|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
NH: New Hampshire House Finance Committee To Restrict Self Defense Rights
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
What this bill proposes to do is to give jurisdiction over all felony cases to the New Hampshire Superior Court. On the surface this seems like it would streamline the processing of felonies by the courts. But, keep in mind that most self-defense cases involving a firearm are charged as felonies. Now, instead of being entitled to a probable cause hearing in District court, where charges could be dropped, defendants would have to proceed immediately to a costly high-stakes trial. |
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(4/2/2015)
|
| Too bad the NH/MA border is so open ! One of the "downsides' of our improved road networks ! Seems MA's resident socialist/progressives have invaded NH in sufficient quantity to affect serious social legal changes. Changes not so "financially troubling" for those earning the "big bucks" - or living in select communities - while enjoying a lower=case taxes and local economy, but a life-altering disaster for most NH residents. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
