Second Amendment fan says gun bills go too far

[SecularMotion]

I am strong supporter of the Second Amendment and I have written several opinion pieces on the subject for the Portsmouth Herald in an attempt to use factual data to dispel inaccurate opinions and fear mongering by administration officials and even the editors of this newspaper.

Both the Heller and McDonald Supreme Court decisions made it quite clear that the Second Amendment provides the basis for lawful gun ownership and applies to the states; they also said that, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, this right can be "reasonably" regulated — "reasonable" being the important word here.

When Senate Bill 88, essentially a castle doctrine piece of legislation, was passed by the N.H. Legislature and vetoed by the governor, I made the case using available data that all of the fears and fear mongering were factually baseless. It was "reasonable" to be able to have the Legislature add legal protection, the benefit of the doubt, when protecting yourself, your family or fellow citizens, and the Legislature overrode the governor's veto, much to my approval.

Now the Legislature has presented a series of sweeping bills that would remove even more restrictions in favor of the right to own and bear firearms, and this has produced much of the same reaction as the castle doctrine legislation did. Mr. Abramson responded to some recent opinion pieces and he was absolutely correct on the factual basis of his response. I also find myself in agreement with some of the new legislation and astounded at the political stupidity of others.

http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20120124-OPINION-201240339

[GreenStormCloud]

1. New Hampshire and Vermont are pretty much alike.

The new laws would make NH laws much the same as VT. Are those laws a problem in VT? Are the citizens of NH less responsible than VT?

[friendly_iconoclast]

2. You either did not read the whole LTTE, or did not expect us to.

It seems you missed this bit about halfway through:

...HB 334, if passed, would allow law-abiding citizens to carry firearms on all publicly owned property. At its core, I agree with this legislation, especially the component that would allow firearms on New Hampshire campuses. All campuses are essentially a free-fire zone for criminal activities, and university rules should not be allowed to prevent those who are permitted to own and carry a firearm for protection from doing so.

Not withstanding Mr. Patton's "hallow ground" theory, I have been exposed to the possibility of an armed, presumed unstable, student on a New Hampshire campus and university officials were more concerned with the protection of the university from a public relations viewpoint than they were concerned about the safety of their students, staff or faculty...

That would be the LTTE referenced here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117210440

[DonP]

3. Now that's funny!

But pretty exemplary of the depth of thinking that goes into most gun control zealot's "research".

Using Brady and MAIG as if they were real sources, then clipping news articles carefully to make sure people only see what they are supposed to see.

Posting stories of shootings and hoping no one actually notices that none of the participants actually had CCW permits. And if they do notice it and call them on it, it's the evil NRA's fault for not "allowing" the police to report it anyway.

[SecularMotion]

4. It shows that the bill is opposed by members of both parties