NH GOP leaders want to allow guns in Statehouse...Hmmm...Strange

[Harry Hope]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2010/12/29/nh_gop_leaders_want_to_let_guns_back_in_statehouse/

NH GOP leaders want to allow guns in Statehouse

By Norma Love

Associated Press / December 29, 2010

CONCORD, N.H.—House Republican leaders want to lift a ban on guns and other dangerous weapons in the New Hampshire Statehouse complex put in place last year by Democrats.

House Speaker William O'Brien raised the issue Wednesday at a meeting of the Joint Legislative Facilities Committee, which is in charge of the Statehouse facilities.

Last year, the same legislative committee, led by Democrats, reinstated a ban on weapons that had been in place from 1996 to 2006. The committee, now with Republicans in charge, plans to bring up the proposal to lift the ban next Tuesday.

O'Brien, R-Mont Vernon, said he wants to reverse the ban and proposed discussing it Wednesday.

_________________________________________________

I had no idea that the New Hampshire statehouse was such a dangerous place.

Harry

[drm604]

1. Let me get this straight.

They want to allow random armed people from off the street to freely wander around the seat of government?

Meanwhile we're essentially strip searching people who want to fly.

:crazy:

[Proud Liberal Dem]

2. Why does there seem to be such a strong push

to allow guns to be carried virtually anywhere nowadays? I mean, this ain't Iraq or Afghanistan, right? Or did I miss something somewhere? I had no idea that everybody is under such constant threat these days, especially legislators. Oh, and I'm sure that they won't ever have to worry about hot-headed legislators challenging each other to Burr/Hamilton-style "duels" or irate constituents packing heat, right? :eyes:

:wtf:

[baldguy]

3. To instill fear in the population.

The average sane person will worry more about the possibly insane guy sitting next to them rather than paying attention to the creeping fascism in their govt.

[Statistical]

4. Why was there such a push to restrict where law abiding people can carry guns?

You are aware that someone who wants to kill a legislator would bring a gun there anyways despite the ban.

[HereSince1628]

5. True, but this isn't about prior restraint.

I don't think laws deter acts, they make the acts offenses that are punishable.

The deterrent value of stated punishemnts provided by laws is also arguable.

But in our society to incarcerate someone, i.e. effect real physical removal of the person from the social milieu (aka 'protect' society), you need a law defining the act as criminal, characterizing the proof needed to establish the act and guide to sentencing.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

6. True

Like with terrorism, if somebody is bound and determined to pull off an assault on others, there's always a possibility that they will succeed sometimes- but why does that mean that we need to make it easier? There are sound public safety reasons IMHO for not allowing guns in all kinds of public locales. Guns in bars, in particular, come to mind. I can think of more good reasons for restricting guns in most public areas than I can for allowing them. What would be the practical use of being allowed to carry guns into a legislature for instance? You want to take your gun to the sports arena? Why? Is just "having the freedom" to do something enough of a reason to allow something that can potentially cause mass death and destruction during "the heat of a moment" pretty much anywhere? Do we want Bob Dornan or even John McCain types to be packing heat when they fly into a rage over something on the floor of the legislature (and we all know they're are a lot others out there like them)?
:shrug:

[Statistical]

7. If you are seriously interested about Constitutional law there is a concept called strict scrutiny

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

It essentially states the government can't/shouldn't ban/prohibit something just because there is a compelling interest.
They must also select the least restrictive means to achieve the goal, and the law must be as narrowly tailored as possible.

First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.

Second, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest (under-inclusive), then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.

Finally, the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. More accurately, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest, but the test will not fail just because there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this 'least restrictive means' requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it as a separate prong.

Is there a compelling governmental interest to restrict firearms in a legislature? I don't know. Has anyone even defined one. Mentally ill persons are already prohibited, as are felons. If a legislator has a specific threat they can seek restraining order. Is anyone who is interested in harm really going to be stopped by the law? Or is it just a "feel good do nothing law". How often does violence in legislature occur? Has it ever occurred?

Even if there is a compelling interest is the law narrowly tailored. Would allowing only people with conceal carry permit to carry be acceptable? Does the ban need to be 100%?

Even if the law is narrowly tailored are there other mechanisms to ensure safety.

I am not saying I have the answers but the Constitution requires that these questions be at least asked.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

8. I guess if somebody is really interested in challenging the constitutionality of certain gun bans

they are entitled to make that challenge and it would be interesting to see the outcome. I'm just wondering about the practicality and the common sense wisdom of pushing so hard to allow guns virtually anywhere and everywhere somebody might want to take a gun. I hate guns and would never own one. I don't think that some people should be allowed to own them and I don't believe that guns should be as easy to get as, say, a gallon of milk either. I don't, however, begrudge anybody their sacred constitutional right to (lawfully) own guns for their own private use or to take them out to firing ranges or out on their weekly/monthly/annual hunting trip or use them for any other lawful purpose. I just don't understand the need and/or desire for some people to push to allow guns to be permitted anywhere and everywhere every second of the day. This ain't Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, or some other lawless region.

[Statistical]

10. That is fine.

You are obviously entitled to your opinion.

I would just state that:

1) rights don't stop at your property line. You have a right to free speech in public not just your house.
2) Guns aren't as easy to get as milk. That is a myth. One needs to pass an instant bankground check.
3) While the courts can be used to strike down laws (and they have, DC gun ban) it is the duty of legilatures to look at the Constitutionality of law BEFORE passing it. The courts should be a last resort not the first line of defense.
4) While you may not understand the need or desire for people to carry firearms that is fine. I don't understand the need or desire for people to live in NYC or Los Angelos. Still it is a Constitutional right to keep and BEAR arms.

interesting quote:
" don't, however, begrudge anybody their sacred constitutional right to (lawfully) own guns for their own private use or to take them out to firing ranges or out on their weekly/monthly/annual hunting trip or use them for any other lawful purpose."

The courts have found self defense to be a "lawful purpose".

[Proud Liberal Dem]

11. Self-Defense certainly is a "lawful purpose" in terms of guns

However, at least for me, I still don't understand how people might expect to be unsafe at, say, a state legislature. If I were walking the streets of NYC and/or LA at night, yeah, that might change the equation a bit, however, for me, if guns are going to be permitted to be carried (with the possibility that they might need to be used at some point for self-defense) in a public area I'd like to see some kind of rational justification for doing so other than the simple constitutionality of it.

1.)You're absolutely right, our constitutional rights don't end at my front door but NONE of our rights are completely unfettered and/or absolute either.
2.)I didn't mean to suggest that guns really are as easy to get as something like milk but rather just using that as a general analogy for the purpose of our discussion. I think the state of our laws post-Brady Bill are about what they need to be though I am concerned about this state-by-state push to allow guns to be carried (in some cases, concealed) in more and more public places.
3.)Agreed, though I'm not convinced current laws prohibiting the carrying of guns in certain public places are necessarily unconstitutional.
4.) As I indicated above, I'm not against (responsible) gun ownership or use even if I don't like and never want to own myself. I just don't think that they need to be carried anywhere and everywhere without some kind of reasonable justification. If things are really so bad out there in terms of public safety that people can't go to a ball game or, in this case, conduct legislative business without packing heat, I'd say that we have more serious problems on our hands in terms of ensuring public safety. Thankfully, there is nowhere in the United States AFAIK that is (or ever has been) in a state of anarchy such as in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, etc. I'm not even sure, on a bad day, NYC and LA have ever actually been THAT bad (save for maybe some riots in the 1960's and the Rodney King riots in the late 1990's but situations like that have never been the norm).

[butterfly77]

12. They enjoyed watching,,

all of the killing in Iraq and afghanistan so they want to replay it over her believing that none of them will be killed,because they have a gun..

[Vinca]

9. The New Hampshire legislature is going to be devoted to guns

and wingnuttery. It's very depressing. I should never have moved over here from Vermont back in 1997.