In the state whose motto is “Life Free or Die,” it is refreshing to see a New Hampshire elected official living up to those words on behalf of two of the state’s citizens who have been wrongly charged with gun possession crimes in neighboring Massachusetts. Through this action, the state’s attorney general’s office is taking a stand against Massachusetts’ restrictive gun laws. The conflict arose after two New Hampshire residents were charged with felonies for illegal gun possession while traveling through Massachusetts, a state known for its stringent firearm regulations, WMUR 9 reports.
New Hampshire, which allows individuals to own and carry firearms without a license, stands in stark contrast to Massachusetts, where strict gun laws and a state-specific licensing process are enforced. This clash between state policies has brought to light the challenges faced by gun owners who cross state lines, particularly when entering states with more restrictive laws.
“You have New Hampshire, which I think is probably the most permissive state in terms of gun ownership butting up against Massachusetts, which is one of the most restrictive states,” Professor Daniel Pi of the University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law told WMUR. The sharp difference in legal frameworks can lead to severe consequences for those unaware of the varying laws. In Massachusetts, violations can result in felony charges with a mandatory minimum sentence of 2½ years in prison.
Renowned gun lawyer Evan Nappen, who practices law in New Hampshire as well as New Jersey, a state as absolutely oppressive as Massachusetts when it comes to gun laws, agrees.
“New Hampshire is the most pro-gun state in America. There basically are no gun laws in New Hampshire,” Nappen says. “There isn’t even a charge that exists called unlawful possession of a handgun. It doesn’t exist, the only thing is if you’re a felon it is prohibited. It (New Hampshire) is constitutional carry. You can carry anywhere under state law except a court house. You can carry in a bar. You can carry in a church. You can carry in a movie theater. You can carry anywhere.”
Nappen notes punishment is reserved in the state for those people who actually commit crimes, not for those who simply own a gun.
New Hampshire’s attorney general has filed an amicus brief with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, arguing that the potential for severe punishment simply for crossing state lines with a firearm violates the Second Amendment by imposing “overly burdensome regulations.” Assistant Attorney General Brandon Chase emphasized the unique position of Massachusetts, stating, “Massachusetts applies their law very, very strictly to nonresidents…It might be the only state that allows no reciprocal carry. Meaning, if you have a firearms license from any jurisdiction, Massachusetts doesn’t honor it.”
The case is now awaiting review by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, expected on September 9. As WMUR 9 reports, this legal battle is a testament to New Hampshire’s dedication to protecting the rights of its citizens, particularly in the face of increasingly restrictive gun laws in neighboring states. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for gun owners who travel across state lines, while reaffirming New Hampshire’s position as a staunch defender of Second Amendment rights. It is a move that should make nearly every gun owner in the country want to move to New Hampshire. At the very least, those state leaders defending their citizen’s rights deserve our respect.
Unless the next gov is a (D) then the case gets dropped and NH starts enacting all sorts of oppressive, pointless bullshit just like Mass, Vermont and Maine.
I’m puzzled.
What I read is that if our next governor is a Republican, we’ll have more restrictions.
Did I miss something?
The big letter D, maybe?
lol My bad. Two competing thoughts as I typed created a sentence that makes no sense.
Of course we need a (R).
Easy solution, a Federal Law that requires a state or locality that prohibits a legal citizen from protecting themselves will simply pay triple damages for any incident. Ya get robbed…triple damages (and those emotional trauma crap charges can REALLY ADD UP$$$$$$)
Imagine NYC now having to scrap all their free money plans because they weekly get multiple lawsuits from disarmed citizens. LOL
Love this!
Tacoma236,
Your solution would not work simply because oppressive states don’t care about paying out taxpayer money in any lawsuits that they lose.
Nothing will change until politicians and bureaucrats pay significant PERSONAL penalties for passing and enforcing rules and laws which violate our inherent human dignity and inalienable human rights.
“In the state whose motto is “Life Free or Die,”…”
Life Free? Shouldn’t that be “Live Free”, Doug? 😉
While Mass motto yaps about mythical “liberty”.
Federal law. The Bill of Rights e.g. 2nd Amendment supersedes state law i.e. the Supremacy Clause.
As a NH resident who regrettably has to travel to MA at least once a week, I have to be cognizant of all of the b.s. that MA brings with it. I do my best to spend as little money as possible while there. Unfortunately, my place of employment is there, so I’m stuck giving that dump an interest free loan for a year. Always feels good to get about 80% of it back at tax time. Many of the massholes I know disagree whole hearted with the direction their state has been going during their lifetimes, but they are drastically outnumbered by the beneficiaries of the state’s bread and circuses.
At least we can be thankful that stricter laws in neighboring states help keep NH’s “gun death rate” low (even lower than VT or ME). 😉
“The robust laws in New England provide a partial explanation for New Hampshire’s low gun violence rate relative to its weak gun policies, as the state is protected by its neighbors.”
https://everytownresearch.org/rankings/state/new-hampshire/
If restrictive laws were effective, then the states with those restrictive laws should have an even LOWER violent crime rate than neighboring states with permissive laws. Alas that isn’t the case.
The inherent decency of the people who populate an area determines the violent crime rate of that area. Whether or not that area’s laws are restrictive or permissive is almost entirely insignificant.
The following are facts:
1) Violent criminals break laws when they attack people.
2) Laws therefore do not prevent violent crimes.
3) A very small percentage of the population typically perpetrates almost all violent crimes.
4) Those violent criminals attack repeatedly.
5) Those violent criminals stop attacking society when they are in prison.
6) Decent people do NOT attack other people regardless of laws or enforcement.
It is plain to see that the mechanism whereby governments can reduce violent crime is imprisoning violent criminals. Any claims to prevent violent crime (other than imprisoning violent criminals) are false since laws do not make people who are scumbags become decent people.
As you alluded in your other comment (“much (nearly all?) of what happened was a direct result of local and state governments refusing to quash destructive rioting, refusing to enforce laws against violent crime”) laws against criminal acts significantly reduce criminal acts when they are regularly and strictly enforced.
“Preventive” laws targeting non-causal factors do not prevent violent crimes.
We need to pass a gun right to act that is patterned after the Civil Rights Act.
Gun rights are civil rights. So they should be so covered.
Anybody attempting to suppress civil rights should face criminal charges.
Isn’t the 2nd Amendment supposed to apply in all the states and to all the citizens. In fact it says “the right of the people” not the right of the citizens.
Citizens are the only humans to whom the Constitution applies (despite a century + of prog drivel). Non citizens get the Dec of Independence. Otherwise they are irrelevant (GTFO).
Jesus Christ this website sucks. I typed my statement, went back and edited it, and then hit send and what got sent was the unedited statement.
that happens to me sometimes, then I have to do another post for the correction.
@Shire-man: I’m puzzled.
What I read is that if our next governor is a Republican, we’ll have more restrictions.
Did I miss something?
Rick,
Shire-man’s post:
New Hampshire’s Attorney General will keep the fight (protesting Massachusett’s gun laws) alive while there is a Republican Governor. If a Democrat Governor takes over, New Hampshire’s Attorney General will suddenly stop fighting against restrictive gun laws.
‘ punishment is reserved in the state for those people who actually commit crimes” so by making guns illegal in some states justifies punishment . See, democrats DO think logically.
Not really, they only irritate more people because what they are doing is unconstitutional and they set an excellent example for breaking the law. Eventually people will wake up and stop voting for government that does not even follow the Constitution that each and every member swears an oath to uphold. Truly a mass of unprincipled, unethical, immoral, phonies.
“Two New England States Square Off on Gun Issue, Only One is On the Side of Freedom”
New England; same as the Old England.
Your Constitutional rights don’t end at your state’s line. This is why SCOTUS needs to hear a case like this. I can buy, own, store, use and carry stuff (guns & mags) perfectly legal in MT which would be multiple state felonies if I were in CA, MA or NJ
I have yet to understand how the U.S. Constitution is valid in some states, while portions thereof are a Dead Letter in others.
New Hampshire is on a clock that will lead to the suppression of 2A rights. Too many people from Massachusetts have basically invaded and overrun the state with progressive/communist stupidity. NH has TWO democrat U.S. Senators who are also all in on semi-auto bans and prohibitions.
This is one that’s interesting for me. I have a cousin who was a Navy brat. Lived everywhere. After H.S. he joined the Army. Go figure. 101st, etc. Went home as an E-7 in the Honor Guard. Settled in Sharon, MA (Boston) and doing some secret squirrel shit at Logan. Anyway, he brought a summer house in NH. Likes it so much he moved his residence. He moves across the border on a regular basis.
What are the crime stats for MA and NH? When I lived in El Paso TX, separated from Juarez Mexico by only the Rio Grande, contrasting the stats was telling! In El Paso where 70% people admit to being armed and a lot who deny being armed are lying, the last stats I saw said El Paso had 8 gun related deaths for the YEAR. Across the the river where firearms are almost completely outlawed, Ciudad Juarez averaged 8 murders PER DAY!
+1
Comments are closed.