HB 1546, if it passes, will make the much-needed change to turn New Hampshire into a one-party consent state for recording conversations. It also would expressly protect the act of recording police and other government workers, so naturally, multiple government bureaucrats came to testify against it yesterday at the state house committee hearing.
What do they have to hide? One lady from the Attorney General’s office testified that bureaucrats should know they are being recorded. If someone is honest and on the up-and-up, then whether they are recorded or not should not change how they handle a conversation. It’s so obvious these sleazy bureaucrats don’t want to be held accountable for their actions. Don’t miss 29:27 in the video where Cop Block’s JP Freeman, Free Concord’s Garret Ean, and I all corner one of the lying bureaucrats in the hallway after his testimony!
Oh, by the way, only government bureaucrats testified against this bill. Everyone else testified in favor. Here’s the full video of the hearing:
Last Tuesday the NH senate judiciary committee committee heard SB-498, which would give prosecutors the ability to not charge cannabis possession as a class A misdemeanor. However, it also increases the fine for a first time offense. It’s a mixed bill, and interestingly prosecutors argued in favor of it, where normally they are against any decrim. From their perspective, it would allow them to get more fine money as well as still give them the option to charge as a Class A. It’s not really decriminalization at all – just gives them the option to move it to Class B if they want.
I had a lot to say about it, then got into an interesting several questions with prohibitionist senator Sam Cataldo. Here’s the video:
The proposal on the table (HB 1612) at last week’s state house education committee was to lower the age for compulsory schooling to 17 from 18. I spoke in favor of the proposal, which doesn’t go far enough. Sadly, NH does not offer any form of emancipation to young people under eighteen.
Last week’s state house committee hearings featured two very different gun proposals. The first, HB 1314, is excellent. It would allow people to carry guns into colleges or any other government-funded entity. The other, HB 1657 is terrible. It would create a huge list of places where guns would not be allowed, including anywhere with a liquor license, hospitals, polling places, churches, and other clear constitutional violations of the right to property and religion.
In the case of the awful gun prohibition bill, the testimony was entirely against it, with the exception of the bill’s sponsor who spoke first. It was an avalanche of pro-weapons-freedom testimony which was well-spoken by its advocates. (This happens in NH anytime gun freedom is threatened. Self-defense supporters come out in large number to testify for gun freedom.) The bill went down in flames, 11-2 voting “inexpedient to legislate”. I don’t have full video of either hearing, but I got most of them. Here’s the video of the terrible gun ban bill hearing first:
The good bill sadly also did not pass the committee via a 9-4 vote to ITL (Inexpedient to Legislate). We will see what happens on the full floor of the house of representatives when they vote on it.
In the Summer of 2015, Heidi Lilley and B. Liz MacKinnon were ticketed on Gilford beach in alleged violation of the town’s ordinances. In late December, they went to trial at Laconia district court and Free State Project early mover and attorney Dan Hynes put on an excellent defense. Judge James M. Carroll took the case under advisement and has now issued his six-page order: both cases are dismissed!
Don’t get too excited. If you read the order, you’ll find that Judge Carroll is no hero of constitutional rights or equality. Page three of his order ridiculously cites the private Motion Picture Association of America’s ratings system as evidence of a supposed “societal desire” to regulate female toplessness. Carroll argues that because the state’s three prudish witnesses (the three snitches) don’t appreciate female toplessness and because the town gave notice of the existence of the ordinance, that somehow means the town ordinance doesn’t violate the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution or Article 1 of the NH Constitution’s Bill of Rights.
Given that Article 1 only mentions men when it says, “All men are born equally free and independent”, is it Judge Carroll’s opinion that only men were born free and that women can be told what to wear, for the good of “society”? He’s not foolish enough to come right out and say that, but his order does make excuse after outrageous excuse for the town’s ordinance, claiming it’s constitutionally sound:
The township’s compelling interest is met in maintaining the beach as a natural resource to be enjoyed by young and old , men and women, families and single persons while preserving appropriate standards that allow the township to maintain their local values and mores…The Court does not find that the prohibition violates any constitutionally protected right…the movement “does not have ‘a right to impose one’s lifestyle on other who have an equal right to be left alone.
Topless Tuesday, Keene’s Central Square, 2010
So, if the social mores were that all women must wear burqas, because seeing any skin at all bothered people, it sounds like Carroll would consider that mandate constitutional as well.
Though Carroll defends the right to marry either gender, he says that such marriage is a protected right, while toplessness is not. On the final page, he claims the toplessness in this case had no artistic value, while on page three he acknowledges the female nipple “has been the subject of great beauty in art”. Apparently Carroll is an art critic now, too.
Ultimately, Carroll decides the case in the favor of the defendants, but not on the excellent constitutional or equal protection arguments made by attorney Hynes, but simply on a technicality of the system: (more…)
Elizabeth Edwards is a Free State Project early mover and elected democrat state representative who has heroically put forth the only proposed repeal of the prohibition on prostitution that I’ve heard of in my near-decade here in New Hampshire.
Were HB 1614 to pass, adults in NH would be able to trade sex for money without fear of arrest, prosecution, and jail. It does NOT create a regulatory structure (legalization) it just strikes the statutes criminalizing prostitution, and keeps in place prohibition on sex slavery.
It’s an excellent bill and surprisingly, everyone who testified on it, testified in favor. However, the cowardly chiefs of police did submit written testimony against it. Here’s full video of the press conference and the hearing in front of the Criminal Justice committee:
Will the bill have a chance the first year out? Probably not, but kudos to representative Edwards for putting it up for consideration. This is a conversation that people need to have at the state house about economic freedom and self-ownership. Stay tuned here to Free Keene for the latest.
If you want to help move forward pro-liberty political change here, please join the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance, whether you are in NH or not – you can help.
