|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
NH: How Seacoast legislators voted on allowing guns in N.H. House
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The Republican-controlled N.H. House of Representatives voted on Jan. 7 to allow guns on the floor and in the visitors' gallery of the House. This misguided vote was not a continuation of a long-standing policy. According to Rep. Steve Shurtleff, "Deadly weapons were first prohibited in the House back in 1971 after a fellow lawmaker threatened (to shoot) House Speaker Marshall Cobleigh. Aside from the two-year period that (Republican) Speaker Bill O'Brien wielded the gavel, the policy (not to allow guns in the House) has remained in place since." |
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(1/21/2015)
|
| Might be revealing to research just how many of the "nay voters" are new to NH. I lived in NH for a time in the late Seventies and found carrying a sidearm wasn't even a cause for comment, ( except for tourists and "new complaints" immigrating - even back then - from "taxachuttets . |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
