State-level preemption of local gun laws is a very important issue, and states where it exists are constantly struggling to have it respected. Many such challenges don’t make big headlines, but I’ve seen it happen here in Georgia for years, long before Savannah decided to prosecute people who got their guns stolen out of their cars.
In New Hampshire, the state is trying to expand its current preemption law, which most of us would say sounds like a good thing. Since they failed to pass campus carry, it would be nice to see something pro-gun come out of the state this session.
However, there’s opposition from a surprising source. The state’s pro-gun attorney general has issues with the proposal.
House Bill 609 is nearing approval in the New Hampshire Legislature. It would prevent local municipalities or state agencies from enacting their own rules on the possession of guns and other weapons.
But Republican Attorney General John Formella wrote to lawmakers on Wednesday, urging them not to pass the bill. Formella said the bill creates so much red tape that it actually could endanger Second Amendment rights.
…
Formella said the bill would result in a surge of rulemaking in advance of a July 1, 2029, deadline that could contain many changes that are not good for gun owners. He said any changes to gun owners would have to be re-evaluated and readopted through a rulemaking process, creating the possibility that the overall regulatory environment for gun owners could get worse.
It’s certainly a take I can understand to some degree, but only to a degree.
Let’s start by understanding what we’re talking about here, because this is on the Senate.
The initial bill had no deadline at all, of course, nor did the House’s amended version. The Senate’s version does, though, and the deadline is only mentioned in one place. That section reads, “No rule, regulation, or policy adopted or instituted by an executive branch agency regarding the sale, purchase, ownership, use, possession, transportation, licensing, permitting, or other matters relating to firearms, firearm components, ammunition, firearms supplies, stun guns, Tasers, pepper spray devices, knives, or other self-defense tools, by state employees or on state property, shall continue or remain in effect after July 1, 2029, unless renewed or re-adopted pursuant to this section.”
In other words, at least to this layman, the deadline effectively kills every single rule in effect at any state agency unless specifically re-adopted. While that could, hypothetically, be the “surge of rulemaking” Formella is concerned about, it sounds like that would all have to be through the legislature, rather than some bureaucrat unilaterally deciding that you can’t take pepper spray into their office.
For the most part, this is mostly about expanding the list of self-defense tools that local authorities can’t touch. That should be as non-controversial as it gets.
And I’m not entirely sure I understand why Formella has an issue here. Does he think that the legislature that almost passed campus carry is suddenly going to start passing all kinds of anti-gun measures? If so, I wish he’d go into more detail or, at a minimum, endorse either the original text or the House’s amended version.
Instead, this just doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
Editor’s Note: The radical Left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.
Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Read the full article here
