Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

New Hampshire Seeks To Empower Citizens By Equal Firepower Measures

I am appreciating New Hampshire more and more as of late.  The Live Free Or Die state is really living up to its motto.  As you may have read about last week, NH is on the verge of becoming likes its neighbor Vermont and doing away with its firearm carrying licensing system to become a Constitutional Carry state.

On the heels of that legislation is another bill, brought forth by State Representative J.H Hoell, that would bar the police from becoming a paramilitary force without consent of the people.

The proposed legislation is now in committee. If it’s passed and signed into law by the governor, state and municipal agencies in New Hampshire will be barred from buying or even accepting free offers of “military style equipment” for police use, except with the approval of the assembled citizenry at a public town meeting.

That prohibition would include not just MRAPS and BearCats, but also things like fully automatic weapons or anything that is not “available in an open commercial market.”

Considering that the 2nd Amendment was written down in order to protect the citizenry’s right to fight back against a tyrannical government, the notion of limiting the local governments ability to outgun its citizens is a great take back of liberty.

Think of it like addition by subtraction.

By denying the state and local governments the ability to be quasi war lords who overpower the people, this bill will ensure that should tyranny ever take root in the Granite state, the people, the militia as our founding fathers understood it to be, would have the ability to fight back on a more equal footing.

Furthermore, by granting police the firepower to invade a third world country, the lines begin to blur between liberty and tyranny.

For instance, the city of Concord, all 42,000 people of it and their THREE murders in the last DECADE, acquired a bearcat after IGNORING the public outcry of the people and the obvious lack of need for one.

What is a bearcat vehicle?  Here’s a picture of the one Keene, NH (pop 23,000) got despite their lack of need:



The scariest part of the militarization of the police is the defense that the police use in trying to justify the need.  In Concord…where murder is as rampant as leap years, Police Chief John Duval defends the quarter MILLION dollar vehicle purchase by claiming:

“Groups such as the Sovereign Citizens, Free Staters and Occupy New Hampshire are active and present daily challenges.”

Apparently, Chief Duval thinks that non violent, protest groups and libertarian’s trying to win public office in the name of liberty are active and daily challenges that require machine guns and vehicles that are a half step down from tanks.

My sister asked me the other day why civilians would need a machine gun.  I need only point to Chief Duval, his militarized shock troopers and his belief that he can strong arm anyone who doesn’t agree with him as reason enough.  The 2nd Amendment is about defending yourself against the tyranny that Chief Duval views as his biggest threat.  If the Free Staters eventually win control of the government through legal elections, Duval and those narrow minded, heavy handed thugs like him will find themselves on the unemployment line lickity split.

As a bonus…this bill also opens up the possibility that New Hampshirites may be granted more rights to firearms previously discouraged by the government for civilian use.  If J.H Hoell’s bill passes and the state and local warlords like Duval still want the heavy artillery they will only be legally allowed to get it if it is available to the general populace.

If the Federal Government gets in the way of that it could lay the groundwork for NH to pass a Firearms Freedom Act which would negate all federal gun control laws with regards to firearms built and kept within New Hampshire.

The end result is that Hoell’s bill that would limit the governments attempt to overpower the citizenry may in turn offer even more 2nd Amendment freedoms to the people of New Hampshire.

The Granite State is hitting the ground and running towards liberty in 2015…I hope other states are taking note.


  • Michael

    Note: It’s “JR Hoell”. He’s a great guy and very liberty-oriented. Also, should Constitutional Carry become the law of the land here, we’ll have the *best* gun laws in the country. Better than VT as VT forbids ownership/use of suppressor/silencers although it’s just a civil violation of $25. Our gun laws would be very close to AZ where a permit/license system exists, but NH doesn’t have any training requirement, no magazine capacity restrictions, and the only place where one can’t carry is inside the courthouses, but you can carry into the foyer.

  • Hop

    I wish I could move there.

    • Michael

      I wasn’t born in NH, but I got here as soon as a I could (from neighboring Communist Occupied State of MA.)


    This is a good start. The next move is to require all agencies of the federal government when using local officers that they must present each officer with a copy of the warrant for entry and what is being looked for. all entries must be under the guidance and direction of the local enforcement authority. All warrants must be in hand before any entries are made and will be in hand and given to the people as soon it is apparent no violent action will be taken. If these guidelines are not followed the people entering will be charged with unlawful trespass. The amount of force will be regulated by local authority so that an appropriate size force will be used and the entire force of power is not put upon the citizen when we have only a misnomer. Too many incidents of people defending their homes and families from assault that shouldn’t have been that large Too many incidence of mistaken address because insufficient research has been done. Our officers no longer are peacekeepers but assault troupes that act first and cause bodily harm that could be prevented.

    • Billca

      It’s a good principle Grampa, but not really workable. There are “exigent circumstances” exceptions to having a warrant and/or needing to have a physical copy of the warrant in-hand. Such as a search warrant during a kidnap situation where the victim’s life is endangered. Warrants aren’t required if they pursue a subject and he enters a building – even if it’s an illegal entry.

      • GRAMPA

        The problem is to eliminate the classification of all search warrants as “emergency”
        We have too many errors when decisions to act comes at the last minute. If indeed life is in threat then we have legitimate cause. A raid because someone thinks they smell marijuana is not cause for forced entry which now happens every day. We have now had the city capitulate that the citizen has the right to review tactics to be used by police. We have succeeded in removing some practices. Even with a forced entry they must have warrant in hand. It has stopped mistakes on two occasions. Citizens are the boss and we need to make them aware of it.

        • Billca

          An officer needs no warrant if he knows or “reasonably believes” a person’s life is in imminent danger, nor if the felony suspect he is pursuing enters a building or dwelling. In addition, an arrest warrant may be from another jurisdiction and the officers will only have an “abstract”, not the actual warrant. Those are valid as warrants.

          I prefer that we also hold individual officers who obtain the warrant and any officer who provides information for the warrant responsible if the warrant was obtained by perjury, misrepresentation or omission of relevant information.

          • Darkthirty

            If the actors in these raids were held civilly responsible, the problem would end. As it sits the taxpayers pay for their indiscretions….

  • Billca

    State statutes to negate federal law are generally worthless tokens of intent. I have yet to see any state law negating federal firearms law stand up in a Federal court.

    Instead, it may be worth modifying any state law that grants federal law enforcement agents status as “peace officers” or LE officers in the state. Not granting federal agents LE status in the state forces them to rely on local and state agencies to cooperate with their duties. If state authorities then declare no federal gun laws (of certain types) are enforceable in the state, federal agents could be arrested for acting as LE officers without authority.

    State law granting police powers to federal agents should be modified to allow the legislature, Governor, Lt. Governor or the state’s Attorney General to…

    a) Revoke or suspend police officer status to any or all federal agents. (e.g. BATF, EPA, FBI)

    b) Suspension may be for declared for up to 120 days.

    c) The legislature may override a suspension by a majority vote in both houses, plus 5 votes.

    d) A revocation of authority may be overridden by the legislature with a 2/3 vote in both houses.
    e) A legislative suspension or revocation may not be overridden by the executive or judicial branches.
    f) Any such revocation requires the authority to make public notice of the reason and duration.

    g) No suspension or revocation may be applied during a time of officially declared war by Congress.

    • Gray99

      It is simply a matter of the people insisting on the application of the 10th amendment. Take a look at what Justice Roy Moore has done in Alabama. Regardless of the cause, he has asserted state rights over federal rights and he is quite right.

      • Billca

        I caution people to be careful when promoting “states rights” as a way to trump federal laws. If precedent says states rights rule a change of administration or legislature can result in some serious problems. Think of finally passing national reciprocity and having your state’s administration thwarting it as a simple example.

        • Gray99

          But one state can’t impose on another. The danger of concentrated power is too dangerous and as we can see presently, centralized power is growing in leaps and bounds with minimal resistance. The states are diverse culturally. What works in New York will not work in Western Pennsylvania. In fact such impositions is a quick route to balkanization. Furthermore, relative state independence produces a number of “laboratories” for better government. It’s too bad that the 17th amendment ever was ratified, if in fact it was honestly ratified. Similarly, the 14th.

Send this to friend