NH allows guns in schools, bill aims to change this

[RidleyReport]

New Hampshire has no law forbidding non-pupils from carrying firearms on school grounds.   Perhaps in part because of this, there has not yet been a major school shooting in New Hampshire.  I can't even name a minor one.

A new bill aims to change the legal framework somewhat, though I'm not sure it would create a situation where guns could become outright illegal on school grounds. As the summary from Legislative Services puts it:

"This bill allows a school district, school administrative unit, or chartered public school to adopt and enforce a policy regulating firearms, firearms components, ammunition, firearms supplies, or knives within its jurisdiction."

Bill text: https://legiscan.com/NH/text/HB101/id/1833256

One worrisome question would be this: Just how big *is* a school district's "juristiction?" Could schools create a situation where they are forbidding guns in a wider area than expected?  And what exactly would "enforce' mean? 

Between now and roughly late Feb. 2019, if you live here you can take action to oppose this bill which would endanger children, details on some of your options are below.

According to the link above, the public hearing is slated for 02/13/2019 09:00 am
After that it is still possible to weigh in before the vote occurs (probably around late Feb.) This link lets you email the committee members: http://www.gencourtmobile.com/2019/hb101

[1714635483]

1714635483

[1714635483]

1714635483

[1714635483]

1714635483

[1714635483]

1714635483

[TECSHARE]

Now I know why they used the word "infringed".

[RidleyReport]

it's funny how authorities respect the 1st amendment a little more than the 2nd it seems, considering that the 2nd is so much more strictly worded. 1st amendment  , or at least the first part of it, just says "congress shall pass no law" abridging free speech rights.    2nd amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," implying a much wider cross-section of the government may not bother you over it.

[TECSHARE]

it's funny how authorities respect the 1st amendment a little more than the 2nd it seems, considering that the 2nd is so much more strictly worded. 1st amendment  , or at least the first part of it, just says "congress shall pass no law" abridging free speech rights.    2nd amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," implying a much wider cross-section of the government may not bother you over it.

The founders knew the 2nd Amendment was the last firewall between freedom and tyranny, and without the 2nd the rest are worthless.

[mayo2u]

it's funny how authorities respect the 1st amendment a little more than the 2nd it seems, considering that the 2nd is so much more strictly worded. 1st amendment  , or at least the first part of it, just says "congress shall pass no law" abridging free speech rights.    2nd amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," implying a much wider cross-section of the government may not bother you over it.

The founders knew the 2nd Amendment was the last firewall between freedom and tyranny, and without the 2nd the rest are worthless.

Absolutely and some state constitutions made it even more explicit:

Here's one example:
Pennsylvania:  The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.  Art. 1, § 21 (enacted 1790, art. IX, § 21).

Other states's phrasing were closer to the Federal version and some downright ambiguous to the modern ear:

Massachusetts:  The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence.  And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.  Pt. 1, art. 17 (enacted 1780).

[TECSHARE]

it's funny how authorities respect the 1st amendment a little more than the 2nd it seems, considering that the 2nd is so much more strictly worded. 1st amendment  , or at least the first part of it, just says "congress shall pass no law" abridging free speech rights.    2nd amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," implying a much wider cross-section of the government may not bother you over it.

The founders knew the 2nd Amendment was the last firewall between freedom and tyranny, and without the 2nd the rest are worthless.

Absolutely and some state constitutions made it even more explicit:

Here's one example:
Pennsylvania:  The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.  Art. 1, § 21 (enacted 1790, art. IX, § 21).

Other states's phrasing were closer to the Federal version and some downright ambiguous to the modern ear:

Massachusetts:  The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence.  And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.  Pt. 1, art. 17 (enacted 1780).

State constitutionally mandated submission tot he government. Wonderful. Too bad it is not a lawful decree since the 2nd Amendment is more clear on this and clearly intended citizen power to be in parity with the state.