{flike}

Thanks to a recent article in the Concord Monitor, we now know the major threats to our Second Amendment freedoms that we can expect from the New Hampshire legislature in 2014.

And we know what the strategy of the anti-gunners will be as well.

According to the Concord Monitor on October 29, 2013, anti-gunners are hoping they can dupe gun groups into supporting two supposedly “innocuous” pieces of legislation -- which both promise to be very dangerous to your Second Amendment rights.

We say “promise” because, according to Concord attorney Penny Dean, the exact language has not been cranked out of legislative services yet. But we have dealt with similar legislation in other states, and both bills are part of a comprehensive strategy coming right out of the anti-gun offices in Washington, D.C.

The first anti-gun bill will be introduced by Democratic State Representative Wendy Piper of Enfield.

According to the Concord Monitor, the Piper bill would allow the police to “temporarily take a gun away from someone threatening suicide or harm to others.”

Piper’s bill would “let police ask a judge for permission to seize firearms” -- apparently with no input from the gun owner. The gun owner would then have a hearing in 14 days to “explain to a judge WHY THE GUNS SHOULD BE RETURNED.” [Emphasis Added]

We’ve seen variants of this concept in the Veterans Administration and in various anti-gun regions of the country. And what happens is that the gun owner can’t afford the thousands -- and perhaps tens of thousands of dollars -- in legal fees necessary for him or her to prove that the government should not take their constitutional rights away.

Perhaps once a week or more, GOA gets an e-mail from a gun owner who has had his guns unconstitutionally seized in this way -- and can’t afford to get them back. Once they have the guns, many anti-gun police departments are generally inclined to tell the former gun owner to “take a flying leap,” even when he or she is trying to enforce clearly delineated statutory rights.

The second “wolf in sheep’s clothing” provision is a Sen. David Watters’ bill to “add a stringent definition of people judged by the court to be mentally ill to the list of people denied the right to buy guns.”

We don’t know the definition yet.  But Watters made it quite clear to the Monitor that the effect will be to get a lot more New Hampshire names sent to the FBI as “prohibited persons.” We know this because Watters is publicly mourning the fact that New Hampshire doesn’t send more names of people to the NICS system.

We have a name for this: “See a shrink; lose your guns.”

Watters is supposedly “reach[ing] out to pro-gun groups.” But any pro-gun group which would support his bill should be disbanded.

ACTION: Contact your state representative and state senator.  Tell them to oppose the Piper and Watters anti-gun bills.

HOW TO CONTACT-WRITE YOUR STATE LEGISLATORS:

1. Proceed to http://cqrcengage.com/gunowners

2. Enter your zip code in the box provided under “Find Your Elected Officials” on the lower right.

(Preferably, you should enter your nine-digit zip code to get the best answer.)

3. Scroll down and click on the on the name of the desired legislator.

4. Click on your legislator’s website, which will be found under his or her name (upper left)

5. Find and click on the legislator’s email address or webform.

6. Take the pre-written letter below and cut-n-paste this into the email or webform.

----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear _____________:

Thanks to a recent article in the Concord Monitor, we now know the major threats to our Second Amendment freedoms that we can expect from the New Hampshire legislature in 2014.

And we know what the strategy of the anti-gunners will be as well.

According to the Concord Monitor on October 29, 2013, anti-gunners are hoping they can dupe gun groups into supporting two supposedly “innocuous” pieces of legislation -- which both promise to be very dangerous to Second Amendment rights.

I say “promise” because, according to Concord attorney Penny Dean, the exact language has not been cranked out of legislative services yet.  But groups like Gun Owners of America have dealt with similar legislation in other states, and both bills are part of a comprehensive strategy coming right out of the anti-gun offices in Washington, D.C.

The first anti-gun bill will be introduced by Democratic State Representative Wendy Piper of Enfield.

According to the Concord Monitor, the Piper bill would allow the police to “temporarily take a gun away from someone threatening suicide or harm to others.”

Piper’s bill would “let police ask a judge for permission to seize firearms” -- apparently with no input from the gun owner. The gun owner would then have a hearing in 14 days to “explain to a judge WHY THE GUNS SHOULD BE RETURNED.” [Emphasis Added]

Gun Owners of America has seen variants of this concept in the Veterans Administration and in various anti-gun regions of the country. And what happens is that the gun owner can’t afford the thousands -- and perhaps tens of thousands of dollars -- in legal fees necessary for him or her to prove that the government should not take their constitutional rights away.

Perhaps once a week or more, GOA gets an e-mail from a gun owner who has had his guns unconstitutionally seized in this way -- and can’t afford to get them back. Once they have the guns, many anti-gun police departments are generally inclined to tell the former gun owner to “take a flying leap,” even when he or she is trying to enforce clearly delineated statutory rights.

The second “wolf in sheep’s clothing” provision is a Sen. David Watters’ bill to “add a stringent definition of people judged by the court to be mentally ill to the list of people denied the right to buy guns.”

The definition is not public yet.  But Watters made it quite clear to the Monitor that the effect will be to get a lot more New Hampshire names sent to the FBI as “prohibited persons.” We know this because Watters is publicly mourning the fact that New Hampshire doesn’t send more names of people to the NICS system.

We have a name for this: “See a shrink; lose your guns.”

Watters is supposedly “reach[ing] out to pro-gun groups.” But any pro-gun group which would support his bill should be disbanded.

As a result, I am asking you to please oppose the Piper and Watters anti-gun bills.

Sincerely,