Portsmouth gun persecution

Another overreach by Portsmouth PD. First, they violate the rights of at least 250 people in order to arrest 3. This is a strike rate of 1.2%. It’s actually even worse because only 1 was arrested for DWI. The real strike rate is 0.4%. This is not worth the police state.

Now they go even further and hassle someone carrying a pellet gun. According to the report, “the driver was initially asked if had a license to carry a concealed weapon.” Of course, a c.c. permit is necessary to carry an loaded gun:

159:4Carrying Without License. – No person shall carry a loaded pistol or revolver in any vehicle or concealed upon his person, except in his dwelling, house or place of business, without a valid license therefor as hereinafter provided. A loaded pistol or revolver shall include any pistol or revolver with a magazine, cylinder, chamber or clip in which there are loaded cartridges. Whoever violates the provisions of this section shall, for the first such offense, be guilty of a misdemeanor. For the second and for each subsequent violation of the provisions of this section, such person shall be guilty of a class B felony, provided such second or subsequent violation has occurred within 7 years of the previous conviction.

Was the driver first asked if the gun was loaded?  Does PPD know gun laws for us taxpayers?

The real scary quote by Sgt. David Colby: “This could definitely get you shot.” First, note the passive voice. What he really means is that a cop might shoot you in error for this. And, the implication is that the victim would be to blame. It’s the victim’s fault for not storing the gun “properly,” and the police is excused from punishment because he was in fear of his life.

Why is any of this taking place at a “sobriety checkpoint” anyway? Obviously these checkpoints are just ways for the police to snoop around your car and interrogate you. This is not what a free society looks like.

My feeling about this is that if a cop is not up to the task of discerning between real and fake and places the burden on the gun owner, then he shouldn’t take the tax-funded job in the first place.

More faulty gun logic

Yet another person is writing about gun laws. He asks, "Can someone tell me what the age is for a child to carry a handgun or an assault rifle?" He talks talks mockingly about arming all the "vulnerable" people in society and then claims that if one objects to any of it, one should advocate gun control.

This is not a logical conclusion. Rather, it is an empty plea playing on people's emotions. If I oppose a child obtaining a gun, I do not necessarily support more (or any) gun laws. If the former is my position, I could support trying to convince parents not to give guns to their kids. I could support a privately owned store banning parents who do.  Their are many nonviolent ways of protesting something. But, that I dislike something does not necessarily imply that I support it being banned by the force of law. I oppose kids' being fed lots of sugar, but I don't oppose a ban on sugar for kids. (Does Bill Kingston?)

Here is a logical statement: IF you support the universal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, THEN you must oppose criminal background checks for gun purchases. Where do you stand on this, Mr. Kingston?

Guilt until proven innocence

There are a lot of bills lurking in the state legislature, some good, many bad. A recent opiner opposes HB512, which would make make gun confiscation more burdensome for the agents of the state.

The letter-to-the-editor above is completely off base. He starts:

[HB512] is another attempt to get around the supposed burden of applying for a concealed carry permit.

First, this is not at all what it is. It is a bill that restricts and/or penalizes gun confiscation. Maybe I missed an amendment, but I see nothing about CC permits. This is a complete straw man. And, even after setting up a straw-man, the author does nothing but make assertions about the efficacy of the current gun laws and how "we are rapidly moving toward the same situation they have in Afghanistan." I didn't realize that Maggie Hassan's veto was the only thing standing in the way of New Hampshire turning into Afghanistan.

He goes on to talk about his wonderful experience in acquiring his own permit. (I gather that he is trying to imply that because he has a permit, his opinion is somehow more credible than others.) I have one question for this person: should a person be presumed innocent until proven guilty, or not? If he adhere to this principle, you must apply it universally.

Guilty until proven innocent

Our local news keeps running back-and-forth editorials about gun laws. None of them answer this question: if we live in a society where innocence should be presumed, why should there be any restriction on what/how/where/why a person buys or owns a gun? 

The answer is that we do not live in such a society. Guilt is presumed, and the force of government (ironically, backed up by a policeman's gun) is used to force us to live a certain way.