The left lane is not just another travel lane.

The other day I was driving south on the Spaulding turnpike, just south of exit 9, when a police car, with his lights and siren on passed me in the left lane. I watched as the police officer was forced to apply his brakes when a driver refused to yield to the right, and the officer had to pass him on the right when there was sufficient space to get around him. I was surprised to see someone blatantly violating the law and obstructing the forward progress of a patrol car that was obviously responding to an emergency. RSA 265:16 states that “Upon all roadways any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.” Notice that it does not say less than the speed limit. Even if another vehicle is exceeding the speed limit, you must by law yield to the right unless you are overtaking and passing another vehicle. If you are traveling at the same speed as the driver to your right, then you are not overtaking and passing them, and should speed up and move over so that others can get by. Lane courtesy, the practice of yielding the left lane to faster moving traffic, strongly influences highway safety, traffic flow, congestion, and the entire driving environment. Disregarding lane courtesy creates more congestion, and in turn, it contributes to speed fluctuations, both of which increase overall fuel consumption and increase your chances of getting into an accident. When driving on our highways, please drive with courtesy and yield the left lane to faster moving traffic. For more information on how you can make your driving experience safer and more efficient, please go to www.motorists.org.

Boston's crime problem is Boston's fault.

Recently, officials in Boston have tried to blame their violent crime problem on the freedom that we have in New Hampshire. Crime is so bad in Boston because most law abiding citizens are not allowed to defend themselves with a firearm and criminals have little to fear. Also violent criminals who are convicted in Massachusetts usually get off with a light sentence, while otherwise law abiding citizens who are caught with an unregistered firearm are often treated worse than real criminals. I was once able to keep from being a victim because I was armed, and the person who broke into my house in the middle of the night took off running when he realized that I was armed. Rev. Bruce Wall should be focusing on reaching the lost and preaching the Word, not grandstanding in front of the media and trying to influence New Hampshire politics. The problem in Boston is sin, not guns. It sounds like these misguided people are trying to outlaw private transfers of firearms in New Hampshire. I own an assortment of firearms, and would like to eventually trade one or two of them, but you rarely ever get a good trade at a gun shop. A dealer will usually offer about $400 for a rifle that you would pay $1000 for at a gun shop, whereas a private trade or sale will usually get both the seller and buyer a better deal. If Massachusetts repealed most of their gun laws and allowed law abiding people to carry firearms without restrictions, the crime problem there would be reduced significantly. I moved away from Massachusetts because of the ever increasing firearms regulations. My FID card, which was supposed to be good for life or until revoked, was made useless because of a change in state law. After I joined the army, I was told that I could not get my pistol permit renewed, even though I was still paying MA taxes, because I was not living in the state at the time, but was deployed overseas. Restricting my ability to lawfully possess a firearm in MA will not reduce crime in MA. Criminals are attracted to areas where victims are disarmed by the government, because it makes it safer for them to commit their crimes. If Boston officials are looking for the cause of higher crime rates in Boston, they should look at themselves, and not try to place blame on the freedom of another state. They keep placing more restrictions on law abiding citizens, and criminals get more and more brazen. They don't make the connection, and seem to think that if they keep doing the same thing (placing more restrictions on law abiding citizens), they will get different results (criminals deciding not to break the law). Isn't that the definition of stupidity?