NH: As Predictied, Governor Hassan (D) says she will veto constitutional carry

As predicted in an article three days ago, before Governor Hassan  had made a definite statement, she says that she will veto the New Hampshire constitutional carry bill.   The bill has passed both the Senate and the House, but not by veto proof margins.  From unionleader.com:

CONCORD — Before the House could take a vote Wednesday, Gov. Maggie Hassan said she would veto a bill that would repeal the requirement for a concealed firearms permit.

The House passed the measure by at 212-150 margin.

Governor Hassan did not explain why the requirement for a permit was necessary, given that the sister state of Vermont has had constitutional carry ever since it was founded, has no permit system, and has murder rates very close to those of New Hampshire, both of which are commonly in the lowest five states in the Union.   Both states have preserved open carry without a license, and the permit system in New Hampshire is not particularly onerous, except that  it allows a bit of “discretion”, to rest with the county sheriffs as to whether a permit will be issued or not.  

She said the state’s permitting system gives local law enforcement oversight in order to protect the community, while the person applying can appeal that decision.

It seems clear that the real issue is one of power.  Governor Hassan wants to hang onto a sliver of arbitrary power over whether people may be armed or not.  It does not appear to be exercised much, but it is there, a reminder that it is men who rule, not the rule of law. 
 
Her opponents insist that it is the government that must be limited.  That rights should not be arbitrarily restricted, you should not have to pay the government to exercise your rights, fill out forms, and be pre-approved to do that which is constitutionally protected.  

Those who insist that the government must set the limits for everyone else are always working to get a wedge in here or there; a requirement for a sheriff or inspector to allow something; fees to bolster the coffers of the government.    The result has been the steady accretion of government power over the last hundred years.

The New Hampshire constitution seems clear:

New Hampshire:  All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.  Pt. 1, art. 2-a (enacted 1982).

The Vermont provision is a little more verbose:

Vermont:  That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State — and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.  Ch. I, art. 16 (enacted 1777, ch. I, art. 15).

 It was the Vermont provision that prompted the court decision that has kept Vermont a constitutional carry state for its entire existence.   I do not know if the New Hampshire version has ever been challenged, but then it is only 32 years old.

The Michael Bloomberg organization, Moms Demand Action, was able to provide Governor Hassan  a little cover.

She met with the Democratic caucus before the vote to tell members she would veto the bill, and also told members of the NH Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America of her decision when they delivered hundreds of postcards urging her to veto the bill.

For those who wish to look at the crime rates, here they are:

Link to the disastercenter.com for New Hampshire

Link to the disastercenter.com for Vermont

New Hampshire is unlikely to obtain constitutional carry until they have a change of governor.

 ©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch