Bruce MacMahon for State Representative
Rockingham District 10 - Brentwood
|
|
|
Help
me work to keep New Hampshire prosperous and free by bringing back common sense
ideas and solutions that work in the best interest of The People. |
The Second Amendment (click here to return to the Home Page)
New Hampshire has some of
the most sensible gun laws in the country – laws that, for the most part,
respect the right of the individual to own and carry personal firearms, with
no discriminatory conditions or restrictions based on a person’s social,
political, or economic status. Those who would seek to
deprive you of your right to protect yourself and your family with the most
effective means possible would have you believe they only want to enact
“common sense” gun control laws, calling their schemes “reasonable
restrictions” on a person’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. This might sound OK on
paper to some, but the real-life application of this philosophy tells a
different story. In Boston, for example, it’s “reasonable” to tell a single
mother in Dorchester that she has no right to own a gun, while bestowing upon
a wealthy and politically connected businessman living two miles away a
nearly unfettered right to possess personal firearms. In Massachusetts, it’s
considered “common sense” to require a woman living in New Hampshire to spend
$100 (per year!) for a non-resident firearms license to carry a $10 canister
of pepper spray in her purse, should she wish to step one foot over the state
line into Massachusetts. For years, we have
listened to the argument coming from Massachusetts politicians and newspaper
editorials that the gun laws in New Hampshire and its neighboring states,
specifically Maine and Vermont, are somehow to blame for the drug-fueled gang
violence plaguing the crime-ridden neighborhoods of Boston, Fall River,
Brockton, etc. These self-proclaimed
“experts” are constantly citing federal firearms trace data as “proof” of
this argument. They would have you believe that if New Hampshire were to
implement draconian gun control laws such those on the books in
Massachusetts, then all their problems would be solved and that their visions
of a crime-free Utopia would, at last, come to fruition. What they conveniently
omit from the discussion is that the federal firearms trace data upon which
they so heavily rely comes with a caveat at the beginning of the report
stating, in effect, that not all traced guns are crime guns, and that not all
crime guns are traced. In other words, it’s pretty much meaningless to use
this data as a basis for any kind of statistical analysis, let alone the
drafting of legislation intended to infringe upon our individual rights. The other secret they’re
not letting people in on is that the very data upon which this particular
argument hinges shows that year after year, Massachusetts is, in fact, the
predominant source state for guns recovered and traced in Massachusetts. What they pass off as
“analysis” is simply the result of their combing through the available data
and hand-picking those points which best “prove” their predetermined
conclusion. The best example of this is the oft-cited “firearms fatality
rate”, a statistic which, as of 2007, showed Massachusetts with a slightly
lower rate of firearms fatalities than New Hampshire. While declining to
provide any additional information, (e.g. lawfully vs. unlawfully possessed
firearms, accidental vs. intentional shootings, or justifiable vs.
unjustifiable homicide), Bay State gun control advocates hold this one data
point up as “proof” that the gun laws in Massachusetts are saving lives and
that we here in New Hampshire had best follow their lead if we know what’s
good for us. Of course, using this
same technique of selectively choosing only those data points that illustrate
your predetermined result (and ignoring any number of other related factors),
one only needs to compare the firearms fatality rate for New Hampshire and
Washington D.C. to “prove” just the opposite. While politicians in
Massachusetts are keeping themselves busy by blaming law-abiding New
Hampshire residents for their violent crime problem, hardly a week goes by
without another story in a Boston newspaper about the arrest of an armed and
dangerous criminal whose most recent crime spree was made possible by a
“compassionate” judge who had the opportunity to send said criminal to
prison, but chose instead to send them on their way with just the proverbial
slap on the wrist. Needless to say, I
disagree with those who would put Massachusetts on display as a shining
example of how things should be done. That model simply defies logic and runs
contrary to the common sense principles and guidelines that will steer my
decision making process in the New Hampshire House of Representatives. Since moving to New
Hampshire, I have been witness to several attempts made by state lawmakers to
restrict the Second Amendment rights of the state’s most law-abiding of
residents - one to restrict the issuance of pistol licenses (SB-55), and
another to restrict our right to carry firearms on public property (HB-1354). On one occasion, I
attended and videotaped a House Committee’s executive session meeting, in
which one of the members of the committee demonstrated both an overwhelming
personal bias against gun ownership and ignorance of the basic facts involved
in the discussion. He essentially told the committee that he had no problem
restricting the rights of New Hampshire gun owners based solely on an
irrational and emotional response to the topics of gun ownership and usage. Until recently, the Democrats
in Concord have largely been unsuccessful in their quest to erode our Second
Amendment rights. However, they were successful this year in chipping away at
the rights of gun owners from out of state, drastically increasing the cost
of a non-resident pistol license. And, in the days leading up to the
Christmas holiday, the Democrats on the Joint Committee on Legislative
Facilities, took it upon themselves to subvert the legislative process and
enact a ban on the lawful carrying of firearms in the New Hampshire State
House without any public notification or hearings. They tried to do this in
2008 through proper legislative channels and were unsuccessful in the face of
massive voter opposition. So, now they’ve decided to abandon all principles
of open, transparent and representative government and make new rules that
infringe on our rights, while huddled behind closed doors when no one’s
paying attention. Shortly after this ban went into effect, the Democrat
majority in the legislature rejected a bipartisan proposal to have this
action overturned. Their rationale for this
firearms ban goes back to March of 2009, when the House of Representatives
voted down a non-binding resolution (HCR-6) that sought to put our runaway
federal government on notice for future violations of New Hampshire’s state
sovereignty. It was standing room
only in the visitors’ gallery that day, with a handful of people openly
exercising their First and Second Amendment rights – assembling peaceably
while lawfully bearing arms. After the vote was taken, some in the gallery
became disruptive, frustrated over what they perceived as the legislators’
blatant disregard for the will of the people and the constitutionally
protected rights thereof. Some shouted down to the
legislators in the hall below, telling them in no uncertain terms that they
would “See [them] in November!”, while others called them out for failing to
represent them. There were no threats of violence made at any time. No
weapons were drawn. No one’s life was endangered in any way, shape, or form.
In fact, from what I observed, those individuals who were openly wearing
their holstered handguns were the ones keeping their emotions in check and
calling for a more calm and measured response. The individuals
responsible for the disruption were politely asked by State House security
personnel to leave the gallery, a request to which they acquiesced without
incident. What the members of the
Joint Committee on Legislative Facilities failed to recognize - the lesson that escaped them that day -
was that the incident in question proved just the opposite of what they took
away from it. It demonstrated quite clearly that you could take a number of
armed citizens and put them in a politically and emotionally charged
atmosphere without having it result in the fantasy-based scenarios of chaos,
mayhem, and bloodshed that seem to be continuously playing out in the minds
of those who would seek to disarm them. Whether we’re talking
about the right to free speech, the right to vote, the right to peaceably
assemble, or the right to keep and bear arms, restricting a person’s
constitutionally-protected rights based on his or her social status or
ability to pay is morally abhorrent. Equally as disdainful, in my mind, is
the thought of depriving the People of their liberty based on irrational or
imaginary fear. Righting such wrongs will be a priority of mine, when
elected. I will stand proudly as
a defender of the Second Amendment and of the rights of all law-abiding New
Hampshire residents to purchase, transfer, possess, and carry personal
firearms for any and all lawful purposes, including, but not limited to
personal protection, home defense, hunting, and recreational and competitive
shooting. I will unapologetically
oppose any legislative attempts to outlaw or restrict the possession of any
type of handgun, rifle, or ammunition, or to infringe upon the Second
Amendment rights of New Hampshire gun owners via unconstitutional and
discriminatory gun control measures. ~ Bruce |
|
|
|
