More Winning

[mikeb302000]

http://news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-upholds-dc-gun-restrictions-163741779.html;_ylc=X3oDMTEwYnI0YTdxBF9TAzIwMjM4Mjc1MjQEZW1haWxJZAMxMzE3NzY4MTUz">Yahoo News reports that the Appeals court upholds DC gun restrictions.

The court held that the district's ban on assault weapons and magazines containing more than 10 rounds of ammunition were constitutional. It also held that requiring registration of handguns is a deeply rooted practice that does not violate the Second Amendment.

No wonder http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011/09/wonderfully-wacky-if-disconnected-from.html">Wayne La Pierre says the most ridiculous things and no wonder http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011/10/conversation-with-gun-rights-advocate.html">his supporters tend to get nasty and aggressive, (even the ones who claim to be liberal and democratic) they see the writing on the wall. If they can't do better than this during a presidency that has proven, in spite of all predictions to the contrary, to be on their side, and a Supreme Court balanced in their direction, imagine how they'll fare when things in Washington change.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
http://www.mikeb302000.blogspot.com/">(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

[ileus]

1. duplicate thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=466057&mesg_id=466057


38 replies...none from you.

[pipoman]

18. " 38 replies...none from you."

Because he isn't a participant on DU, he is an advertiser..so transparent..

Unrec for shameless blog promotion

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Atypical Liberal]

3. Dupe.

Dupe.

All this is going to do is push the case to the Supreme Court, where it will be reversed.

[gravity556]

4. And what purpose does registration serve, Mike?

In your own words, how does registration combat crime? Do you think CSI is a documentary where they match two slugs and the gun and owner pop up on the computer? How many crimes have registration and ballistic libraries consisting of a fired slug and case from every gun sold (in the handful of states that require this idiocy) have been solved. Since you support it and tout its efficacy, how about providing some examples. I think that the grand total in the US is somewhere around 2. At a cost of tens of millions of dollars. Hooray for gimmicks and the gullible, without which pet rocks wouldn't have been the success they became!

[mikeb302000]

6. registration combats crime directly - here's how

When guns are registered to specific people, those people are going to be damn sure they don't let those guns end up in the wrong hands. The way it is now, gun flow from lawful owners to criminals is like the Mississippi River. Registration of guns, which will constrain you guys to do the right thing, will slow that flow down and directly prevent some bad guys from getting guns.

It would especially address the sloppy gun dealing that goes on privately, you know the transfers that require no background check or any paperwork. Registration ends all that.

[Atypical Liberal]

7. At the expense of loss of anonymity.

Registration results in the loss of firearm ownership anonymity. Thus I will never comply with it.

[iverglas]

11. and what purpose does anonymity serve, Atypical Liberal?

It serves to enable illegal gun transfers.

That's what purpose it serves.

Thus I will never comply with it.

You're unlikely to get the opportunity not to comply with it.

But how reassuring to see how law-abiding you propose to be.

[AtheistCrusader]

14. Protection from ex-post-facto ban and confiscation.

Like what happened in California when they phased in their ban on unregistered 'Assault Weapons'.

[iverglas]

30. oops, that needs fixing

Protection from ex-post-facto ban and confiscation

Enhanced ability to break laws on personal whim

[AtheistCrusader]

32. There is historical precedent in the United States. Specifically California.

Which sucks, because without that, registration might be an idea that could get sold, with certain protections.

[iverglas]

34. isn't progress amazing?

There are lots of things people used to be allowed to do that they may not do now.

Often, new prohibitions on things that people possess will come with grandfathering provisions. That's the case in Canada for firearms, and in Ontario for pit bull dogs, for instance.

Nothing lasts forever, does it? The expensive watercolour paintings I own may be faded and degraded before any heir of mine can realize anything from a sale, and the firearm somebody else owns may become unsellable by the owner's heirs. Oh well. Put your money in gold, I guess!

[AtheistCrusader]

35. Unacceptable.

We codified against ex post facto bans in the consititution. We do not take away people's property without compensation (allegedly).

[iverglas]

38. um

We codified against ex post facto bans in the consititution. We do not take away people's property without compensation (allegedly).

You're referring to this?

XIV. ... No state shall ... deprive any person of ... property, without due process of law; ... .

V. No person shall ... be deprived of ... property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

You'll notice that banning possession of something is not taking it "for public use". Strike one.

And you'll realize that the proper enactment of legislation that is otherwise constitutional meets the "due process" requirement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Due_process_clause

The exercise of the police power of the state resulting in a taking of private property was long held to be an exception to the requirement of government paying just compensation. However the growing trend under the various state constitution's taking clauses is to compensate innocent third parties whose property was destroyed or "taken" as a result of police action.

As I understand it, in US legal parlance, criminal laws are an exercise of the police power.

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

In United States constitutional law, police power is the capacity of the states to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory for the betterment of the general welfare, morals, health, and safety of their inhabitants. ... The exercise of police power can be in the form of making laws, compelling obedience to those laws through legal sanctions, physical means, or other forms of coercion and inducements.

Can we all really think of nothing that was once legal to possess and was subsequently made illegal?

Pretty much everything it is now illegal to possess, it would seem to me.

[Starboard Tack]

51. Don't worry. You'll get over it, just like you got over asbestos removal.

You won't feel a thing when they take them away. Really. Easier than having tonsils removed. Of course, it may not be safe to go outside anymore, but there's always TV and DU and memories. There's a comfort.

[gejohnston]

27. I have a question

When the RCMP reclassified this rifle from restricted to prohibited, were these 35 individuals reimbursed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QBZ-95#Civilian_Variants

[iverglas]

31. you seem very knowledgeable

When the RCMP reclassified this rifle from restricted to prohibited, were these 35 individuals reimbursed?

So did you read about this from the NFA, LUFA, or freedominion?

You could ask one of them:

http://www.nfa.ca/norinco-type-97-reclassification-firearms-act

I liked these bits:

The Canadian firearms owning public would like to count the Conservative Party as a political ally in supporting property rights and the ability to enjoy their firearms in a fair, equitable, and reasonable fashion in accordance with the principles of natural justice. ...

The Conservative Party should be a natural fit for most responsible firearms owning Canadians. Issues of smaller government, fewer taxes, enforcement of law rather than increasing laws, enhanced freedom and individual responsibility tend to resonate well with the firearm owning demographic which tends to have higher than average incomes, high levels of education, a strong sense of patriotism, and strong respect for law and order. Despite the efforts of firearms organizations to encourage their members to vote for Conservative Party candidates, we have received many complaints from members that the minority government has not been effective in supporting firearms owners. The Re-classification issue is clearly one in which this government has the power to either support firearms owners, or to support a regime of additional control. The NFA has been proud to support the Conservative Party in the past because of our shared commitment to smaller government, lower taxes, enforcement of existing laws, enhanced freedom and individual responsibility. We see this current situation a natural opportunity for the Minister to act in a manner consistent with this tradition. We are confident that the Minister will rescind the arbitrary actions of the RCMP.

Snork. One of those "single-issue" outfits, them.

(They do need to get a better grasp of what those "principles of natural justice" actually are, but kudos to them for the nice layout.)

You probably need to know that the RCMP does not classify firearms, and that the onus is on individuals to comply with the law.

[gejohnston]

37. just answer the question

they were legal and registered as restricted when they were purchased. They complied with the law. The guns were reclassified to prohibited. If not the RCMP, who operates the Firearms Centre, was that an act of parliament? CBC says no. To me, it looks like the RCMP did just that.
Are you saying that the Charter does not include that part of the 5th amendment?

Wait, how about this from the CBC:

That quest for proof will be part of the owners' fight in court, where they are questioning the RCMP's ability to reclassify the weapons. Hagen said his understanding of the law is that only the federal cabinet can initiate a reclassification.

However, Cheliak said he doesn't believe the weapon has actually been reclassified, but classified for the first time. A proper classification was done with the physical inspection of the firearm.

Collection of the weapons began in early May. The RCMP say about half of the rifles have been turned in. Those who turned over their weapons were eligible for reimbursement from the Ministry of Public Safety, which is rare.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2010/05/17/guns-confiscation.html
As for LUFA, NFA, and the Tories, so fucking what? If the Conservatives loved the long gun registry and the Liberals wanted to repeal it, it would be reworded to the Liberal Party is a natural ally for Canadian gun owners. That is how the real world works.

[iverglas]

39. just do your own homework

If not the RCMP, who operates the Firearms Centre, was that an act of parliament?

It is not my job to educate you. If YOU choose to talk about something, then YOU educate yourself about it. Finding random crap on the internet and demanding that I dispel your incomprehension is not how it's done.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/sc-1995-c-39/latest/sc-1995-c-39.html

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/regu/sor-98-462/latest/sor-98-462.html

they were legal and registered as restricted when they were purchased.

You could also investigate the doctrine of legitimate expectations as applied to the statements of state agents.

But no, apparently they were NOT legal, and they were registered only as a result of some sort of mistake.


Presumably the importer made a case that its firearms were not covered by the definition of "prohibited firearm":
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/import-importer-eng.htm

Currently, you do not need an import authorization under Canadian law for non-prohibited firearms or firearm parts. ... The U.S. authorities will not issue an export permit unless they have evidence that Canada will allow these goods to be imported. An International Import Certificate (IIC) issued by DFAIT will provide the required evidence. There is no fee for an IIC.

Presumably, the importer's representations satisfied whoever was making the determination at the time. Evidently, new information came to light or the original information was reconsidered. I don't actually know. Maybe you could find out. I've done some looking around to see how the process works, but no particular luck; this doesn't seem to say, for instance:
http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/publications/dm-md/d19/d19-13-2-eng.pdf

I'm not actually intimately familiar with the procedure followed for commercial importations of firearms to Canada. You're the one who wants to talk about it, so maybe you can come up with the necessary background info.

You quote:

That quest for proof will be part of the owners' fight in court, where they are questioning the RCMP's ability to reclassify the weapons. Hagen said his understanding of the law is that only the federal cabinet can initiate a reclassification.

Yes, fucking duh. It's called "the Governor in Council", and if you read the legislation and regulations I have linked to, you will get that.

This is why I have already said that the RCMP does not "classify" firearms. I assume that it was asked for an interpretation by the commercial importer, as to whether the firearms in question were prohibited or restricted.

However, Cheliak said he doesn't believe the weapon has actually been reclassified, but classified for the first time. A proper classification was done with the physical inspection of the firearm.

Certainly sounds that way, doesn't it? After all, your initial link indicated this was some new model of firearm. It was not included expressly in the existing regulations. (As far as I can tell, it still isn't.) This is why the regulations include that "any variants or modified versions of them" formulation that I referred to before. Maybe this was a whole brand new kind of thing. I wouldn't know.

The commercial importer seems to have slipped the things by the first time. As I say, I DON'T KNOW the details of the process or the characteristics of the firearms in question.

And yes indeedy, oh look:

Those who turned over their weapons were eligible for reimbursement from the Ministry of Public Safety, which is rare.

Apparently, it was decided that the doctrine of legitimate expectations applied to make the government liable to those who had relied on the initial assessment.

Damn, isn't it awful when Canada turns out not to be some jack-booted police state where your door can be broken down in the middle of the night and scarlet-tunic-ed thugs can make off with your private property?

That is from the CBC, though? That's pretty dreadful. Canada does not have a "Ministry of Public Safety" federally. Some provinces have ministries. The federal government has departments.


Huh. Looks like my surmise was right, though, eh? The importer had slipped one by:

"It was a purpose-built fully automatic firearm with the fully automatic features disabled by <Norinco> which were not reported to us," Cheliak said. "It is very easily converted back to automatic."

So is this little tempest in a teapot about played out now?

The RCMP was approached for some sort of ruling as to what class of firearm these things fell into.

The importer concealed material facts from the RCMP.

The truth was discovered too late, after some individuals had purchased the items at retail.

Real liability surely lies with the importer, which induced the RCMP to give an erroneous opinion by providing incomplete/misleading/false information.

The federal government is offering compensation to those who have suffered prejudice as a result of reliance on the RCMP ruling based on the false facts supplied by the importer.

Everybody's happy.

Except some far right-wing gun militants. I care. I truly do.


If this was all you could come up with in the way of dirt on Cdn firearms policy ...

[gejohnston]

40. was not looking for dirt, just genuine curiosity

I'm not a lawyer, let alone that familiar with Canadian laws and institutions. That being case, the logical and easiest thing to do is ask someone who is.
I do find it odd that the RCMP or Border Services would take the importer's word for it to begin with. Personally, I only care that they are compensated.

[rl6214]

45. I think you stumped her or it was something she did not want to

admit to that would make her dear ole canada look bad, that's why she wrote half a page talking all the way around the subject.

[Starboard Tack]

50. You've been watching too many spaghetti westerns

Hai veramente bisogno di aiuto

[Tejas]

16. Register hardrives to combat pornography.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hoyt]

8. Good news. NRA will use it to promote "they're taking our guns and castrating us" membership drive.

[friendly_iconoclast]

9. Why not? If the opposing team insists on pitching meatballs...

...it's a sin not to go for the easy hit. And besides, I'm sure the NRA will find good use for the extra money DC will
be forking over.

[SteveM]

24. Why all this testicular metaphor stuff? Is it an inadequacy thing with you? nt

[jmg257]

10. What writing on the wall are they seeing, exactly?

Sounds like these DC laws are in line with NYs. What were they expecting?

[iverglas]

12. anybody alerted and requested combining with the first thread?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=466057&mesg_id=466057

Mike, it is not proper practice to start a thread whose subject is identical to an existing thread.

It would be nice if you wouldn't keep doing it.

It's pretty easy to skim down the thread list on the first page to check.

"Appeals court upholds DC gun restrictions"

Pretty hard to miss.

[AtheistCrusader]

15. It would also be pretty nice if he would stop referring key info to links to his private

blog, without which the context of the post is useless.

(Personal enrichment via advertising)

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rl6214]

46. That dosen't suit his cause

Besides, he dosen't look at existing threads or post in any threads not his own, he only STARTS new threads.

[rl6214]

13. Your other winning thread wasn't good enough?

I guess not since you didn't stick your blind links to your blog in there. Almost got the hat trick here with the blind links. Coulda had it if you had stuck on more in there.

LaPierre says the most ridiculous things? I wouldn't know cuz I'm not gonna click on the link to your blog. If you want us to know what it says, just post it instead of the link. I guess we just won't know and you won't make anything off of us not clicking on the link to your blog. Same thing about his supporters, if you want us to know what it says, post it.

"see the writing on the wall"?

What writing is that? The pro rights side has had more victories than defeats. Get used to it.

"a Supreme Court balanced in their direction" means there will be more victories than defeats.

Unrec for the normal reasons.

[mikeb302000]

21. and how does that "more victories than losses" work

with all the hysteria about Obama three years ago. Which reminds me, how did you guys, you liberal democratic gun rights advocates deal with all that nonsense about Obama taking your guns away? Did you buy into it back then? Did you stock up on ammo and a gun or two, all the while trying to champion gun rights which to everyone's mind Obama was going to destroy.

[iverglas]

33. mike ...

If you have "something different" to say, then say it in the thread where the thing is being discussed.

Obviously people have "different" things to say about just about everything. That's why there are internet discussion boards. They're for discussion. In which people exchange different views, and discuss them. They aren't the op-ed page of the newspaper.

[rl6214]

44. "stock up on ammo and a gun or two,"

Is that you hoyt?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

17. So now "maintaining the status quo" = "winning" in he eyes of the antis... lol, lame

There's a reason the Pro Gun folks are taking ground everywhere...
The antis play for stalemates and the RKBAs play for keeps.

[mikeb302000]

22. keep tellin' yourself that.

If Obama ever decides to make gun rights vs. gun control a priority, and if he has the chance to appoint another Supreme, things are going to change dramatically for you guys.

Of course being the fringe group of the fringe group, you liberal democratic gun rights guys are going to have a helluva time reconciling your Democratic president with the loss of your gun rights. I think your heads will just explode. I don't know how you've handled this balancing act so far.

Admit it, gun rights activism is totally inconsistent with liberal and progressive thought. What you've done on this site and DKos is banded together a very small but vocal group of apologists to give the appearance that you're more than the fringe of the fringe. No one is fooled.

[friendly_iconoclast]

23. Hmm, another poster that hasn't read *all* of Heller and McDonald

Spoiler: It will take more than one Supreme Court appointment to overturn them.


And when push comes to shove, the prohibitionists invariably turn authoritarian:

Admit it, gun rights activism is totally inconsistent with liberal and progressive thought. What you've done on this site and DKos is banded together a very small but vocal group of apologists to give the appearance that you're more than the fringe of the fringe. No one is fooled.

You speak for all liberals and progressives in the same way that Ella Boole spoke for American women- IOW, you're just another
self-appointed inquisitor or zampolit.

[jmg257]

26. You do know how its been handled.

When the President was elected, gun guys went out and stocked up.

Think it'll be any different if he decides to actually make gun control a priority?
If there are strides made to try to take away gun rights??

That would be an NRA, gun manufacturers, and teabagger wet-dream, as all their doom forecasting about Mr Obama being anti-gun & 'intrusive big govt' comes true.

History does tend to repeat itself, as things go round and round...all the while nothing much really changes.
AWB? Mag limits? Permits? Background checks? Registration? Been there, done that...big frigging deal.

[gejohnston]

28. kind of dogmatic?

Admit it, gun rights activism is totally inconsistent with liberal and progressive thought. What you've done on this site and DKos is banded together a very small but vocal group of apologists to give the appearance that you're more than the fringe of the fringe. No one is fooled.

I fail to see how. It is consistent with individual rights and individual sovereignty, products of the enlightenment. To me, that is the very definition of liberalism.


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/liberal

lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
1.
a.Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

I tend to agree with sociologist Raymond Kessler who thinks gun control is fundamentally conservative or reactionary for these reasons:

"(1) increase citizen reliance on government and tolerance of increased police powers and abuse; (2) help prevent opposition to the government; (3) facilitate repressive action by government and its allies; (4) lesson the pressure for major or radical reform; and (5) can be selectively enforced against those perceived to be a threat to government."

[SteveM]

36. Again, you need to be corrected...

"Admit it, gun rights activism is totally inconsistent with liberal and progressive thought."

Your knowledge of U.S. history is as vacuous as your increasingly shrill tone. Gun-control didn't even get mention in the Democratic Party Platform until the late 1960s. It is an issue grafted onto the party when folks were afraid of the ghetto riots during that time and wanted to "disarm blacks." My, how liberal.

Prohibitionism is neither "liberal" nor "progressive." It is a reactionary philosophy which you have adopted. And you are not fooling anyone as you pull your little levers, projecting as it were behind a tiny curtain.




My guess is at least half of DU members have a firearm.

What's your opinion?

[rl6214]

47. DKos?

Weren't you booted off of DKos?

[GreenStormCloud]

49. Over 50% of the House and almost 50% of the Senate have NRA "A" ratings.

Do you really think that Obama is going to pick a fight with that kind of power?

[Glassunion]

20. You forgot h and you have one too many n.

[SteveM]

25. "In ferior riveting of Titanic's hull is held by some as a contributing...'

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

29. ...comment...

Sounds more like whining than winning. Why do you whine?

[Francis Marion]

41. Grandfather clauses, literacy 'tests' were legislative "wins"

at one time.

But today, bigotry in judge's clothing just rightly embarrasses the hell out of us.

Or rather, should embarrass the hell out of us.

With some folks, however, that's just fine.

Our rights get trampled upon under the legal system?
Great! That's progressive!

[DissedByBush]

42. Don't feed the blog troll

It posts inflammatory, ignorant rhetoric in hopes we visit its site and give it ad income.

[pipoman]

43. Of coarse every high school sophmore law club member

knows an appeals court isn't the final word in questions of law, the supreme court is. The appeals court is a stepping stone in the appeals process, nothing more. What you are doing is exactly like celebrating a win at a football game at half time..naive at best..

[GreenStormCloud]

48. You call that winning?? THIS IS WHAT WINNING LOOKS LIKE!!

PRO-GUN VICTORIES SO FAR IN 2011

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6456
Virginia: Governor M cDonnell Signs Four NRA-Supported Bills

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6465
Utah Governor Signs Two Important Pro-Gun Bills into Law!

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6563
Kansas: Two NRA-Backed Bills Signed into Law as the 2011 Legislative Session Adjourns in Topeka!

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6572

Virginia: Governor Signs Two Remaining NRA-Supported Bills!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/virginia-politics/post/cuccinelli-says-guns-in-churches-are-okay-if-theyre-for-self-defense/2011/04/11/AFvTYPLD_blog.html

Virginians may carry weapons for personal protection into places of worship while religious services are being conducted, according to a new legal opinion by Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6632
North Dakota: Employee Protection Bill Signed by Governor Dalrymple

http://newsok.com/fallin-signs-self-defense-rights-law/article/3562026
Oklahoma governor signs bill that expands self-defense rights

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6707
NRA-Backed Bill Becomes Law in the Cornhusker State

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6822
Oklahoma Legislature Passes, Governor Mary Fallin Signs “Parking Lot” Protection Expansions!

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=15241
Gov. Rick Perry Signs Legislation Protecting Texas Workers’ Right to Self-Defense

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=15279
Pennsylvania: Gov. Corbett signs bill on right to use deadly force. (Castle Doctrine)

http://www.wyomingnews.com/articles/2011/06/29/news/19local_06-29-11.txt
Permitless concealed carry becomes law.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6964
Thursday, June 30, 2011

Today, Governor John Kasich signed both Senate Bill 17 and House Bill 54 into law. SB 17 is important concealed carry reform legislation and HB 54 will provide individuals a pathway to restore their firearm rights.

http://wsau.com/news/articles/2011/jun/30/ohio-governor-signs-law-allowing-guns-in-bars/
Ohio governor signs law allowing guns in bars

http://www.pjstar.com/free/x1107265105/Quinn-bars-gun-permit-disclosure
Gov. Pat Quinn on Saturday signed into law a measure barring the public from knowing who holds a firearm owner identification card in Illinois.

http://www.8newsnow.com/story/15018316/new-gun-laws-take-effect-in-nevada
Two new Nevada gun laws took effect Friday that make it easier to buy guns across state lines and obtain permits for concealed weapons.

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2011/jul/09/gun-bill-is-signed-into-law/
Governor signs bill lowering CCW age from 23 to 21.

http://www.wifr.com/news/headlines/Gov_Walker_Signs_Concealed-Carry_Bill_Into_Law_125253309.html
Gov. Walker Signs Concealed-Carry Bill Into Law

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=7079

New Hampshire House Override’s Veto on Self-Defense (Stand Your Ground) Bill

Your side doesn't have anything to match it.