Virginia Tech: Not a Reason for More Gun Laws

The recent events at Virginia Tech have horrified the nation. The day saw 32 students murdered in cold blood. Another 21 students were wounded in this heinous act. Unfortunately, many gun control advocates are using this rampage as a reason to have more laws preventing Joe-citizen from possessing a weapon for self defense.

The Virginia Assembly had considered a law that would allow law-abiding individuals to carry weapons on the campuses of state schools, which would include Virginia Tech. The bill was killed and the powers-that-be at Virginia Tech praised the defeat: "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

Maybe they all felt safe, but in reality they were not any safer. On the contrary, everyone on the campus was even more vulnerable to an attack like the one that happened earlier this week. Just because the school says "no guns" doesn't mean that a criminal person will not bring a gun.

Dr. John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime, is the author of the largest study of gun control laws ever. He concluded that mass public shooting almost never occur in areas with more lax gun laws.

A perfect example of how guns save lives is available right here in New Hampshire. A disgruntled club patron, who was ejected from the club, returned with a pistol. He was ready to shoot the bouncers that threw him out. After the man shot a few rounds, an innocent bystander pulled out his concealed handgun and shot the criminal twice. If it weren't for that man with a gun, there could have been more people shot.

If students and faculty were allowed to defend themselves with weapons, maybe this whole tragedy could have been avoided. But we will never know.

Could the Court Be Wrong?

Here is the text of a letter to the editor that I sent out today. I have many more constitutional arguments to make, but alas, I can only write so much for a letter to the editor.

Constitutional Questions

Why is the legislature rushing along to define and cost an ‘adequate’ education? Why are they so willing to do the bidding of an unelected five-member court?

The supreme judicial court based its Claremont education funding decisions primarily on Part II, Article 83 of the New Hampshire constitution, which says in the relevant part: “it shall be the duty of the legislators and magistrates, in all future periods of this government, to cherish the interest of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries and public schools, [and] to encourage private and public institutions…”

Do any of you understand how that article “imposes a duty on the State to provide a constitutionally adequate education to every educable child and to guarantee adequate funding”?

The court said in the second Claremont decision that it is the “duty of the legislature to ‘cherish’” public schools. But doesn’t Article 83 say it is the duty of legislators and magistrates, and not the duty of the legislature as a whole, to ‘cherish’ public schools? One might say it is merely semantics. Well, why do the words ‘legislature’ and ‘general court’ (synonym for legislature) appear a combined 78 times in the constitution, while the word ‘legislator’ appears but once (in Article 83). I highly doubt the framers of this wonderful document would change that one word if it meant the same thing as the others.

And why does the court only mention public schools? The constitution also includes ‘seminaries’ and ‘private…institutions’. Of course, that would not help them increase the size of our state government, so they just left that part out.

Apparently there remain some unanswered questions. Please contact your legislators (notice I didn’t say legislature) and ask them to answer those questions. And maybe ask them why the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ranks New Hampshire #3 in the entire nation for quality of education, while the area that spends the most per pupil (Washington D.C.) is dead last in rankings. Could local control and fiscal responsibility have anything to do with it? If they can not give you straight answers, ask them if they still really support the court’s unconstitutional power grab.

No Real ID in New Hampshire

The New Hampshire House voted to pass HB 685 on Thursday. The bill prohibits the New Hampshire government from participating in the federal Real ID program. Real ID would create a de facto national identification card out of our state driver's licenses.

New Hampshire kicked off a wave of dissent across the country when the House voted to ban Real ID last year. The Senate, however, killed the bill.

The fight has come back even stronger this year; 25 other states have pending legislation denouncing Real ID and the general court of New Hampshire does not want to be left out on the party it started. The the same bill passed the House by a narrow margin last year. This year it passed by a near-unanimous vote of 268-8.

I hope you will contact your Senator and tell them you don't want the federal government to create a national ID card.

In Libertate,
Tyler

Who's Pulling the Strings in Concord?

This is a great commercial from the New Hampshire Advantage Coalition.

Fiat Money is Unconstitutional

Fiat money has taken over the world. There is nothing really good about it either (unless you work for the government). The inflationary tendencies of fiat money are a hidden form of taxation. The lack of any commodity backing leaves the value of our money at the whim of the U.S. Government and the Federal Reserve (which is neither federal, nor a reserve).

Thus, I wrote the following in support of House Bill 853, which establishes a commission to study the effects of fiat money on the wealth of New Hampshire citizens. The commission, as written, would only study the effects on wealth; I think we need to also look into the constitutional questions surrounding fiat money:

Fiat Money: “Legal tender, especially paper currency, authorized by a government but not based on or convertible into gold or silver.” – American Heritage Dictionary

“No State shall…make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts” – Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 10

Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution provides that the states may only pay off debts with gold and silver coin. The definition of debt from West’s Encyclopedia of American Law: “A sum of money that is owed or due to be paid because of an express agreement; a specified sum of money that one person is obligated to pay and that another has the legal right to collect or receive.” All of the State of New Hampshire’s expenditures can be thought of as debt.

Furthermore, the article says that States may not use “any Thing but gold and silver” for payment of these debts. “Any Thing” can in no way be construed to mean Federal Reserve Notes or any other fiat money.

Therefore, all money, except for gold and silver, is prohibited from use as payment of debts. The State of New Hampshire should do all in its power to return to Constitutionally-sound money.

“And be it further enacted, That there shall be from time to time struck and coined at the said mint, coins of gold, silver, and copper…” - Coinage Act of 1792, Section 9

The Coinage Act of 1792 was the first act related to money after the passage of the Constitution. It can be reasonably asserted that all the money referenced in the Coinage Act is in line with the Constitution, given that both documents were greatly influenced by many of the same authors.

All money to be minted was made of gold and silver, except cents and half-cents, which were copper. The coinage and money referenced in the Constitution is the same money that is prescribed for in the Coinage Act.

One denomination of money mentioned in the Coinage Act was a “dollar”. Today’s Americans would almost certainly associate the word dollar with the Federal Reserve Note that bears the likeness of George Washington. However, this association is wrong.

The Federal Reserve “dollar” is not the dollar that is provided for in the Constitution. The Constitution references the word “dollar” twice. The Coinage Act defines a dollar as follows:

“Dollar - each to be of the value of a Spanish milled dollar as the same is now current, and to contain three hundred and seventy-one grains and four sixteenth parts of a grain of pure, or four hundred and sixteen grains of standard silver.”

In fact, the use of the Spanish milled dollar in America far out dates our Constitution. Queen Anne of England issued the Proclamation of 1704 (passed by Parliament in 1707) that declared the Spanish milled dollar as the standard for money used in the American colonies.

The dollar, in its constitutional context, is based on the silver Spanish milled dollar, and has nothing to do with today’s Federal Reserve “dollar”.

Senate Bill 44: Shot Down

Senate Bill 44, which aimed to put restrictions on the issuance of concealed carry licenses, was unanimously defeated in a Senate committee this past Thursday. I would say that a conservative estimation would put the number of people in attendance at about 200. Other estimates, including those by Gun Owners of New Hampshire, have put the number in attendance at almost 600!

Only three people testified in favor of the bill: one sponsor and two police chiefs. There were dozens that testified in opposition, including members of gun organizations and even one of the co-sponsors. The Chair of the committee saw that there was overwhelming opposition to the bill and therefore ended testimony and moved the bill to a vote. There was essentially no debate among the committee and the bill was promptly voted Inexpedient to Legislate (DEAD).

This was a good victory for gun owners. We showed those in power that we will not stand for any limitation on our right to keep and bear arms!

In Libertate,
Tyler

Thursday, March 15th: Important Hearings!

This is a repost from the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance website:

Start: 15 Mar 2007 - 8:00am

End: 15 Mar 2007 - 4:30pm

description:

Thursday, March 15th is a critical day for Liberty in the State of New Hampshire

On that day, the legislature will hold public hearings for input on four key pieces of legislation.

The New Hampshire Liberty Alliance (NHLA) opposes:
• SB 44, which would limit New Hampshire's "shall-issue" firearm licensing, 9:00 AM State House room 103

The NHLA supports:
• HB 819, which would assert an employee's right to work, whether or not the employee is a member of a union, 10:00 AM Representatives' Hall
• HB 906, requiring Fully Informed Juries, 10:30 AM Legislative Office Building room 208
• HB 685, which would opt New Hampshire out of the Federal "Real-ID" program, 3:00 PM Legislative Office Building room 203
  • More Info: NH law vs Real-ID

If any of the above issues are important to you, then we need you -- yes, you -- to be in your State House in Concord on Thursday, March 15th!
If AT ALL possible, meet at 8:00 AM in the State House Cafeteria.
Here's a map to the State House; here's a map to the Legislative Office Building (it's right behind the State House)
If you can't be there at 8:00 AM, come as early in the day as you can. The last hearing (on "Real-ID") will start at 3:00 PM.
We will break for lunch.

All you need to do is show up.
You don't need to testify. You don't need to be a member of any party or organization.
You just need to be a New Hampshire resident who values FREEDOM.
Your mere presence as a concerned citizen will make all the difference!

A day like this happens rarely -- just one or two times in a legislative session.
We understand people have responsibilities with work, school, and family.
If there is one day you can arrange to be free of those responsibilities, make it Thursday, March 15th.

If you can take a sick day, this is a good day to do so. If you can hire a babysitter, this is a good day to do so.
If you would normally be in school at this time, take this day to learn more about Government than you ever will in a classroom.

This day is an investment not only in your freedoms, but in those of your friends, your neighbors, and your children.
Please forward this message to anyone you feel could benefit from it.

If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact the NH Liberty Alliance: info@nhliberty.org

Second Amendment Victory

Probably one of the few good things to come out Washington D.C. lately is a decision by the District of Columbia federal court that found D.C.'s ban on handguns (and other firearms restrictions) unconstitutional. The decision is a huge victory for everyone, especially gun owners in our nation's capital. The door now may be open for the Supreme Court to finally decide whether the Second Amendment - "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" - is an individual or "collective" right.

In their historic decision, the D.C. court said they "conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms." They continue on further by saying "[t]hat right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution..." and it was seen as a means of "resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad)." Probably the best language I have heard a court use in a long time; it actually sounds like they read the constitution for once.

Many onlookers see this as an opportunity for the Supreme Court to finally rule on the true meaning of the Second Amendment. The only time the court came close was in USA v. Miller (1939) and that ruling was ambiguous enough to have both sides of the gun control debate claiming victory. If our highest court upholds the decision of the D.C. justices, it could lead to greater freedom of law-abiding people to own and carry firearms.

I can merely relate to you that this is a great victory for the rights of gun owners. To feel the real meaning of the words you must read the decision for yourself (second link). It could take quite a while for the Supreme Court to hear the arguments for this case. I recommend trying to fight Senate Bill 44, here in New Hampshire, while we wait for the 9 justices to render their decision.

In Libertate,
Tyler

Down with the Bar Association!

I love House Bill 670. It is a shining example of the kind of bill our legislators should be introducing (click here for an example of bad legislation).

The basic goal behind this bill is to repeal the incorporation of the New Hampshire Bar Association. The Bar is basically the group that all of those in legal profession claim membership to. Essentially, the sponsor believes that the Bar is an unconstitutional corporate monopoly. And I believe he is correct in his assertion. The Bar holds an effective monopoly on the legal profession in New Hampshire.

As you can see from the Secretary of State's site, the New Hampshire Bar is registered as a non-profit corporation. Now I will cite Part II, Article 83 of the New Hampshire Constitution:

Free and fair competition in the trades and industries is an inherent and essential right of t he people and should be protected against all monopolies and conspiracies which tend to hinder or destroy it. The size and functions of all corporations should be so limited and regulated as to prohibit fictitious capitalization and provision should be made for the supervision and government thereof.

I think that pretty much goes to show that the Bar is unconstitutional. Not so fast, say the government employees (who go to testify in opposition to this bill on behalf of government agency using our tax dollars). One such bureaucrat claimed that the Bar is "not really a private corporation; it is part public and part private so it is in a unique situation." So because the government says so, the Bar does not have to follow the same rules as everyone else? I think its time that we figure out exactly which it is; they can't have their cake and it too.

Another prestigious government authority rose in opposition citing a New Hampshire Supreme Court case where the justices declared that the Bar Association is under the direct authority of the Court. What? Once again, in Article 83, it says:

Therefore, all just power possessed by the state is hereby granted to the general court to enact laws to prevent the operations within the state of all persons and associations, and all trusts and corporations, foreign or domestic, and the officers thereof, who endeavor to raise the price of any article of commerce or to destroy free and fair competition in the trades and industries through combination, conspiracy, monopoly, or any other unfair means...

The general court is the constitutionally given name for the New Hampshire legislature. It would be pretty hard to construe that with Supreme Court. How exactly does the Supreme Court think that gives them the authority over the Bar? And why would any reasonable legislator not realize it is their duty to break apart this unconstitutional monopoly?

Unfortunately, the House of Representatives will almost certainly kill this bill. It is a sad day when our legislators no longer have any respect for the sacred document that is our Constitution.

In Libertate,
Tyler

Senate Bill 44 - The Beginning of the End

Alright, maybe it isn't the beginning of the end, but there is nothing good about this piece of legislation.

Senate Bill 44, to be heard on March 15th at 9 AM in room 103 of the State House, aims to change a few different things regarding New Hampshire's concealed carry laws for pistols and revolvers.

It first adds a little clause that states an issuing authority may deny a person a license if "the official reasonably believes [them] to be a member of a terrorist or criminal organization, as shown by sworn affidavit by such official or other law enforcement official or any other reliable person." Who determines criteria for a terrorist or criminal organization? Well, to the best of my knowledge, the government can label any group a terrorist or criminal organization. Gun Owners of New Hampshire could be considered a criminal organization for advocating gun rights.

That single clause moves New Hampshire from a shall-issue state to a may-issue state. Currently, the issuing authority can only deny a license to a person that is not allowed to own firearms under state or federal law, essentially only convicted felons and domestic abusers. SB 44 opens the licensing process up to the sometimes misguided whims of local police officers. A personal vendetta or even a lack of belief in gun rights could lead the issuing authority to deny a license to an otherwise able person.

Under current law there is a pretty good accountability system if the issuing authority abuses their power and does not issue a license when they should have. A person can sue the issuing officer and the entity they are associated with. So the police chief is more likely to behave himself if he knows that he is personally liable. The officer would be held accountable for his actions and could be forced to pay the attorney's fees of the disgruntled party. The burden of proof for denying a concealed carry license is on the issuing authority, and they can be forced to pay attorney's fees if they knowingly broke the law.

Now to the part they changed with this bill. The sponsors first strike the reference to officers being personally liable. They then up the ante on when attorney's fees can be awarded: from a knowing violation to gross negligence or malice. Much of the accountability is removed from the government. Let me quote a section of Article 8 of the New Hampshire Constitution: "Government, therefore, should be open, accessible, accountable and responsive."

I don't think they could have conceived a more horrible bill (save banning guns outright). If passed, abuse of authority would be much easier. We need to protect Article 2-a of the New Hampshire Constitution: " All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state." One of the best ways to properly defend yourself with firearms is through concealed carry of a handgun.

Please contact your Representatives and Senators and tell them NO on SB 44!

In Libertate,
Tyler