission to exercise their inalienable rights. Or "extraordinary rendition." Or the NDAA. And what of the fundamental right to travel, enjoyed by "all men," according to this government's charter, and protected by this government wherever it enjoys lawful jurisdiction -- and outside of which it's acting criminally, anyway). Is that then necessarily cause for rejoicing, or even mere complacence? I don't live in North Korea or Cuba -- or even New Jersey, for that matter -- and that should be good enough for anyone? What would the Framers think? And even if the US were "the freest country in the world," that's damning with faint praise, anyway, as far as I'm concerned. Only the "best" of an entirely bad lot.
But "it" -- by which I'm referring particularly to our strained (even one-sided, the wrong, the unauthorized, the unlawful way) relationship with our increasingly recalcitrant overlords (a condition that, refreshingly, seems to escape the notice of fewer every day) -- didn't used to be this bad, now did it? And not all that far back, either (relatively speaking, of course). By rights (see what I did there?), there should have been another secessionist revolution (like the one we all just ostensibly celebrated on Independence Day, right?) long ago, but it got this bad because too many Stockholm Syndrome sufferers have always protested, at their least conspicuously sycophantic, "Hey, it could be worse."
Sure. And following utterance of that phrase, it will always get worse. And mostly for future generations, sadly, who conveniently have no say in the matter and, also conveniently, will never have a nettlesome memory of "how it used to be" hampering their resigned compliance -- particularly if they're fed their history by self-serving government schools, lionizing oath-breakers like--. Well, this post has prattled on long enough already.
Anyway, at the very least, "it" will get worse because it's perceived as a challenge. But more likely because it's perceived as a gift-wrapped, silver-plattered opportunity by self-authorized thieves of other people's "life, liberty and property." Worse because the depths of the people's tolerance, inexplicably, has yet to be plumbed. Worse until some semblance of effective resistance is met.
It could also always be better, however. Hell, that's the direction the activists united by the FSP are all about charting. Toward better. But 'better' won't happen as long as too many are satisfied with it simply not being worse -- which, since empirically they aren't at their tolerance limit yet, it will be tomorrow. Worse. Continually, until their limit is found -- at least. Guaranteed.
"The natural tendency of things, it seems, is for government to grow and for liberty to retreat."
-Thomas Jefferson-
Me, I'm aiming for better. I'm agitating for better (not as effectively as some, but hey, we do what we can, right?). But that must start with simply not being resigned to 'not worse (yet).' "Show up," and demand better, as your birthright.
Just for the record, though, in this particular odyssey, starting at this particular midnight, I was actually making a verifiably coordinated effort to avoid this particular challenge -- just like the naysayers would want me to do. Just trying to get home uneventfully. Yes, granted, following a marvelous (entirely peaceful) rally that certainly attracted (further heightened) infelicitous unlawful attention. Is that, too, illegal now?
But "worse" was relentlessly intent (in a violent-latchkey-teenager-with-too-much-idle-time-on-his-hands sort of way) on testing my tolerance limit, regardless. It hunted for me (well, for someone leaving that particular parking lot -- I was just the ultimately-illconsidered-prey-of-opportunity), and it stalked me with the objective of intimidating me, and it violated the law as well as my inalienable rights. Great job "protecting and serving," that. Fortunately, like that mouse flipping off the diving hawk, righteously indignant self-defense just took over, and I did what I could.
And justice has now finally been served. Cold as a "Live Free or Die" winter...
