NH House Hears from Bikers

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.

Testimony from ordinary citizens, of course, plus from the NH Motorcyclist Rights Organization, the American Motorcyclist Association, the Motorcycle Riders Foundation, and the Massachusetts Motorcycle Association. Oh, and some supercilious authoritarian bureaucrat from NTSB. Check out his contemptuous tone when challenged by a "mere" State Representative in the YouTube teaser clip just below (as well as in the full HB1162 video). You go, Rep. Packard...!

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"...




HB1261




HB1162, Part 1



HB1162, Part 2




Press

• Helmet bill draws hundreds to hearing

NH House Committee Hammers Gun Ban

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.

420 Returns to Manchester Ahead of Schedule

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...

See the 1/16 arrest video

See the (first) jail protest video

Read the threads

Hear the Porc411 calls from this evening's subsequent jail protest

RKBA Takes on the NH House. Again.

The NH House joint Legislative Administration and Criminal Justice Committees hear testimony on HB1654, relative to state house security, essentially codifying into actual law the recent decision of 8 timid yet arrogant authoritarian Leviathan-enablers on the Joint Committee on Legislative Facilities, to ban "weapons" in the People's house. By the tenants. 1/11/2010.

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 remember her, 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.




Now on with the full show, HB1654

Part 1



Part 2




Press

• NHPR: Critics Draw A Bead On State House Gun Ban
• Concord Monitor: 'Potential victims' protest proposed gun ban
• Keene Sentinel: Local lawmaker wants gun regulations

Prospective Jurors Demand to be Informed

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...

Members of the NH House Judiciary Committee,

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.

John Connell



Rich Angell, and Denis Goddard

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

NHLA Bill Review Training

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.

Hands-On



Q&A

Concord Does 420

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.

NH Rep Dan Itse Calls Out the House. Again.

And yet again, we must inquire, why aren't they embarrassed? Even just a little bit. But no-o-o-o. . . The first time, no one seemed sufficiently and justifiably contrite. This time, from 10/28/2009 -- the same day the Senate couldn't see fit to extricate itself from peaceful individuals' medical decisions -- is clearly no different.

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!"

Must be true. It's on the internets...

On NH's failure to override Lynch's medical marijuana veto

Sent this afternoon to my representatives, regarding HB648, "relative to the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes," following the NH legislature's failure this morning to override Democratic Gov. Lynch's supercilious veto, which itself followed the meticulous rewriting of the bill to meet his very own stated requirements (btw, Sen. Gallus was the only Republican Senator -- again -- to vote in favor of smaller, less intrusive government, not to mention compassion):


Representatives and Senator Janeway of Hillsborough 7 (and Sen. Letourneau),

A great 'thank you' to those of you -- Rep. Hikel, particularly, for your floor speech (although you did miss the opportunity to point out that while the dismissively challenged 53% of your "they-haven't-read-it" constituents support this, 63% of the House, itself, supported it back in March, then 68% in June, and presumably they read it, so...) -- who voted to defy our "liberal" governor and return just the tiniest yet still wildly restrictive shred of my civil liberty. You know who you are. I do...

A shred that was originally and unconstitutionally stolen from me (thanks primarily to authoritarian prohibitionists and crony capitalists -- sure, that's how a "limited-government, free market capitalist society" should work...) equally without the "100% certainty" (which we enjoy when, exactly?) that we were told in today's House floor debate should nevertheless be needed before government deigns to return any of its self-delegated control. Rush to regulate, inertial stagnation to rescind, neither with better knowledge than the marketplace. Or, in this case, than the patient actually in pain and her doctor.

My only concern, had the veto override mercifully also passed in the Senate today, would have been that "the good enough" would have proven to be the enemy of "the perfect." Or even just "the better," and we would have been stuck at this marginal level of returned freedom for the foreseeable future. Instead, we now have a prime opportunity starting next session -- perhaps with a little help from a finally fed-up electorate -- to do, perhaps not "perfect," but at least even "better." I can only hope we don't have to wait longer to take advantage of it, and remove just a little Draconian, non-omniscient, unauthorized government from peaceful people's lives.

As Rep. DiFruscia positively noted this morning, (even non-patient) activists have been smoking openly in Keene and Manchester. And surprise, the world hasn't ended. The empire hasn't collapsed. Chaos hasn't descended on quiet hamlets (although, yes, dogs and cats are living together, though causation has yet to be established). Indeed, law enforcement is largely ignoring them. So if, per law enforcement (and presumably its local governments, too, and despite its incongruously contrary hearing testimony), the law doesn't actually have to be enforced because it's demonstrably not a problem, then why is it still arbitrarily illegal? What is the specifically demonstrated compelling state interest that should continue to trump the individual's? (And please, no one give me essentially that the 10th Amendment is dead, and we simply must continue to submit to a self-appointed "higher authority." It's dead only if we allow it to be. But then, so is the Republic.)

And I find it profoundly disheartening, disturbing and hypocritical, too, that legislators such as Sen. Letourneau can appreciate and outspokenly champion the fundamental underlying principle of liberty for his own pet issues (such as motorcycles -- which is also one of mine, btw, so you can bet you'll be hearing from me on the upcoming helmet bill), but as per his own floor address today, loses any semblance of consistency on others, such as (even compassionate medical) marijuana. "Let those who consume decide." Especially those whose pain you mercifully don't have to share.

What a barbaric outcome. Shame on Gov. Lynch. Shame on the Senate. Undying, iniquitous shame.

Please maintain the consistent spirit of individual liberty and personal responsibility when considering legislation -- related or otherwise -- that comes before you in the future.