Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Second Amendment And this is the "Live Fre or Die State"

WARNING !!! At first glance HB-445 looks like another child custody attack against loving fathers but, it has a second part to it that is equally sinister and should be of major concern to Gun Owners of America members.
In 2001, the NH Supreme court issued a court ruling in "Filmore vs Filmore" that created a giant mogul for the anti-gun/Domestic Violence groups. These groups have been able to pull off what no other anti-gun groups have done. As you must know, in NH, if you are simply accused of threatening or intimidating a female, your guns and second amendment rights are stripped away automatically for one year. guilty or not. DV groups are instructing women who file for a protective order, to request renewals on all orders at the end of the one year period. This action was being granted continually and without question, by the courts and effectively resulted in the permanent loss of one's second amendment rights upon a mere allegation.
In December of 2001, the NH Supreme court issued it's ruling in "Filmore vs Filmore" which effectively said that such requests for renewals must be accompanied by fresh evidence of immediate danger. In other words, no one can strip you of your guns forever because of one old allegation.
Now comes HB-445. Rep. Bill Knowles (Dover) , interjected a second part to Rep. Stone's (Raymond ) bill that is aimed specifically at nullifying the Supreme court's "Filmore vs Filmore" order. If passed, this bill will allow for the complete and permanent removal of one's second amendment rights from a simple allegation of fear because it forces the courts to issue renewals regardless of the age of the original allegation. This bill is being heard today at 9:00 am by a family law subcommittee.

If the state supreme court already ruled on this issue, the new law is dead in the water.

The kangaroo court (both the General and the Supreme!) we've got up here, one never knows! Presently this Bill is still alive, it survived debate, and has been sent to a sub commitee for further review. Hopefully it will come out of committee ITL.

Technically, depending on your politics, you could make a case that there are seperate issues here. That's what the socialist from Dover is attempting.

And the retards in the legislature don't want the burden of making a decision, so we wind with bad law getting passed, then have to test it in the Court to get it repealled.

Its another example of the "Lawyers Full Emplyment Act" the lawyers in the legislature looking out for their bretherin in the private sector.

God I hate lawyers, where's William Shakespear when you need him <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />