I haven’t spoken publicly much about the University System of New Hampshire gun protest that US Army Veteran Tommy Mozingo and I organised back in December as presently I am dedicating a great deal of my time focusing on defending Jason Talley from abuses of the New Hampshire Constitution. Realizing that I’ve procrastinated long enough, I would like to share with you some thoughts about the Grafton Superior Court’s ruling and the state of firearm rights in New Hampshire.
In the opinion of Judge Vaughn, the University System of New Hampshire (an institution which belongs and is answerable to the people of this state) is NOT a political subdivision for the politically questionable issue of 2nd Amendment freedom, but is a political subdivision (by its own admission) for the politically not-so-questionable issue of being able to recoup damages in federal court.
I’m fairly sure that all of the municipalities in this state which serve as host communities to USNH property lose a great deal of tax revenue, while paying outward to provide services.
Why are they not paying taxes to local municipalities?
They’re a political subdivision, of course.
On February 8th, the University System of New Hampshire publicly lauded the New Hampshire Senate as HB 334 was sent to its probable demise. USNH said in their press release:
“Currently, public colleges and universities set their own policies regarding firearms on campuses and do not allow them for public safety reasons. Despite hearing testimony from campus presidents, public safety officials and other concerned citizens, the New Hampshire House of Representatives voted in favor of the bill in late January. The Senate action taken today makes it highly unlikely that the bill will come up for a vote in the Senate this year. ”
Yes, they presently do set their own rules…Â and perhaps politics in the Judicial Branch can keep USNH a virtual chameleon for the purposes of whatever suits the whims of unelected higher education bureaucrats, but they cannot hide from the plain words of the New Hampshire Constitution:
[Art.] 2-a. [The Bearing of Arms.] All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.
Tricky word games with statutory law can not change the plain language of Article 2-a. It doesn’t say “all persons except those who set foot on state property where unelected bureaucrats can strip your right to defend yourself on a whim,” it says all persons.
Regarding Judge Vaughn’s court order, I find it very telling that the Judge subtly emphasises that a former NH-police officer and US Army Veteran (neither of whom have ever been convicted of a crime) are no longer “law abiding, responsible citizens” for trying to make people aware of double-spoken government hypocrisy:
The USNH press release included former USNH-official and now Governor John Lynch too:
“Governor John Lynch vowed to veto the bill if it reached his desk. “These bills represent a radical departure from our approach to public safety here in New Hampshire,” he said.”
Really all HB 334 would have done was force USNH to follow the Constitution. I think what Governor Lynch should really consider is a “radical departure” is the fact that we apparently need a law to force compliance with the New Hampshire State Constitution.
Public safety is threatened by unconstitutional laws, unconstitutional court decisions, and people not doing anything about it.
People of New Hampshire: Restrictions on firearm ownership and possession do nothing to keep people safe. Read my “Response to WMUR” to hear what I think is the best supporting evidence from my experience in law enforcement regarding why I believe this to be true.
