Possible Constitutional Changes In New Hampshire To Protect Gun Rights?
BY Herschel Smith
3 years, 9 months ago
The New Hampshire House is considering recommending a constitutional amendment that would prevent future state laws from restricting firearm ownership, one of a series of gun rights bills proposed this year.
The proposal, officially called Constitutional Amendment Concurrent Resolution 8 would prevent the Legislature from passing any law “restricting the right to own, carry, or use firearms or firearm accessories.”
But some gun rights groups say that the amendment needs to be workshopped, and could have unintended consequences for firearms use in the state.
New Hampshire’s constitution already contains a version of the Second Amendment in the U.S. Constitution, which states: “All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the State.”
This legislation would add two following sentences. “The Legislature shall enact no law that limits the right of a person to own, carry, or use firearms or firearm accessories in any manner that would create a greater burden than that in federal law,” the amendment states. “Any federal law that infringes upon rights guaranteed in this New Hampshire Constitution shall be unenforceable by New Hampshire law enforcement.”
Rep. Terry Roy, the bill’s sponsor, said the amendment was intended to protect firearm rights, and stop the see-sawing of gun legislation between Republican and Democratic legislatures.
“The reason I’m introducing this bill is because I’ve heard from many constituents that they are frankly a little tired of every two years, or four years, or whatever it may be, that power shifts in the State House, and they are concerned about having their rights infringed upon based on whatever political winds are blowing in Concord,” said Roy, a Deerfield Republican.
The constitutional amendment would recognize the federal government’s ability to pass its own firearms restrictions, Roy said, but it would prevent local and state law enforcement from enforcing it. Those new restrictions could only be enforced by federal agents, Roy added.
Roy said he would prefer the amendment to prevent any federal firearms laws from taking jurisdiction, but thought that it wouldn’t be constitutional.
This would be a step in the right direction for New Hampshire, but it doesn’t go far enough. As for Mr. Roy, he’s kicking the can down the road. This is all going to come to a head sooner or later, and when it does, the question of constitutionality won’t come up except in law offices here and there.
On the street, the people will demand what they are demanding in other states like Missouri, namely, that state and county LEOs arrest and charge federal agents for enforcing federal gun control laws.
You can run, but you cannot hide. This is coming, and it’s better to get state legislators on board now with what must be done.
On February 17, 2021 at 10:28 pm, Frank Clarke said:
Rule #1 of ‘jurisprudence’ world-wide is that later law trumps earlier law. A law passed today can be repealed by a law passed tomorrow. That’s so straight-forward it almost doesn’t rate putting it down on paper.
The Second Amendment was passed _after_ the Constitution, so it takes precedence over any alleged authority in the Constitution that _might_ authorize Congress to legislate about guns.
Nothing gives Congress or the Executive _any_ authority to opine regarding _MY_ right to keep and bear arms. Nothing.
If you can’t understand that, it’s because you don’t _want_ to understand that.
On February 18, 2021 at 12:31 pm, Fred said:
This is the same type of thing that NRA has done state by state; claiming to be firming up rights while eroding them in the name of federal supremacy.