YOUR COMMENTS

Ah yes, the whole local control idea. How about we let cities and town control the 1st Amendment rights as well? Want to talk loudly at a school meeting? Now you'll need a license for that, issued by the town council. Want to drive across the town? You'll need a separate license for THAT. If you let local control get OUT of control, you end up with little tyrannies all over the State and the Country. Wasn't Slavery considered a 'local issue'?
- Richard, Germantown

One more indication that Flynch is listening to the progressives in Washington rather that the people of New Hampshire. Time to dump him!
- sally, candia, nh

If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants meat products banned.

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he tries to better his situation.
A liberal wants to know who is going to fix it for him.

If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals want those they don't like to be silenced.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
If a liberal is a non-believer he wants any mention of religion silenced.

If a conservative needs health care he shops for it, or looks for a job that will provide it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us provide for it.

Guess which one Gov Flynch is?
- Ron Remillard, Manchester

This doesn't interfere with the right to own or bear arms... its about commerce.

The veto should be over turned. Local licensing just creates a hodge-podge not conducive to a business-friendly climate.
Its absurd to believe licensing at the State level would somehow be overly permissive.
- John Edward Mercier, Belmont

Override.
- Jen, Concord

The point that is missed here is that certain towns have used this provision to essentially ban handgun dealers. I have had Federal Firearms (dealer) License since 1992 with a properly zoned home business and all the other smart things one does (vault, alarm system, etc.) when engaging in firearms trading. I mainly trade with other dealers as a very part-time activity. Early on I went into the local police department to ask for this "license" to deal with pistols and revolvers in non-dealer transactions (they cannot regulate dealer-to-dealer sales). I was told the town council decided not to issue the license. I haven't checked lately, but it's clear from the wording of the statute (yes, I'm also a lawyer) that the granting of the license is permissive on the part of the chief. That means in another universe, all towns (okay maybe excepting a few up North) could basically decide "not to issue the license" and either arbitrarilly cut off or severely curtail the number of legitimate dealers selling pistols and revolvers, regardless of the fact that they meet all federal background and zoning requirements to practice the trade.
- Bill, Londonderry

Brian, when a right needs to be licensed (i.e. exercised only with a government-issued permission slip that often has a monetary cost attached), it ceases being a right and becomes a privilege to be doled out (and rescinded) at the government's whim.

Since Chief Bailey seems so enamored of Massachusetts gun laws, perhaps he'd like to explain how it makes sense to deny a single mother in Dorchester her right to protect her children from harm, while bestowing upon her wealthy, more politically connected neighbors living just two miles away, a nearly unfettered right to arm themselves.
- Bruce MacMahon for State Representative, Brentwood

Solution – email and call your state reps, pressure them to override Lynch's veto.
The rest is up to us voters in November NOT to give Lynch another term in office. Lynch did the same crap with "stand your ground self-defense" reform. Who does the state government supposedly represent, the NH police chiefs association or the residents and their rights? I certainly do not like the direction NH is heading. If the NH police chiefs association actually wants to do some good for the community, perhaps they should focus their efforts on opposing early parole for convicted criminals, and strengthen our state’s weak death penalty laws.
As for regarding law-abiding gun owners and FFL firearms dealers, perhaps the NH police chiefs association needs to reread the NH state constitution, because we aren't MA. These chiefs should find work in MA, instead of attempting to push MA style unconstitutional firearm restrictions here. We don’t need or want these Barnaby Fife’s using their personal tastes and clear anti-2nd amendment biases to push for bull**** gun-control laws. Maybe it's time that an article 2-a litmus test is enacted into state law regarding the hiring of police chiefs. Don't they swear an oath to uphold the state constitution? Well that includes 2-a does it not? Now they're calling for stricter licensing even as state rep. Eaton points out, the local law is redundant, when the state government already has preemption over all firearm laws.
On a side note, Lynch doesn't think it’s necessary to take away the "authority" of municipalities - funny he didn't feel the same way about municipalities that wanted to enact a spending cap. It’s beyond time to kick Lynch and his cronies to the curb. The state is now facing a $300 million budget shortfall, not because of lack of revenue, but because of out of control spending. Next year’s shortfall will be even worse, doubling to an unimaginable $600 million as the one-time federal stimulus revenues disappear. But hey, Lynch is working hard to infringe / restrict upon our gun rights while simltanously running the state into the ground. The man is beyond incompetent.
- Happy Jack, NH

"Enabling local control is a good thing. Making sure that everyone who sells pistols is licensed is not a crime against the 2nd amendment. This just puts everyone on the same page.

Melvin from Keene misses the boat again and grinds his axe against the public safety sector with no real clue.
- Ben, Bedford"

It's a sad affair when the individual is willing to justify more "control" and legislate their freedoms away.

Melvin from Keene is not the one who needs to get a clue.
- B, Manchester

@Alec in Manchester - "In other words, "I want you to believe that I support the 2nd Amendment . . . while I promote infringement of the right of the people to arm themselves."

Requiring you to license a gun in no way infringes on your right to arm yourself any more than registering a business name infringes on your right to start a business. You're blowing hot air.
- Brian, Farmington

It's not like I was going to vote for Lynch anyway, but now I'm going to give money to his competitor.

This guy just can't get anything right - his own party suggested this law be taken off the books!! I'm starting to think he's deliberately trying to alienate everyone.
- Tyler Durden, Exeter, NH

This bill was passed by a broad bipartisan majority and came out of both Senate and House committees with unanimous support. Why? Because that section of the RSAs is simply not useful. Towns have no standards to license dealers. There is no state-level standard for the license, and the local chief is the sole decision-maker. Meanwhile, the feds have huge requirements with which any dealer must comply.

Despite Lynch's comment that the chiefs raised "concerns," in testimony before the House committee, a number of chiefs giving testimony said they were not even aware of the law.

Meanwhile, the application of the sections slated to be removed to charge defendants has been struck down once by the Hillsborough appellate court as unconstitutionally vague, and most recently, it's been put to use to drag a totally innocent man all the way through indictment, because the law as written doesn't allow any exception or defense to even be considered until after the person has been charged and a grand jury has issued an indictment.

It's a bad, barely-used law that needed to go. Even the legislature well understood that it was simply a law to be wielded as an arbitrary whip against those a local chief finds discomforting. Our governor apparently likes that kind of law.
- Mike, Amherst

I am very disappointed in my police chief here. I don't see the harm created by a few people selling a firearm privately. Governor Lynch should have signed the bill and got these small time chiefs off the back of the little guy.
- Mark Ellis, Bedford, NH

"He also said the state would get a bad reputation were Lynch to sign the law, noting past criticism that Boston officials have leveled on New Hampshire for its gun laws."

This is not a valid reason to veto a law. What the residents of NH would think of a law is a reason to veto a law but not the "officials" in other states.

Despite their criticism, NH gun laws have resulted in less per capita gun violence(0.43 per 100,000 for NH vs 1.53 per 100,000 for MA). Maybe its just me using logic, but aren't laws that result in a lower gun violence rate better than laws that result in a higher gun violence rate?
- Jeff, Manchester

"Bailey, who stressed he supports the Second Amendment, would like to see the state strengthen the local licensing law."

In other words, "I want you to believe that I support the 2nd Amendment . . . while I promote infringement of the right of the people to arm themselves."
- Alec Muller, Manchester

Enabling local control is a good thing. Making sure that everyone who sells pistols is licensed is not a crime against the 2nd amendment. This just puts everyone on the same page.

Melvin from Keene misses the boat again and grinds his axe against the public safety sector with no real clue.
- Ben, Bedford

Two points: One - In light of recent Supreme Court decisions regarding the 2nd amendment, the police chiefs of NH should understand that they are setting themselves up for lawsuits they have no hope of winning. Two - Mass officials need to keep their noses out of NH business and concentrate on the problems of Mass (which are so numerous, the interests of brevity prohibit listing here).
- Mark, Nowhere

"Bailey, who stressed he supports the Second Amendment, would like to see the state strengthen the local licensing law. He also said the state would get a bad reputation were Lynch to sign the law, noting past criticism that Boston officials have leveled on New Hampshire for its gun laws."

That criticism was based on three things: hand-picked "statistics", equally misleading press releases, and an insatiable desire to deprive the People of Massachusetts of the right to self-defense in the furtherance of their goal to make everyone dependent on the government for his or her very existence.

Case in point: Massachusetts Governor Deval is now pushing a bill that would limit licensed gun owners to only being able to purchase one-gun-a-month. His rationale for such an arbitrary, do-nothing law: There are too many guns on the streets and cracking down on Massachusetts (NOT New Hampshire) gun owners is going to remedy the situation.
- Bruce MacMahon for State Representative, Brentwood

What exactly is a Hobbyist Gun Dealer?

And how does someone slip through the cracks?

Does this mean that there are people out there selling guns that the cops are aware of and know that dont have valid FFL's ?

Shouldn't they be stopping this instead of seeing a way for the city to make a buck off of it? How do you license someone to commit a federal crime?
.
- Al, Manchester, NH

This is a contentious issue with police chiefs. They, like their brothers in the fire service are constantly looking for laws to protect us from problems that do not exist, just in case.

There are already over 15,000 federal and state laws on the books that can be used to deal with the dealers who, "slip through the cracks in the federal system" according to Chief Bailey. (But he does support the 2nd Amendment, I guess as long as he and other chiefs can have the control they need.)

Some of the comments made about NH's "reputation" are ludicrous. NH has common sense gun control laws and a very low crime rate to show for it. Massachusetts has very strict gun control, mandatory jail terms for first offenders and no one can get a concealed carry permit in Mass unless you know a police chief or are a criminal.

Chief Bailey and Chief Cahill (Is Sunapee an actual city, or just a village?) need to review the US and NH Constitutions and support legislation accordingly. The very last thing the citizens need is more local or any government control over our lives. The laws on the books, if and when enforced will cover all those pesky little criminals "falling through the cracks".

Thanks for trying Rep. Eaton.
- Melvin, Keene

It was a good bill intended to veto a useless law. Shame on the chiefs, and the governor for vetoing it.

Points to consider:
*Anyone who is "engaged in the business of selling firearms" is required to have a Federal Firearms License.
*Anyone who slips through that crack in federal law (meaning they only make occasional gun sales) just isn't a problem. If they are, the ATF will deal with them.
*It is illegal to sell a handgun to anyone who isn't a resident of your own state, even if you are an FFL dealer.

None of this affects guns in Boston. Boston criminals don't buy guns from NH dealers. They buy them from other criminals who either steal them, or fraudulently buy them with the intent of illegally reselling them south of the border.

Local licensing serves no purpose, and should be repealed.
- Kevin, Lancaster

The Governor gets involved in everything except cutting the states expenditures.
- Bob, Salem