Marijuana Prohibition

I have never used any illegal drugs, and don't plan to use any in the future. I have read many studies that show that there are some beneficial uses for marijuana and I have observed many users of marijuana. I have never seen or heard of someone under the influence of marijuana commit any violent acts. Contrary to popular belief, people do spend years in prison for possession of marijuana. I know someone who did. I have heard that small amounts of ingested marijuana help people with "ADHD" to calm down. I know one guy who was a violent bully for years, then started using marijuana and mellowed out and became a nice guy. I think most people, like myself, will not start using mind altering substances just because they are legal. I have chronic pain as a result of several accidents. One of which involved a police officer who was under the influence of alcohol while on duty who crashed his cruiser into the van I was a passenger in, totaling both vehicles and severely injuring several members of my family, including my father, who died before my mom got the 5 figure compensation check from the insurance company. The officer wasn't punished for his actions because he was protected by his status. While I've been told that marijuana would probably help with my chronic pain, I just take the prescription drugs that my doctor prescribed, one of which I'm told is probably eroding the lining of my stomach. The other prescription medicines I'm prescribed I usually only take when the pain is too great to sleep at night or when the pain is excruciating, even though I'm allowed to take them more often, and include a muscle relaxer and codeine. I was once given morphine to treat severe pain, but I didn't like the way it made me feel so I refused to allow anyone to give it to me again. I have also been prescribed Demerol, which is a very effective pain reliever in sufficient quantity that gives me a warm fuzzy feeling, makes me cheerful regardless of the situation, and removes some inhibitions. When I felt that I didn't need it anymore for pain relief, I took myself off it and tossed the remaining pills in the trash. I am certain that marijuana is less harmful than morphine. My father had some really bad side effects from the morphine that doctors gave him.
Alcohol is unlikely to be prohibited again partly because we learned that a government enforced "cure" causes more harm than the "disease", and partly because many cops and politicians like to drink alcohol after (and sometimes during) work. After alcohol prohibition was ended, a lot of revenuers found themselves without work, so they lobbied congress to restrict something else. "Nonsporting" guns and marijuana seemed like easy targets, (resulting in the ATF and Federal Bureau of Narcotics) so federal agents including members of the newly formed Federal Bureau of Narcotics started a media campaign to promote heavy restrictions on these items. Reefer Madness and other forms of propaganda were funded by federal agents with tax dollars. Newspapers in 1934 editorialized: "Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on white men's shadows and look at a white woman twice." Harry J. Anslinger, the director of the Bureau of Narcotics also promoted his "Gore Files" which he touted as evidence that marijuana causes people to become violent and used to persuade the legislature to appropriate more funds for his agency. Later evidence proved that he made up at least some of the stories. There is no proof that any of his stories were true. In his stories, he said things like the following:
"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others."
"...the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races."
"Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death."
"Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men."
"Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing"
"You smoke a joint and you're likely to kill your brother."
"Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."

Dupont Chemical Company pushed for the prohibition because they wanted to get rid of the competition for their newly patented nylon. Pharmaceutical companies pushed for the prohibition of marijuana because patients could just grow their own, and didn't have to buy their medicine from the pharmaceutical companies. The police who want marijuana to remain illegal do so because the prohibition provides many easy good paying glorified jobs rounding up plants and imprisoning pacified users at the expense of civilians.

Those who want marijuana to be illegal are either benefiting financially from its prohibition or have been fooled by the government and corporate propaganda and other lies.
Wanna know who was opposed to marijuana prohibition? The AMA (American Medical Association)

VA Tech tragedy could have been stopped sooner if students and faculty had been allowed to defend themselves.

This post is in response to VA Tech tragedy felt in Durham.
All of the attempted campus massacres in recent history that have ended abruptly were stopped by armed citizens, not the police or campus security. In 2002, a mad gunman started shooting at the Appalachian School of Law. Two students ran to their cars as soon as they heard the shooting start. They each retrieved their personal handguns from their cars, and ran back to campus. By the time they got to where the shooter was, he had killed three people. When the shooter saw that there were two men pointing guns at him, he dropped his gun, gave up, and was subsequently tackled by students. Two days before the shooting at VA Tech, there was a shooting in Manchester NH, but the results in Manchester were much different. A thug who had just been kicked out of the Uptown Tavern started shooting at the bouncer and into the bar. Fortunately a customer was carrying a concealed handgun and fired back at the thug, disabling him before he could actually hit anyone. Like the events of September 11th, 2001, these events show that government cannot protect us. No matter how many laws we pass, no matter how many police or federal agents we put on the streets, a determined individual or group still can cause great harm. Perhaps the only good that can come from these terrible killings is a reinforced understanding that we as individuals are responsible for our safety and the safety of our families.
If, like at the Appalachian School of Law, students, faculty & staff had been allowed to carry concealed firearms, it would have likely ended much sooner with fewer deaths. Last year, the NH state police issued 8,996 concealed handgun licenses to non-residents who already had a similar license or permit in their own state. The state doesn’t record how many resident licenses have been issued, but I’ve heard estimates that between 10 to 25% of NH residents age 21 and over have concealed handgun licenses. When you go off campus, there are many honest, law abiding citizens who are carrying concealed handguns and doing normal everyday things like shop, go to restaurants or bars, spend time out with their families, and work. And yet, despite the fact that there are many people out there who are carrying firearms in NH, this state consistently has one of the two lowest violent crime rates in the country. I’ll bet you’re thinking “Which state shares that title with NH?” That state is Vermont, where anyone who is not a convicted felon may carry concealed firearms, no license required. When you look to see where crime rates are the highest, you will see that it is the places with the strictest gun control laws. There is a reason you never see massacres at gun shows or NRA conventions, while most massacres happen in “gun free zones”. If you watched the video that was released by the news stations, you probably saw strong, fully certified police officers with body armor on standing behind trees, waiting for the shooter to finish his killing spree and kill himself. NH not only has no laws prohibiting firearms on university and college campuses, but it actually has laws that prohibit anyone except the legislature from making laws, regulations, rules, or policies that restrict the carrying of firearms and ammunition anywhere in the state, except that private property owners may prohibit the carrying of firearms on their own property. UNH and the other USNH campuses in NH were created by and are funded by the legislature of this state, and are prohibited from making policies restricting the keeping and bearing of arms. Unfortunately, the Board of Trustees chose to violate the law and write a policy against the possession of firearms on campus anyway. While the massacre at VA Tech is extremely unfortunate, a significant portion of the blame should be placed on the heads of administrators there who pushed for prohibitions on the carrying of firearms on campus because they apparently were too dumb to realize that a campus policy would not stop a criminal from violating it and killing others like shooting fish in a barrel, with nobody to stop him. The only way to effectively stop people from committing such heinous acts is to allow law abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns for their own defense. If the administration at UNH really wants to make the campus safer, they should start by removing the policy that prohibits firearms on campus without the chief of police’s permission. I don’t think he gives permission to anyone anyway. Then a good notification system should be set up to alert students, faculty & staff in the event of an emergency. Of course I’m sure there must be a system already in place so that the administration can send emails out to everyone with a UNH email address to alert those who are checking their emails. I would suggest setting up a system where people who live, work, or study on campus could register their AIM accounts and cell phones so that they would get instant messaged and/ or text messaged in the event of an emergency. I would also suggest setting up a system that could call all campus land line phones with a pre-recorded call so that all buildings can be notified quickly of an emergency and get pertinent instructions.

In Defense of Liberty,

Timothy A. Logsdon
NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
6 Year Veteran of the US Army - honorably discharged
Qualified as Expert Marksman by US Army
Former Security Specialist
Received training in responding to terrorist threats by Dept. of Homeland Security instructor
Managed security for a military base
Received first pistol permit at the age of 18
No criminal record

Denied permission to carry a concealed handgun on campus by Chief Halias

Ron Paul: More Guns Will Deter Shootings
Huckabee Says Concealed Handgun Might Have Stopped Virginia Tech Massacre
Fred Thompson on concealed carry
When mass killers meet armed resistance

Congressman Ron Paul for President 2008

Known by many as "Dr. No", Ron Paul is the ONLY congressman who votes against unconstitutional bills EVERY time one comes up for a vote. I first learned about him a few years ago when I was researching the voting records of the members of the House of Representatives and Senate. I found that he voted the same way that I would on nearly every bill that I checked his vote against. This weekend I finally had the opportunity to meet him for the first time. I spoke with him for a couple minutes, listened in on some of his other conversations, and heard him give a couple of speeches over the weekend. I believe that he has the integrity that the oval office has been missing for way too long. During Bill Clinton's time in office, he wrote some unconstitutional executive orders. Unfortunately George W. Bush didn't repeal any executive orders from the Clinton administration. Numerous unconstitutional bills have crossed the president's desk since he first took office, and he only used his veto power once, and signed way too many expensive and unconstitutional bills into law. Ron Paul stated that he will repeal unconstitutional executive orders if he is elected, and I am certain that he would veto any unconstitutional bill that would cross his desk. Don't vote for the lesser of two (or more) evils, because the lesser of two evils is still evil. Vote for a good honest man, Congressman Ron Paul.
Official announcement

Video of speech: night of 2/24/2007

Another angle: 2/24/2007, part 1 (See me at 00:36)

Part 2

America Freedom to Fascism Authorized version

Please visit http://www.freedomtofascism.com to purchase the DVD. This is the "Director's Final Cut" authorized version of Aaron Russo's documentary, America: Freedom To Fascism (AFTF). It is being uploaded to Google Video for the first time during the evening of October 19-20th, 2006. Aaron has listened to everyone's feedback - volunteers, students, lovers of freedom & liberty, young and old alike - and, true to his word, he is putting this up "for free" on Google Video knowing that the hour has come for Americans to either be awakened to restore the Republic or be swept aside by the dark global forces of fascism that seeks to enslave mankind. AFTF's main focus comes in a statement with six very simple words: SHUT DOWN THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM!! After viewing the movie, please be sure to visit http://www.freedomtofascism.com where you will soon be able to view a much higher quality "pay per view" Internet version of AFTF, buy the DVD and sign up as an affiliate to sell/distribute DVDs to others. We also urge everyone to be sure to sign up as volunteer, register for email alerts and tell your family, friends and neighbors about this groundbreaking movie.

A few good blogs and articles

I am compiling a list of articles and blogs that I like. Check back for updates.
Rep. Ron Paul: Running to Win in 2008 - Dave Eberhart
Freedom from fear is also a right - from examiner.com
Don't Try This at Home - By: Steve Silberman
“Show us the Law and we’ll pay!” False prosecution in
New Hampshire?
United States vs. Fincher
mAss Backwards
The War on Guns - By: David Codrea
Drug War Victims - By: Pete Guither
Libertarians have more fun - By: Michael Hampton
Make mine freedom too - By: Michael Hampton
Testifying on the taxpayer dime in Concord - By: Harriet E Cady

Some of my favorite laws

NH Bill of Rights
RSA 92:2
RSA 110-B:1
RSA 110-B:33
RSA 159:6-d
RSA 159:6-e
RSA 159:6-f
RSA 159:25
RSA 159:26
RSA 159-B:4
RSA 159-B:5

NH laws that I would like to see modified or repealed.

Here is a list of some of the NH laws that I would like to see repealed or amended. They are listed roughly in order of importance to me. I will probably add more as I find them. Let me know if you want to nominate a law that needs to be repealed or amended.
265:144 should be amended to remove sections I&II, probably III and maybe IV.
RSA 159:4 is in violation of Article 2-a of the NH Constitution and should be repealed.
RSA 207:4 prohibits the use of any device that reduces the noise created by the discharge of a firearm while hunting. It says that if you get a depredation permit, you are exempt, but I have not been able to get one, and I don’t know of anyone who has been able to get one. This one should definitely be repealed, as it does not solve any problems and it violates the rights of law abiding hunters. Also, well designed suppressors protect hearing better than ear plugs and ear muffs combined.
RSA 644:2 is overly broad and parts of it are unconstitutional. Paragraph II, part e "(e) Knowingly refuses to comply with a lawful order of a peace officer to move from or remain away from any public place" appears to suggest that police officers may order anyone to leave any public place for any or no reason, and arrest them if they do not leave that area fast enough to please the police officer(s). This is clearly unconstitutional and has been abused by the Manchester Police Department, and probably other police departments as well, to prohibit the free exercise of the constitutionally guaranteed rights of law abiding Americans. Those who disobey or ignore orders to leave while peacefully protesting without hindering the movements or rights of others are arrested.
RSA 570-A:2 I would like to see this bill amended to remove the ability of police officers to break the law and arrest anyone who records them in the act.
RSA 266:87 requires reflectors on clipless pedals and on the legs or shoes of cyclists who ride at night. While I think it is a good idea to have reflectors on pedals, not all bicycles come equipped with them, and it is not always convenient to put reflectors on your shoes or legs. This should be a recommendation, not a statute.
RSA 265:150 allows police to deprive a person of their bicycle or moped for violations, and should be repealed.
RSA 159:12 prohibits anyone from giving a pistol to any minor, but allows a parent to give a revolver to their child. Parents should be able to legally give any type of firearm to their child.
RSA 207:7 prohibits having a cocked crossbow or loaded long gun in a vehicle, unless you are a cop. This is a double standard and is unconstitutional, and should be repealed.
RSA 159:16 makes the possession of certain types of knives a misdemeanor, and should be repealed.
RSA 159:4 prohibits carrying a loaded handgun in a vehicle or concealed on the person without a license, is in violation of the US and state constitutions, and should be repealed.
RSA 266:1 requires annual motor vehicle inspections, and should be repealed. RSA 266:1-a and RSA 266:2 should be repealed at the same time.
RSA 208:3-d lists the calibers of pistols that are permitted to be used for the taking of deer in NH. The list is too short and leaves out many good calibers. Instead of listing certain calibers that are permitted, it should list minimum bullet diameter (.35"), minimum bullet weight (110 grains), and maximum velocity (2100 fps). This would allow .357 Maximum, .454 Casull, .458 Win Mag, .460 S&W Mag, .500 S&W Mag and .45-70, provided they used a heavier bullet and weren't loaded with a heavy charge of powder, and .357 Sig, .38 Super, .400 CorBon, .440 CorBon Mag, .45ACP, .45 Auto Rim, .45 GAP, .45 Super, .45 Win Mag, .45/50 Kodiak, .460 Rowland, .500 Whisper, .50AE and .50 Beowulf with any standard loading. Unfortunately wildcat cartridges are not allowed because of the unreasonably restrictive law. I would also like to see the number of rounds allowed to be loaded in the pistol increased to more than five.
RSA 265:99 prohibits coasting, and should be repealed.
RSA 265:108 section I should be amended to replace the word "vehicle" with "motor vehicle".
RSA 265:60 sets maximum speed limits and fines. Ideally I would like to see sections II through VI repealed, but since it is not likely to happen, I would like to at least see the maximum speed limits raised and the fines lowered.
RSA 266:58-a regulates tinted glass. I would like to see it repealed.
RSA 266:9 is an unreasonable lift law and needs to be repealed.
RSA 266:59 regulates exhaust system design. I would like to see section IV of that law repealed.
RSA 265:145 prohibits clinging to vehicles. I used to do it while riding a bicycle in South Korea. I think this RSA should be repealed or amended to allow "clinging" when the owner and operator of the vehicle give the clinger permission to do so.
RSA 160-B:16-b prohibits the retail sale of firecrackers and should be repealed.
RSA 160-B:16-c prohibits the retail sale of bottle rockets, and should be repealed.
RSA 266:75 prohibits anyone from driving a motor vehicle equipped with a TV screen ahead of the back of the driver's seat or that is visible to the driver. It should either be repealed or amended to replace "equipped with" with "while watching".
RSA 77-B:10 requires employers to withhold taxes. I think that employees should be able to decide when they pay their taxes. I would rather be allowed to pay it all at once after the tax year is up rather than having it taken out incrementally throughout the year.
RSA 644:16-B prohibits the transfer of "smoke bombs" to people other than law enforcement and similar groups, and should be repealed.
RSA 160-B:16-aprohibits the retail sale of reloadable aerial shells and should be repealed.
RSA 265:81 prohibits open containers that contain or contained alcohol in the passenger area of a motor vehicle. As long as the driver is not consuming the alcohol and is not under the influence of alcohol, there should be no penalty for transporting an opened container, so this law should be repealed.
RSA 265:80 prohibits driving a vehicle while drugs are on their person or present anywhere in the vehicle. Mere possession should not be illegal, so this law should be repealed.
RSA 318-B is the controlled drug act. The federal government already heavily regulates drug possession and enforces it with the heavy hand of the DEA. Why should we be spending our tax dollars to enforce redundant laws that are often used to imprison people who haven't harmed anyone? This act should be repealed, or at the least significantly reduced in scope.
RSA 160-B:16 prohibits certain types of sparklers, and should be repealed.
RSA 77-B:14 places a lien on businesses for not withholding taxes, and should be repealed.
RSA 645:3 makes adultery a class B misdemeanor. Now I am not promoting adultery, but I believe that it should be a civil issue, and not a criminal issue. I don't believe that taxpayers should be paying for the prosecution and imprisonment of every citizen who commits adultery.
RSA 105:12 gives the authority of arrest to watchmen. The authority to arrest any person who is "strolling about the streets at unreasonable hours, who refuse to give an account, or are reasonably suspected of giving a false account, of their business or design, or who can give no account of the occasion of their being abroad" should be removed.
RSA 158:37 prohibits the making, selling, use or possession of “a bottle or other breakable container containing a flammable liquid into which has been fixed or placed a wick or similar device, and which bottle or container when ignited and thrown will cause a fire or explosion”, and makes the violation of this law a class B felony. I would like to see it either repealed or amended to change it from a felony to a offense where the penalty is a fine and does not allow for jail time. If it is amended, I would like to see an exemption that would allow someone to make, sell, use, or possess such a device on their own property and would allow a property owner to give permission to another person that would exempt them from the law. There are already laws against vandalism and assault. This one is redundant at best.
RSA 264:2 Requires proof of insurance upon conviction for certain motor vehicle law violations. Parts d and e of section I are arbitrary, and should be removed from this RSA.
RSA 105:9 requires any person desiring to conduct a public dance, circus or carnival to make application for police attendance at that function, and if the chief of police decides that police officers should attend, the applicant is required to pay the police officers to be there. I think this RSA should be repealed.
RSA 332-D:2 prohibits most business transactions on Sundays and should be repealed.

One problem that I think needs to be addressed is that NH statutes have multiple conflicting definitions for the same word. "Bicycle", for instance, is defined differently in RSA 259:6 and RSA 230:74. Logic and Webster's dictionary tell us that "bicycle" is "a vehicle with two wheels tandem, handlebars for steering, a saddle seat, and pedals by which it is propelled". Also, how do you determine what constitutes "similar devices"?

Distracted driving more dangerous than speeding.

I've known this for years, but after an extensive year long study, reserchers came to the same conclusion that I came to on my own from personal experience and observations. An ABC News article titled "Study: Distraction Behind Most Car Crashes" stated that "Distracted drivers were involved in nearly eight out of 10 collisions or near-crashes, says a study released Thursday by the government." It mentioned that "Data from police reports had estimated that driver inattention was a factor in about 25 percent of crashes.", which doesn't surprise me because of what happened after the last time I was rearended. I had stopped behind another vehicle at a red light, and about five seconds later, I was hit from behind by a compact car driven by a young lady. When the State Trooper showed up to do the paperwork, she said that the driver must have been going too fast, because otherwise she would have been able to stop in time. I am pretty certain that she wasn't paying adequate attention to the road ahead of her, and I didn't see any evidence of excessive speed. Without examining the accident scene, the Trooper made the assumption that the driver was speeding, which is probably the result of constant bombardment of propaganda that claims that speeding kills and heavy brainwashing in school and the police academy. The study was conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration The NHTSA's report stated that "Driving-related inattention to the forward roadway was actually shown to be safer than normal, baseline driving (odds ratio of 0.45). This was not surprising as drivers who arechecking their rear-view mirrors are generally alert and engaging in environmental scanning behavior." "An eyeglance directed at a rear-view mirror is a safety-enhancing activity in the larger context of driving while eyeglances at objects inside the vehicle are not safetyenhancing. It is important to remember that scanning the driving environment is an activity that enhances safety as long as it is systematic and the drivers’ eyes return to the forward view in under 2 seconds." An interesting finding was that drivers who were driving between 0 and 40 mph were much more likely to get into an accident than the ones who were driving at higher speeds, and loss of control due to excessive speed was a factor in only 8% of accidents, according to the Results of the 100-Car Field Experiment. So remember folks, pay attention to the road, because the average person is about ten times more likely to get into an accident when driving while distracted than when speeding.

The night I met Dr. Mike Adams

Last night I went to Dr Mike Adams’ speaking engagement in the MUB at UNH-Durham. Although most of the attendees were civil and friendly, some of the attendees were somewhat hostile, but fortunately nonviolent. When I took out my video camera, the girl sitting next to me asked me why I was taking pictures, as if there was something wrong with that. Dr. Mike Adams’ spoke about some of the outrageous unconstitutional policies of some campuses and ways that he and his allies were able to get those policies changed through peaceful and often funny methods. He encouraged students to help others whose constitutionally guaranteed rights are violated, even if they don’t agree with the opinions of those people. After he finished speaking, there was a question and answer time, where people were allowed to ask him questions. Some of his detractors made futile attempts to defame him and make silly political statements that defied logic. They focused primarily on the fact that he opposed speech codes, but their arguments were irrelevant to the topic at hand. Some students wrongfully implied that because he was a heterosexual Christian white male who opposed speech codes that prohibit “hate speech”, that he must be in favor of slavery and the beating of homosexuals. I could feel the hate coming from these students as they were using an old left wing tactic of using smear and slander when they are losing an argument. Some implied that because some white males were/are evil that all white males must be evil and need to be told what they can and can’t say in order to prevent rapes and assaults against minorities. That is absurd. Years before I moved to NH, I was attacked and robbed by some young black men. If I used the same reasoning that was used last night by some of the students, I would hold a grudge against all black men, but being more sensible than some of the students who spoke up, I know that it was only the men who perpetrated the act who deserve any blame or punishment for that act. Unlike some of the left wing extremists who were there to try to discredit the speaker, I do not judge people based on their race, gender, or sexual orientation, or the acts of someone else who shares their race, gender, or sexual orientation, but on the content of their character, and the way that they treat others. If we are to be a free nation where Americans can live in peace, we need to work toward ending the oppression of our constitutional rights and the divisiveness that the Democrat party and their allies who have infiltrated the Republican party (RINOs) have been perpetrating for years now. Without freedom, we will not have peace, as freedom begets peace.

To serve and protect? I don't think so.

Have you ever been threatened, harassed, lied to, lied about, denied your rights, unjustly fined, arrested, violated, or treated badly by police officers who are paid to uphold the law and keep the peace, but instead violate it and use their power to oppress others who they don’t agree with, who don’t do their will, and who witness their crimes. I first witnessed police corruption when I was 14 years old. I was a passenger in my dad’s van when it was struck from behind by a police car. My father had stopped because there were several police cars on both sides of the road, oncoming traffic, and several police officers fighting with a drunk in our lane of travel, making it impossible to proceed safely. While we were waiting for either the police to get out of the road or for a large enough gap in the oncoming traffic for us to get around the fight, I heard a loud screeching sound followed by a loud bang which accompanied our van being launched forward. The impact lifted the back end of the van off the ground and caused the drivers seat to break off the floor and land on top of my little brother. My dad was severely injured, and a few of us had sustained neck injuries. We didn’t know who had hit us until the cop, officer Dunn of the Stockbridge, MA police department, walked up to my dad’s window and said that he was sorry and didn’t see our van. He had a slurred sound to his voice, like he had been drinking, and later my dad told me that he thought he smelled alcohol on his breath. The other cops who were already on the scene quickly escorted him away and started their “investigation”. They took each of us brothers out of the vehicle one at a time and questioned us behind the van where my parents couldn’t hear us, using leading questions like “Didn’t you hear the siren? Didn’t you see the lights coming from behind you?” I answered honestly that I hadn’t. Nobody in the vehicle had heard a siren or seen his lights. Despite what my brothers and I told them, the police wrote in their report that we had told them just the opposite. The following day there was a story in the newspaper that reported that according to police, my dad was at fault for not moving out of the way of the police car. The police reported that the officer was traveling down the road at 45 mph and had his lights and siren on. Within the next few days, my dad went to the scene and took measurements and photographs. The police car had left over 180’ of heavy skid marks, and over 120’ of light skid marks before striking my dad’s van. The road was level and that night was dry and warm. Some of the people who lived on that road later contacted my dad and told him that when they saw him go past, they were certain that he was driving well over 100 mph. My dad ended up hiring a lawyer, who served notice to the town that he was planning to file a lawsuit. The town and the police department made things difficult for us, and we weren’t able to take them to court until 5 years later. My dad was barely able to walk and couldn’t lift more than a few pounds for a couple years after the accident, and he never recovered sufficiently to go back to his old job. My neck pain lasted about 2 years. After my twin brother and I got our drivers licenses, it seemed like the local cops had it in for us. One day when one of my coolant lines blew, and I had to park my car on the side of the road, I had my brother pick me up and bring me to the parts store to get a replacement hose. By the time we got back to the car about an hour later, a police officer had already broken into my car, searched it, placed a big orange sticker on the windshield, and left it unlocked. Other times we were pulled over and harassed even when we hadn’t done anything wrong. One of those times, the cop who pulled me over was very drunk and belligerent. When my parents finally got their day in court, the police officers all lied on the stand. Fortunately they couldn’t keep their stories straight, and the jury saw right through their lies. The police officer who hit our van was later suspended for a couple weeks after he ran over a pregnant woman, killing her. He was eventually fired after he beat up his wife and threatened to shoot her. Soon after my parents finally got the settlement, my dad died of cancer. After I joined the Army, my request to renew my pistol permit was denied by the chief of police because I wasn’t living in MA anymore, even though I was still considered a MA resident and was still paying MA taxes. Over the years, I have been ticketed for violating nonexistent laws, and arrested for passing a police officer who was driving well under the speed limit, even though I didn’t break any laws. After I moved to Somersworth, I applied for a pistol/revolver (concealed carry) license. The chief made me fill out the required paperwork, then he had me fingerprinted and later sent a police officer to my house “to make sure that [I] actually lived there”. When after a couple weeks, I hadn’t gotten a call letting me know that my license was ready, I went down to the SPD to inquire about it, and the chief told me that he wanted directions to the homes of my references because their addresses alone weren’t good enough for him. Later he told me that before he would issue my license, he wanted a letter from the CLEO of the last town that I lived in. I contacted the CLEO of the town that I had last lived in, and he told me that he wasn’t going to write a letter for me. I told the chief what he had said, and he told me that without a letter, I wasn’t going to get a license. I felt that his actions weren’t right, so I did some research, and found out that the chief had been breaking the law. According to RSA 159:6 the chief was required to issue the license within 14 days and was not allowed to require anything more than the form that is required by the state. I printed out a copy of the relevant law, and brought it down to the police station. I showed the law to the police officer at the desk, and she said that the chief had the final say. When I talked to the chief, he said that he didn’t care what the law said, and that if I wanted a license, I would have to follow his rules. I told him that if he was denying my license, I wanted my written reason for denial. He told me that because I hadn’t finished complying with his requirements, he didn’t have to give me a denial letter. I contacted GO-NH, a few state legislators, and the Attorney General’s office. Two days before my birthday, someone at the PD called me and told me that I could pick up my license. Later my wife applied for her license, and although the chief didn’t give her the trouble like he did to me, he issued the license for only 3 ½ years, instead of the legal minimum of 4 years as required in RSA 159:6.
UNH is in violation of state law and state and federal constitutions.
Last year I found out that the University of New Hampshire has a policy that prohibits students and employees from possessing a firearm on campus without written permission from the chief of police. I did some research, and found out that according to RSA 159:26, the state retains sole authority to regulate firearms, and prohibits any political subdivision from making any ordinance or regulation concerning firearms or ammunition and which declares any such regulation to be null and void. Last month I wrote a letter to the chief of the university police explaining the law. I requested written permission to carry a firearm on campus so that until the policy is overturned, I could carry without fear of retribution. A few days ago he replied with the following:

“Re: UNH III.J. Firearms on Campus

Dear Mr. Logsdon:

Thank you for your electronic message dated January 30, 2006 to Deputy Chief Paul Kopreski of the University Police Department. The purpose of this letter is to advise you that I have denied your request pursuant to UNH Administrative Policy III.J.4 (“the firearms policy”) “to possess a weapon [and] ammunition on campus for instructional or other qualified purposes and in other special circumstances.”

The University of New Hampshire, Durham and Manchester campuses, is committed to providing a safe and secure learning and working environment for students, faculty, staff, and visitors. My understanding of the firearms policy is that it reflects a sensible view that firearms present a risk of injury that is qualitatively different in the campus setting than in other environments. As you know, the firearms policy prohibits the use and possession of all firearms on the core campus of the University of New Hampshire by everyone except law enforcement officers.

Although you correctly note that the firearms policy allows me to grant permission to an individual to possess a weapon or ammunition on campus under some circumstances, I find none of those circumstances present in the situation described in your message. First, your message does not state that you are presently teaching a class sponsored by an academic program on the Durham campus. While it may be possible for a firearms safety course to be offered on campus at some point in time, especially with the practical portion of the course at an off-campus firing range, it is highly unlikely that I would authorize anyone instructing such a course to possess firearms in all places and at all times while on the Durham campus

I am not persuaded that RSA 159:26 requires me to reach a different conclusion, and do not find that it nullifies the firearms policy for three reasons. First, the plain language of the statute applies to “political subdivisions” of the state, and I believe that term excludes institutions like the University. This understanding of the statute is reinforced by RSA 159:26, II, which declares contrary municipal regulations and ordinances null and void. Second, it appears that the legislative policy of this state is to create safe environments for education. See RSA ch. 193-D (Safe School Zones); RSA 193:13, III. (Any pupil who brings or possesses a firearm as defined in section 921 of Title 18 of the United States Code in a safe school zone as defined in RSA 193-D:1 without written authorization from the superintendent or designee shall be expelled from school by the local school board for a period of not less than 12 months.). Although the University is not a “school” as described in the statutes, its enabling legislation is found in the same title of the statutory code, Title XV, as the provisions for safe schools and for mandatory expulsion of students who carry firearms. Given that similar safety concerns appear to be at work in both RSA 193:13, III and the University’s firearms policy, I do not find that the Legislature’s intent in enacting RSA 159:26 was to repeal the policy. Finally, RSA 159:26 only nullifies municipal ordinances and regulations enacted after the July 18, 2003. The firearms policy was adopted well before that date. Thus, even if the University were somehow to be classified as a “political subdivision,” its policy would survive the enactment of the statute.

The firearms policy provides that weapons may be stored on campus under my control or direction. My department stores guns for various members of the campus community on a case by case basis, and I would be happy to extend the same courtesy to you that I extend to other members of our community.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Nicholas J. Halias
Chief of Police
University of New Hampshire Police Department”

When I shared the letter with some friends, Kevin pointed out that “Nothing has been offered to show what is "qualitatively different" about a campus setting than other environments.”;
“This conveniently ignores Section I, which says, "the state of New Hampshire shall have authority and jurisdiction over the sale, purchase, ownership, use, possession, transportation, licensing, permitting, taxation, or other matter pertaining to firearms, firearms components, ammunition, or firearms supplies in the state." The obvious intent is that only the state may regulate such things, and other governmental entities within the state may not.
Which brings up this point: if UNH is not a political subdivision, then by what authority does it have a police department and police chief? Can any group of citizens just create a police department? No, only government entities may do so.”;
“And yet, the lawful possession of a firearm in a safe school zone, and even within the school buildings and classrooms, is perfectly legal, even by students. The law requires expulsion for 12 months for students, but there is no criminal penalty, no criminal record, and no crime. And that's just for students: the safe school act, RSA 193-D:1, I
(e), criminalizes "Unlawful possession or sale of a firearm or other dangerous weapon under RSA 159."
All lawful possession is, well, lawful”;
“[He] ignored the broadly written law stating that only the state may regulate firearms, while also seeking unwritten inclusion into the narrowly crafted safe school act. The broad law somehow doesn't include them, while the narrow law must have meant to, even though it doesn't.”; and
“And it is a policy. It's not a law. It is not a violation of any law to possess a firearm on a UNH campus, and any attempt by the UNH police to intimidate lawful ownership constitutes deprivation of rights under color of law.”
Police officers frequently break the law and violate the rights of the public, but it is often difficult and self-destructive to take action against police officers or to go against their will because they can easily retaliate against anyone who stands up to them or points out their wrongdoing. Police officers frequently make false statements and take improper actions to protect police officers who break the law. I know there are some honest police officers out there, but they are either too scared or too apathetic to point out wrongdoing and corruption in their departments, and most are unwilling to take action to protect the constitutionally guaranteed rights of innocent Americans.
Definition of political subdivision in section VI of RSA 101:2
A part of the UNH website that refers to the University as a political subdivision (see last paragraph)
Are Cops Constitutional?
Couple Arrested For Asking Directions
Riot police attack peaceful crowd with pepper spray, sticks, and pepper ball guns.
Cops happy to kill, but only if paid
copwatch.com
If you need to find someone, don't waste your time with the cops, contact Sherlock Investigations
Attorney incensed after viewing FTAA police video

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?

The Global Warming Propaganda Machine

Global warming is a major political issue in the US and several other countries. Allegedly the temperature of the earth has been increasing and many people believe that this gradual increase in temperature will cause global cataclysmic destruction. Many people claim that CO2 causes the temperature to increase by preventing heat from escaping from the atmosphere. I remember as a child being taught that during the day the sun radiated heat to the earth, and at night heat the heat would radiate back into space. I was also taught that clouds reflect heat back to the earth at night and back into space during the day. Since CO2 is a transparent gas, it allows all visible light and most of the IR spectrum to pass through it. The tiny amount of IR light that CO2 absorbs is negligible when compared to the entire light spectrum. In the 1970s, there was a similar panic about “global cooling”. I don’t think there is enough substantial data to conclude that the average temperature of the earth is going up or down. If the earth is getting warmer, there is no conclusive evidence showing that our behavior as humans is causing any substantial portion of it. One thing that I know is that trees and other plants use CO2 to grow, and they thrive in environments that are rich in CO2­. A study that I read found that trees that were growing in city environments with higher concentrations of CO2 thrived and grew faster than trees that were growing in less populated areas that had more trees, and less CO2. This showed that the more CO­2 that a tree is exposed to, the more CO2 it will convert to O2, causing the tree to grow faster and balance out the gas levels in it’s vicinity. Have you ever thought about how the temperature of the earth is measured? Statistical analysis, which is not a very accurate method for measuring anything, is used to determine the “average temperature of the earth” by measuring the temperature of a bunch of samples and finding the average. Now we all know (I hope) that weather patterns move about the earth, bringing cold and warm fronts all over the place, so temperature readings in one location will not show a gradual increase or decrease in temperature, but wild fluctuations from very cold to very hot. Using statistical analysis, you could choose different points and/or times to give you any trend that you wanted to get. Given the relatively minor changes in average temperature readings, you could come to the conclusion that the changes fall within the standard deviation for a relatively consistent temperature range. I have not seen any data showing where, how, or when the measurements were taken. Did they take into account the release of heat and steam from volcanoes and lava floes into the atmosphere? Did they measure the average temperature of the earth, sea, and air, figuring in the specific heats of all of the materials in the system? There have been fluctuations in temperature on this earth for thousands of years, and we have adapted. I believe that any changes in the earth’s temperatures and gas ratios are just part of the natural cycle that the earth has been following for thousands of years. There are areas that are under ice that evidence suggests was once more temperate. Iowa was once under the ocean and Massachusetts once had glaciers. The cycle will continue regardless of what treaties are signed and how you get to work. When CO2 levels go up, the plants compensate by consuming it at a faster rate. I think that certain political groups (socialists, communists, democrats) and their supporters in the scientific community are using the global warming controversy as a political weapon to turn the masses against those who support capitalism and libertarian principles of less government intrusion on our lives. When someone points out flaws in their theory, they regurgitate their propaganda, saying that their detractors are denying global warming because they work for or are being funded by big oil, manufacturing, or people who are polluting the earth. They want to force us to become their subjects who will follow their dictates. I am all for designing and producing cleaner and more energy efficient technologies to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and to reduce pollution, but unlike the rest of the Chicken Littles out there, I don’t think the sky is falling. I have listened to and read the arguments that have been given concerning global warming, and have found them to be inconclusive. I wouldn't worry too much about global warming because the earth will probably be destroyed by other means before global warming has any significant effect on our lives, other than in the political arena.

When legislators violate the Bill of Rights, they do more harm than you might think.

I believe that suppressor laws are far too restrictive, and need to be repealed. Suppressors and their components are not weapons, but unfortunately they are treated as such by the BATFE and by federal and state laws. The United States is the only country that I am aware of that restricts the importation, manufacture, possession, and use of suppressors. In Finland, the government encourages the use of suppressors on firearms because they reduce hearing loss and reduce noise pollution. Suppressors also have the added benefit of reducing the amount of lead that is emitted into the air and of reducing recoil. Even England doesn't restrict the possession of suppressors, because they are not weapons. Laws, like the NFA laws that restrict the manufacture and possession of suppressors only prevent law abiding citizens from using them. Criminals who by definition do not obey the law can easily improvise an inexpensive disposable suppressor without having to go through the paperwork or pay the $200 tax that is imposed any time a suppressor is transferred or manufactured by someone who is not a licensed manufacturer. Some firearms, (like my hunting rifle in 7mm Remington Magnum), will cause hearing damage even if the user is wearing hearing protection like ear plugs or ear muffs, but by placing a suppressor on the end of the rifle, the noise would be reduced to a level where ear plugs would be more effective. The noise of the gun shot would still be fairly loud, but it would be much less likely to cause hearing damage. These restrictions on suppressors not only make it extremely expensive and difficult to reduce the amount of noise emitted by firearms, but they limit innovation that could be transferred to other types of noise reduction devices. Here are some links I would suggest clicking on:
http://www.fortliberty.org/military-library/firearm-gun-silencers-suppressors.shtml
http://guns.connect.fi/rs/suppress.html http://guns.connect.fi/gow/silencer.html
http://www.atf.treas.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/gca.htm
http://guns.connect.fi/rs/summary.html
http://guns.connect.fi/rs/dirdiagr.html http://guns.connect.fi/rs/measure.html
http://guns.connect.fi/rs/Reflex.html

A Look at Green Energy

Green Energy consists of energy sources that are renewable and produce little or no pollution. It benefits our society by reducing the need for petroleum products and other non-renewable energy sources. It also reduces the emissions that end up in the air and on the ground or in the water.
One of the more promising green energy technologies is biofuels like biodiesel. It can be used to replace diesel fuel in vehicles and home heating systems. Biodiesel also increases the performance of your engine. Biodiesel is a "premium" diesel fuel that cleans your fuel system, improves engine lubricity and reduces particulate emissions, all of which help to extend the life of your diesel equipment. Pure biodiesel (b100) eliminates sulfates from engine emissions, and significantly reduces other toxic emissions that would normally be produced by engines that run on diesel fuel. Another benefit is that biodiesel can be made just about anywhere from vegetable oil, alcohol, and lye. Currently most biodiesel is made from used vegetable oil from restaurants, but work is being done to try to find other possible sources, such as algae and other plants, that could increase production and reduce costs. Currently, biodiesel is being produced all over the USA. B20 (a 20% blend) is sold at Rymes Propane and Oils filling stations in Antrim, Peterborough, Keene, Greenfield and Loudon, NH, and at Fleming Oil Company, Inc. in West Chesterfield, NH, and at Monadnock Fuels in Keene, NH. B100, which is pure biodiesel, is sold at Monadnock Energy Solutions LLC in Dublin, NH.
Another green energy source is solar energy. Solar energy is free because it comes from the sun. The only reason that it is not used nearly as much as it should be is that the equipment required to harness this energy can be quite costly. Solar energy can be used in several ways. By using energy efficient design, such as placing most windows on the south side of a house, a house can utilize the heat from the sun to provide much of the heating required for keeping the house warm. One type of solar panel, which includes a lot of water pipe covering a portion of a south facing roof, can be used to heat water. Another type of solar panel, called a photovoltaic solar panel, converts light to electricity. Although photovoltaic cells can be quite costly to purchase, once they are installed, they require very little maintenance and do not produce any emissions. Solar energy, having been around for a long time, is being used all over the world.
Another green energy source is wind power. Wind power in one form or another has been used for many years. One of the earliest uses was to power sail boats. Another of the early uses was for turning a mill stone to produce flour. Another use that has been around since at least my father’s childhood is to power pumps that are used to pump water out of wells. Windmills are used by power companies to generate electricity, but some home-owners also use windmills to produce electricity for their homes. My step-grandfather’s uncle owned a home on an island off the coast of Finland which got all of its electricity from a windmill that he built, and a solar panel. One of the disadvantages of wind power is the fact that after a while, moving parts wear out and the windmill will need maintenance, which can be costly. Other perceived disadvantages are that windmills make noise, ruin scenic views, and kill birds that fly into them. From my experience, windmills don’t make enough noise to be annoying, windmills are not that bad looking, and could be made prettier by painting them to look like giant spinning flowers, and birds die from flying into other things also, like buildings, power transmission towers, radio towers, and cars so I don’t view those reasons as sufficiently valid to rule out wind power. Wind energy is harnessed all over the world, especially in windy places, like parts of California. An alternative to the traditional wind mill is the vertical wind turbine, which is quiet, more reliable, does not kill birds, and works at a broader range of wind speeds.
Another green energy source is waste to energy (WTE), which burns trash to produce electricity. Although earlier plants that produced electricity from trash produced a lot of emissions, newer technologies have made it possible to separate out some recyclable materials and produce lots of energy from trash while emissions are lower than a power plant that burns coal or oil would produce. Another benefit of WTE is that this method of trash disposal does not produce methane gas or groundwater contamination like a traditional landfill would. The byproduct of WTE, ash, can be used to produce cement and in the manufacture of roads, among other things. WTE plants can be found in ME, NH, MA, CT, NY, PA, NJ, MD, FL, WA, CA, GA, SC, Ontario,AL, IN, HI, MI, MN, OR, VA, and Italy, among other places.

Let's improve our environment without restricting Liberty

I believe that we need to strive to reduce pollution, and to encourage others to do likewise. Unfortunately most of our "environmentalists" are focusing on trying to restrict what kind of vehicles people can own, when the nation's largest polluter is not SUVs, but inefficient buildings. I think we need to work on creating more opportunity for people to use alternative energy sources. Solar energy has become more efficient, reliable, unobtrusive, and cost-effective. I think that we should try to get at least some government buildings that have a roof with a good view of the southern horizon equipped with solar panels. There should also be tax breaks and low interest loans available for those individuals and businesses who wish to install solar panels on their buildings. If we can get enough people to use solar panels on their homes to significantly reduce the demand for electricity, we might be able to get some of our oil burning power plants to reduce the amount of oil that they burn, thereby reducing pollution, reducing our dependence on foreign countries for our oil, and reducing the cost of diesel fuel. That would also translate to lower costs for the products that we buy that are delivered by truck and train. I think that we should encourage the manufacture of biodiesel, and use of biodiesel in diesel powered trucks and trains. I believe that we should promote the building of energy efficient homes. Unfortunately most banks are unwilling to finance extremely energy efficient homes because they are not the norm and are perceived as difficult to sell in the event of a foreclosure. Instead people continue to build homes that are energy drains, burning large quantities of home heating oil during the winter to keep them warm and using excessive amounts of electricity to cool them during the summer. A well designed earth sheltered home uses only about 1/10th the energy that a regular stick-built home does, without compromising natural lighting. Loan guarantees and tax breaks should be made available to those who wish to build earth sheltered homes.
Noise pollution - Lately there have been groups of people and trial lawyers who have been sueing ranges in attempts to bankrupt them and close them down. They complain that the noise disturbs them. If they are successful, gunowners will have to resort to shooting in their yards and in the woods around housing developments, where there aren't man-made berms designed to stop the bullets and reduce noise getting out. Closing ranges would make neighborhoods less safe. A better solution to the noise problem would be to encourage the use of noise suppressors, commonly known as silencers. (For starters, remove the federal tax and paperwork.) Also, building berms taller and planting trees and other vegetation around ranges would reduce the amount of noise reaching surrounding neighborhoods, and would better stop any stray bullets. Also, if you're going to build a home near a range or a heavily traveled road, and you don't want to hear the noise, build an earth sheltered home, because not only are they more efficient and stronger than conventional homes, the earth also does a great job of muffling noise.

NH's RSA 207:4 needs to be repealed.

Unfortunately most people do not seem to know that hearing loss is cumulative. Having served in the US Army for 6 years, my hearing went from almost perfect, to barely inside the normal range. I have a hard time hearing high pitched sounds, except for the constant ringing in my ears. I usually have a hard time understanding my wife when she talks to me. Although some would contend that that isn't necessarily a bad thing, what if she were to say something important, and I were to think that she had said something completely different? The reason I am writing is that I would like help in my goal of repealing a state law that makes it illegal for hunters to take measures that reduce the noise that their firearms make. RSA 207:4 does nothing to reduce crime and serves no benefit to the people of New Hampshire. I have tried to explain this to many people, but my arguments seem to fall on deaf ears. Some legislators have told me that when you are hunting, you do not fire many rounds, so it doesn't cause a significant amount of hearing loss. Others have told me that Fish & Game would oppose it's repeal because they want to be able to hear the sound of the gun being fired. Some have even argued that if the use of suppressors while hunting were legalized, people would start using them for poaching. I ask that you read a study that was conducted by the Finnish government which is posted at the Suppressor Project Summary. It will tell you that "No suppressor or 'silencer' is able to prevent flight noise" and "Suppressors do not favour poaching since they have no effect on bullet noise." If a person were willing to break one law by poaching, what makes anyone think that another law would make him change his mind? Along the same lines, if a hunter decided to obey the law and buy a hunting license and follow game laws, what makes anyone think that allowing him to use a suppressor would make him decide to break the law? Why does the state prohibit people from protecting their hearing? I believe it is because of ignorance. Everything most people believe about suppressors or "silencers" was accrued from watching lousy movies and is based purely on fiction. Please work to repeal RSA 207:4, and help to reduce the need for hearing aids.

NFA laws are stupid, and need to be repealed.

I believe that freedom was unjustly taken away from all of us by foolish lawmakers long before I was born. Do you believe that we should just sit idly by while Americans' rights are being trampled by those who are paid with taxes that we are forced to pay to enforce unjust and unconstitutional laws? There are far too many foolish laws on the books now. For instance, sound suppressors, which serve to protect the hearing of the user and those around him when it is attached to a firearm, are strictly regulated, and those who buy them are required to go through an array of red tape and pay a $200 tax each time one is sold. Possession of just a piece of a suppressor can get someone thrown in prison. Also, shotguns with barrels under 18" and rifles with barrels under 16", although no more dangerous than one with a longer barrel, are restricted the same way that a suppressor is. Even a pistol with a forward vertical grip is heavily restricted, requiring lots of paperwork and a transfer or building tax. These laws serve no purpose but to put otherwise law abiding citizens in prison and to keep government spending high. It is sad that a person caught violating one of these NFA laws without committing any other crimes is often punished more harshly than many murderers. I believe that any law is unjust that prohibits a law abiding citizen from possessing or using anything that they are not using to cause harm to others. Now, are you going to just sit idly by allowing injustices to continue, or are you going to work to repeal these unjust and unconstitutional laws?