Gun control laws cost lives

“Things in our country run in spite of government, not by aid of it.” — Will Rogers

Down in Concord, the big news last month, i.e. February 12, was the defeat of yet another gun control bill. The NH House killed HB 1589 by the overwhelming vote of 242 – 118. The battle is over, but could always reappear.

How would you have voted? Do you think we should require a background check for every gun buyer except for criminals? Okay, that isn’t exactly what the bill said but that would have been its effect. Common sense tells you that criminals would not have obeyed this new law any more than they obey existing laws.

Some months ago I came upon some people holding signs for “universal background checks”. I asked one of them, “How are you going to get the criminals to submit to a check?” His answer was, “We probably won’t. So what?” His side apparently wants to do background checks on all the law-abiding people who would pass a background check, but not do checks on any of the criminals who would fail a check.

Supporters admit that the bill would have had no affect on criminals, and they admitted at a hearing that it would not have stopped the Newtown tragedy or any of the other terrible shootings. But what if the bill could save just one life? Sadly, all such bills are more likely to cost a life than save a life.

One simple fact that the gun controllers don’t understand is that guns are used in America far more to STOP crime than to cause crime.  A wheel-chair bound grandfather uses his gun to stop an armed robbery in a restaurant. A mother saves herself and her two kids by shooting a home invader. There are hundreds of thousands, even millions, of episodes every year where a law-abiding citizen stops a crime, usually without even firing a shot.

Gun haters often say that guns are designed for one thing – to kill people. But that is nonsense. By most estimates, there are about 300 million guns in America. 299.99 million of those guns never killed anyone. Did they not work as designed? Or could it be that their owners never had any intentions of killing anyone?

No, guns are not designed to kill people. They are designed to DEFEND against people who would kill or rob or rape others. Throughout history there have been thugs who used knives, baseball bats, or simply their fists to victimize the weaker, the aged, the infirm, the women. Very few of us are martial-arts experts able to defend ourselves without a weapon. Firearms make it possible for a little old woman to defend herself against a big strong man.

The fastest-growing group of gun owners is women. They are buying guns to defend themselves and their families. Many are carrying their guns concealed. That gives thugs something to think about. Criminals are lazy; they go where the pickings are easy. If they think a woman might be carrying a gun, they will go looking for easier prey.

There is a photo going ’round the web of a woman shooting an assault rifle. The caption says, “You are not for women’s rights when you want to strip them of their right of self-defense.”

The right of self-defense is the most fundamental of all rights. Every living creature has the right of self-defense – not just defend self, but defend family and community. Just picture a mother bear defending her cubs. A bear has natural built-in weapons but a human mother needs artificial weapons to defend her children.

For self-defense, a firearm is the most useful tool yet invented. Just showing a gun can scare a criminal away. Nothing else can do that, not a Taser, not pepper spray, not a knife, definitely not calling 911. If a criminal continues to threaten, a gun can stop him before he can hurt or kill the victim. Virtually every would-be victim is capable of using a gun. It does not require special strength, agility, or training.

Guns have been called the great equalizer because even the weak, infirm, or untrained can be the equal of the criminal. Without guns the weak are at the mercy of the strong, the ordinary person at the mercy of an attacker who is well trained in fighting or knife work.

In his excellent “Opinion on Gun Control”, Larry Correia reports that “The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5.” Armed civilians save lives. The other side tries to dispute that fact by defining mass shootings as only those shootings in which 4 or more people are killed. They throw away the shootings that would have killed dozens or even hundreds but an armed citizen stopped the criminal early.

The many gun control laws have no effect on the criminals. But for law-abiding citizens, these laws cost time and money. In effect, they tilt the balance in favor of the criminal. One or two victims won’t have guns. That is why these misguided laws are more likely to COST lives than save lives.

War on the middle class

Victor Davis Hanson suggests that the middle class is hardest hit on many political issues:

• ObamaCare
• student loans
• immigration
• gun control
• energy policy
• the Fed’s quantitative easing

Hanson writes (my emphasis):

On almost every left-right issue that divides Democrats and Republicans — as well as Republicans themselves — there is a neglected populist constituency.

The result is that populist politics are largely caricatured as Tea Party extremism — and a voice for the middle class is largely absent.

The problem with ObamaCare is that its well-connected and influential supporters — pet businesses, unions and congressional insiders — have already won exemption from it.

The rich will always have their concierge doctors and Cadillac health plans. The poor can usually find low-cost care through Medicaid, federal clinics and emergency rooms.

In contrast, those who have lost their preferred individual plans, or will pay higher premiums and deductibles, are largely members of the self-employed middle class. They are too poor to have their own exclusive health care coverage but too wealthy for most government subsidies. So far, ObamaCare is falling hardest on the middle class.

Consider the trillion-dollar student loan mess. Millions of young people do not qualify for grants predicated on either income levels, ancestry or both. Nor are their parents wealthy enough to pay their tuition or room-and-board costs. The result is that the middle class — parents and students alike — has accrued a staggering level of student loan debt.

Illegal immigration also largely comes at the expense of the middle class. The supporters of amnesty tend to be poor foreign nationals who desire amnesty. Corporate employers and the elites of the identity-politics industry do not care under what legal circumstances foreign nationals enter the United States.

Lost in the debate over “comprehensive immigration reform” are citizen entry-level job seekers of all different races who cannot leverage employers for higher wages when millions of foreign nationals, residing illegally in the U.S., will work for less money. …

Middle-class taxpayers are most responsible for providing parity in subsidized housing, legal costs, health care and education for those who entered the country illegally, especially once corporate employers have let their undocumented older or injured workers go.

There is a populist twist to proposed new federal gun-control legislation as well. The wealthy or politically influential, who often advocate stricter laws for others, usually take for granted their own expensive security details, many of them armed.

In contrast, new gun-control initiatives would mostly fall on the law-abiding who hunt and wish to defend their own families and homes with their own legal weapons.

Energy policy has become a boutique issue for the wealthy who push costly wind, solar and biofuels, subsidized mostly by the 53% of Americans who actually pay federal income taxes and are most pressed by the full costs of higher fuel, electricity and heating costs.

The Federal Reserve’s policy of quantitative easing and de facto zero interest rates have stampeded investors desperate for even modest returns from the stock market — to the delight of wealthy Wall Street grandees. The poor are eligible for both debt relief and cheap (and often subsidized) mortgage rates that remain near historic lows.

The real losers are frugal members of the middle class. For the last five years they have received almost no interest on their modest passbook savings accounts. In other words, we are punishing thrift and reminding modest savers that they might have been better off either borrowing or gambling on Wall Street.

 

Gun control myths demolished

This video does a good job of demolishing some gun control myths, e.g. “gun control prevents gun crime”. To those of us who remember that “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”, there is no surprise in the video itself. The only surprise is that it was broadcast prime time by ABC News (20/20).

• Since Washington’s gun ban passed, the murder rate actually increased, even while in the rest of the country it went down.
• Guns can also save lives.
• Just pulling out the gun was enough to stop [the bad guys].
• In the 40 states that allow concealed carry, there is no more violent crime than in states where guns are restricted.
• After Kennesaw, GA required every home to have a gun, violent crime decreased.
• Felons said they feared an armed victim much more than the police.
• Felons said they didn’t worry about gun laws, they would carry a gun anyway.
• We don’t know how often guns stopped criminals because who reports a crime that didn’t happen?
• People use guns in self-defense every day. Often, just showing the gun is enough to stop the crime.
• The National Academy of Sciences reviewed hundreds of studies and could not document a single gun regulation that reduced violent crime.
• If some [bad guy] gets in your house, which would you rather have: a handgun or a telephone?

The timing of this story is a bit strange. The blogosphere has had at least a dozen posts on this video in the last month. But it was originally broadcast in December 2010. Every few months since then another post appears as if the story is new. I don’t know why there was a flurry of activity this past October.

Colorado recall elections bigger than we realized

By now, you have heard the news that two State Senators – one actually the President of the Senate – lost recall elections due to their votes for gun control and against Due Process.

You probably did not know that:

• These were the only successful recall elections in the 100 years since the recall law was passed.
• Obama carried both districts by 20% last year.
• Pro-gun control forces spent much more than the pro gun rights forces – about $3 million to about half a million.
• Signers of the recall petitions were about 20% Democrat. Together, Independents and Democrats outnumbered Republican signers.
• In the Giron district, Democrats outnumbered Republicans 47% to 23%.

Gun rights supporters, i.e. supporters of the civil right to bear arms to defend self, family, and community, knew that many Democrats also defend that right. Now the whole country knows it.

Americans Own Nearly Half of the Privately Owned Guns on Earth

That’s awesome! (as Glenn Reynolds says) In less than 20 years the number has grown from about 200 million to almost 300 million guns in the U.S. With Obama as the best gun salesman in history, it might not be long until we have one gun for every man, woman, and child.

The more that law-abiding citizens are armed to protect themselves, their families, their communities, the more that criminals know that fact, the more those criminals will fear the innocent citizens around them and the safer those law-abiding citizens will be.

Down in Concord

“Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs.” — P.J. O’Rourke

Every so often someone writes yet another column asking “Why can’t Republicans and Democrats get along? Can’t they talk to each other, work together, find a compromise?” The short answer is “We do, most of the time.” A second answer is “There are times when we should not.”

The simple truth is that NH legislators do work together, are very civil to each other (with rare, though well publicized, exceptions), and often become life-long friends. Anyone who says otherwise either has not observed first hand how the legislature works or is trying to make a political point. All too often, it is a mixture of both. Someone starts a narrative about the mean old nasty so and so party, repeats it over and over again, then people with no first hand knowledge come to believe it. (After all, politicians never lie.)

Let’s start with some anecdotal evidence, then some numbers. Earlier this year I went down to Concord to testify against a bill. It happened that one of my former colleagues, a very left Democrat, also testified against that same bill and he happened to go first. Later, when I testified, I remarked that this was the first time in two years that he and I had agreed on a bill. Later, we met out in the hall and laughed together. We encouraged each other to convince other members of our two parties. (The bill was eventually defeated with a bipartisan vote.)

Last session, a hard left Democrat and a hard right Republican worked closely together on a particular bill. Coincidentally, the two were geographically on the far left and far right sides of the state. They both worked very hard to pass their bill; they managed one of the rare instances of overturning a committee recommendation on the House floor. I was happy to work with both of them on that bill. Later the two of them worked together on another bill.

Now let’s look at some numbers. This year the House and Senate passed 281 bills. A full 188 of those bills, were passed by the House on the Consent Calendar. For those who may not have read my previous columns, suffice it to say that bills on Consent have all but unanimous support. Two-thirds of all the bills that were passed, were unanimous. (And of the bills that were killed, many, perhaps most, were also unanimous.)

So any time you hear complaints about legislators being mean and nasty to each other, not working together, please realize that it is almost always someone trying to stir up trouble for partisan advantage. The truth is that they DO work together, usually in a collegial, respectful atmosphere.

But there are times when they should not compromise. Suppose a Democrat and a Republican decide to drive down to New York City. For those who are geographically impaired, NYC is mostly South and a little West of us. Now let’s suppose that the two politicians approach an intersection. The Democrat wants to turn left and head North; the Republican wants to turn right and head South. Should they compromise and head East?

On some issues the division is just as stark as the choice between driving North or South – it makes no sense to compromise on East.

Republicans, generally speaking, want to cut taxes; Democrats want to increase taxes. This year Democrats pushed hard for an increase in the gas tax of 15 cents. They later offered a compromise of 12 cents. Why should Republicans compromise on any increase at all, when what we really want is to reduce taxes?

Democrats for the most part want bigger, more powerful government. Republicans want smaller, limited government. How can the two sides compromise when they are such opposites? (Historically, Republicans have compromised on a little bigger here, a little bigger there – which is one reason many people think there is little difference between the two parties.)

Affordable health care is a nice goal. The two parties have opposite solutions. Democrats thought the solution was to write a 2,000+ page bill, write tens of thousands of pages of regulations, hire 10,000 IRS agents. Now even many of the original supporters realize that Obamacare is a train wreck in progress.

Republicans know that the solution to more affordable, higher quality health care is a free market, with many providers competing to find the best solution at the best price. This approach has proven to work and is working today in those places where government regulations allow it.

Some Democrats call for compromise on so-called “gun safety.” What they fail to understand is that the criminals don’t obey the existing 10,000 laws and won’t obey one additional gun law. Republicans understand that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Republicans believe that self-defense is a fundamental right, that a woman has the right to choose whether to carry a handgun to protect herself against a rapist. Would Democrats compromise and allow any woman for her safety and the safety of her children to carry a concealed weapon without a permit?

Democrats and Republicans do compromise on a large majority of bills, but on some issues they cannot and should not compromise.

Crowd sizes tell a story

“Audit the IRS” Tea Party rally in Washington – 10,000 to 12,000.

Obama speaks in Berlin – 4,500. Five years ago 200,000 came out to see him. One report labeled his speech a “disaster”:

Sweating profusely in front of a relatively small crowd as his teleprompter failed him, Barack Obama looked every bit the stumbling and mumbling individual some close to him have long whispered he truly is…

President Obama repeated lines, his voice wavered, he looked confused, the crowd’s response was tepid, and he was clearly sweating through his clothes.  It was among the worst public performances of his presidency.

Organizing for Action gathers a whopping three people for gun-control rally in California.

 

Obama is a lame duck

“Obama is becoming an increasingly bitter and powerless figure. When a man who views himself as a world-historic figure and our Moral Superior commands things to happen and they don’t, it isn’t a pretty sight.” — Peter Wehner writing about Obama’s tirade in the Rose Garden after losing gun control.

Down in Concord

“Politicians and diapers have one thing in common: they should both be changed regularly… and for the same reason.” — unknown

Last week the House finished all of its bills except for the three big budget bills. Two bills, HB 135 and HB 617, received lengthy debate as expected.

By a narrow margin of 189-184, the House passed HB 135, restricting the right to defend self, family, and community against deadly force. Sullivan County Republicans Grenier, Rollins, and Smith voted to protect your rights; Democrats Cloutier, Gagnon, Gottling, Irwin, Lefebvre, O’Hearn, Schmidt, and Sweeney voted to restrict your rights.

HB 617, increasing the gas tax by 67% – the largest tax increase in state history – was passed on a mostly party-line vote. Both sides agreed that we should spend more money on roads and bridges. Republicans argued that the Highway Fund has more than enough money if we would simply spend it on actual highways rather than diverting one-third of it to agencies that have nothing to do with constructing and maintaining our highways. Every Sullivan County Democrat voted for the tax increase. Republicans Rollins and Smith voted against the tax increase.

The House has finished all but three of its bills. Those three are the big budget bills, HB 1 and HB 2, which deal with the operating budget, and HB 25, which does the capital budget. When I say “big” I mean both literally and figuratively – HB 1 is about 800 pages long. Total appropriations are more than $11 billion, or 10.2% higher than the current budget.

The operating budget is divided into two parts. HB 1 is a giant spreadsheet. (As of this writing it is available only as a PDF file. Later it will be downloadable as an Excel file.) If you suffer from insomnia, trying to read all of those numbers should put you to sleep. By contrast, HB 2 is lots of words. It has changes to the law to allow money to be spent the way HB 1 says.

Current law may say one thing about how money is to be spent, but if the budget writers want to spend it differently, they just add a section to HB 2 to make it legal for them to break the law. A typical example is Sec. 2, which states “Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, … revenue sharing with cities and towns shall be suspended for the biennium”. The word “suspend” appears 23 times in HB 2; “notwithstanding” appears 44 times.

When debating HB 617, the massive gas tax increase, Democrats promised that all the new money would go to roads and bridges. The proposed HB 2 budget bill illustrates how easily the budget writers can break a promise. They just add a short paragraph saying that a section of law is suspended for the biennium.

Interestingly, the proposed budget does not spend any more money on roads and bridges. In fact, it spends LESS. The  department of Transportation (DOT) portion of the Highway Fund is reduced from $222 million in the current budget down to $192 million in the proposed budget. Total DOT spending from all funds is down from $567 million this year to less than $551 million next year. Yes, that’s right. After telling us how important it is to spend more money on roads and bridges, they propose to spend less money in their new budget. Tell me again why taxpayers have to cough up MORE money for the new gas tax, when the Democrats plan to spend LESS money. More and more it appears that they want the new gas tax not to improve our highway infrastructure, but to pay for all sorts of other programs.

There is (at least) one other way the budget writers break past promises. They grab money that was promised to be used for a specific purpose. Within state government there are hundreds of programs that collect fees to pay for particular activities. These moneys are supposedly dedicated to a particular purpose separate from all other general government activities. One prominent example is the Land and Community Heritage Investment Program (LCHIP). A $25 fee on mortgage transactions is intended to fund land and historic conservation. For five years, when money was tight, that money was moved out of the dedicated fund to the general fund to balance the budget.

Two years ago, the budget writers had the decency to transparently specify in the budget that they were taking money from LCHIP for the general fund. This year the budgeteers don’t say what dedicated funds they will raid. They delegate to the governor authority to choose which funds to raid to come up with $22 million to “balance” the budget.

The new budget was passed by the House Finance Committee just two days ago. It has been visible to the public for not much more than one day. As people have more time to scrutinize, no doubt we will learn even more troubling details.

The Finance Committee will hold a public briefing on the two big budget bills. I don’t want to suggest that their budget is a joke but the briefing is on April Fools’ Day.

On April 3rd, the full House will vote on these three budget bills, then during the next two months the Senate will amend – perhaps extensively – the House budget.

So-called “assault weapon” ban fails big

Diane Feinstein’s proposed ban on defensive weapons that she thinks are scary looking is dead, dead, dead. Harry Reid says it couldn’t get even 40 votes, much less the 60 votes it would need.

Still undeservedly alive is the other major gun control bill. It would require so-called Universal Background Checks. The idiotic thing about it is that it applies only to the good guys. “Universal” is anything but universal, for the simple reason that the bad guys never go through any background checks.

All of these gun control proposals make it harder for the good guys to obtain defensive weapons, and do absolutely nothing to stop the bad guys.

Gun control is not a solution

David Bowen (letter, February 19) implies that the solution to the world’s problems is yet more gun control. Never mind that this has not worked, and never mind that cities with the toughest gun control, e.g. Chicago, New York, and Washington, DC, have the worst murder rate. And never mind that states with much less gun control, e.g. Vermont (which allows all residents to carry a concealed weapon without a permit) and New Hampshire, are among the safest.

Here is one more fact for Mr. Bowen to consider: Criminals don’t obey laws. Passing evermore gun laws will have zero effect on criminals because they don’t obey the gun laws. Some politicians suggest that we should have universal background checks. Sounds sensible until you realize that “universal” means everybody except criminals. They buy their guns on the street without going through any background check.

Here is another fact: More people are killed each year by hammers and other blunt instruments than are killed with a rifle, “assault” or otherwise. More people are killed with fists than with any kind of rifle. A 2011 FBI report shows 323 killed by a rifle, 496 killed by “clubs, hammers, etc.”, and 726 by “hands, fists, feet, etc.” So why then do the gun controllers place so much emphasis on eliminating so-called “assault rifles” that are hardly ever used to kill anyone?

Another fact is that the fastest growing group of gun owners is women. In the last eight years the percent of women who own a gun has grown from 13% to 23%. They are buying guns to defend themselves against criminals who would assault, rob, rape, or murder them in spite of laws to the contrary.

The simple truth is that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens actually save lives. It doesn’t often make the news because no shot is fired, nobody is hurt. The intended victim is able to scare away the criminal merely by brandishing a pistol, or in some cases an AR-15. In rare cases, such as a woman hiding with her young son after hearing an intruder break into her house, the victim kills a criminal and saves not just herself and her son but future victims of that criminal.

(Printed in the Intertown Record, February 26.)

Down in Concord

“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies.”
— Groucho Marx

The House has passed 82 bills and has killed 89. There are about 380 House bills left to consider. March 14 is the last day for the House to act on most bills. Some bills, mostly those that have a fiscal impact, go to a second committee. Those bills have a deadline of March 28. The monster budget bills have a deadline of April 7.

In my last column, I mentioned that it is rare for the House to overturn a committee recommendation. Perhaps that statement jinxed the proceedings because, lo and behold, the House did it again, twice.
HB 325, relative to public employee suggestions for cost-saving measures, would reward state employees with a cash bonus for any cost-saving suggestions they make. The committee recommended Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL) on a split decision. The House vote was a very rare tie vote with the Speaker voting to create the tie. Since a tie vote is not enough for a motion to succeed, there was then a motion to pass the bill, which then passed by a 199-162 vote.
HB 388, provides civil immunity to the owner of a firearm in the event the firearm is stolen and used in the commission of a felony or a misdemeanor. The committee recommended ITL by 12-6 but the House defeated that motion by 167-192, then passed the bill by 211-151.

As I forecast last time, the House killed on a voice vote, HB 330, which would have allowed counties to adopt an income tax. It voted by 201-135 for an increase in the tobacco tax, voted 192-161 against slowly reducing the business enterprise tax, and repealed the education tax credit program by 188-151.

In an earlier column I wrote against HB 148, which proposed to change the way New Hampshire casts its votes for President. Our electoral votes would have been awarded to the winner of the national popular vote, even if New Hampshire voters went overwhelmingly for the other candidate. The House Election Law committee has recommended to kill that awful bill and I trust the full House will go along next Wednesday.

In last week’s column I wrote about four bills with public hearings on 2/19 or 2/21. HB 617, raising the gas tax, not only had a hearing it had a committee recommendation. Sadly, but not terribly surprising, the committee recommended to increase the gas tax – by a whopping 83%! The House will vote on 2/27 so there is time for you to contact your representatives and oppose this tax increase. They likely will respond that our roads and bridges badly need maintenance, but that answer is a non sequitur. It is not necessary to increase taxes; what is needed is to set priorities to use our existing taxes for road maintenance. The new taxes – amounting to $1 billion over the next decade – allow them to spend more money on other programs.

Four gun bills had lengthy – almost all day – hearings in Reps’ Hall. I estimate 80-100 people showed up, overwhelmingly on the side of law-abiding citizens having the right to bear arms in defense of self, family, and community. I spoke in favor of HB 451 and HB 609, and against HB 290 and HB 396. All four bills are scheduled for committee Executive Sessions on 2/28. My guess is that the two bad bills will be recommended ITL unanimously, and the two good bills will be ITL’d on party line votes.

The week of February 26-29, there will be another 26 public hearings, and the House will vote on 103 more bills. Here are some of the more interesting bills to be heard:

HB 544, repealing the prohibition on a state health exchange (part of Obamacare). Almost weekly there is more evidence that we were wise last year to prohibit a health exchange. Obamacare will cost much more than originally promised, it raises taxes on almost everybody (not just the “rich”), and it is costing jobs. Instead of lowering the costs of health care, it is increasing those costs. We should avoid every possible connection with it. But Democrats all too often judge a program by its intentions, not by its results. Obamacare “intends” to reduce health care costs so therefore they think it actually does. HB 544 is a step toward entrapment in the tentacles of the Obamacare monster. It should be defeated but the Democrats are calling for full steam ahead toward government-run health care.

HB 606, relative to community rating, actually would reduce health insurance costs so naturally the Democrats will oppose it. “Community rating” was then-Governor Shaheen’s plan to reform health insurance. It quickly (and predictably) led to the departure of most insurance companies and some of the highest health insurance rates in the country. HB 606 would reverse that bad decision and eventually bring more competition and lower costs back to the New Hampshire insurance market.

We still don’t know much more about Governor Hassan’s proposed budget because she has not delivered her draft of HB 2, which is an essential part of the budget process. By law it was due on February 15.

Down in Concord

“Lord, the money we do spend on Government and it’s not one bit better than the government we got for one-third the money twenty years ago.”
— Will Rogers

To date, the House has passed 50 bills – some good, some bad. It has killed 53 – some bad, some good. That leaves only about 490 House bills left to consider. And then the House will consider Senate bills and vice versa.

For legislative nerds such as myself, there was one fun outcome. HB 136 (sponsored by a Democrat) proposed to increase the pay for State Reps to attend meetings of the county convention. The House Committee on Municipal and County Government unanimously recommended in favor of this bill, and further recommended that it be placed on the Consent Calendar.

What, pray tell, is the Consent Calendar? I’m glad you asked. Every week, generally on Thursdays, the House Clerk publishes a calendar of legislative events for the following week. (You can see them at http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/caljourns/default.htm.) The three main sections of the calendar are the Consent Calendar, the Regular Calendar, and Committee Meetings.

Items on the Consent Calendar are considered non-controversial, not needing further debate, and are handled with a single voice vote for the entire group of items. Bills on the Regular Calendar are subject to separate debate and separate votes. Any one Representative may “pull” an item off of the Consent Calendar and have it discussed at the end of the Regular Calendar.

HB 136 was pulled off of Consent by a Representative who was not comfortable with the idea of Reps voting themselves a pay increase while voting for budget cuts in their counties. After several Reps spoke against the bill, it was defeated on a roll call of nearly 2-1 (116-228).

It is rare for a bill to be pulled from Consent, even rarer for the full House to overturn a committee recommendation. So the defeat of this bill – well deserved – was fun to see. It may be the last time that happens this year.

The House thankfully killed HB 168, which would have increased the beer tax, and killed CACR 2, which would have led to increased taxes. Sadly, but not surprisingly, it also killed CACR 1, which would have made it harder to increase taxes.

Also not surprisingly, the House killed HB 323, which would have given workers the freedom to choose whether or not to join a union. Should people be forced to join a union in order to work for the state government?

By a narrow margin (186-165), mostly on party lines, the House passed HB 185, which increases by 25% a tax on fuel oil. The bill now goes to a second committee, where there is a (slim) possibility the tax can be killed. Most bills go to just one committee, then to the House floor, and then if passed, to the Senate. Bills that raise or spend money go to a second committee. HB 185 first went to the Resources, Recreation, and Development Committee. Now that it has been approved by the full House, it goes to the Ways & Means committee, then back to the House for a second vote.

Four bills from last week’s column will get floor votes on Wednesday, February 20. HB 330, which would have allowed a county income tax almost surely will be killed. That is the only good news. HB 335, which would have blocked an increase in the tobacco tax, probably will be killed on a near party line vote. Republicans oppose a tax increase because it will particularly hurt the poor, and because it will hurt business in towns close to the borders, where neighboring states’ residents come to shop.

Democrats oppose HB 335 and oppose HB 354, which would have reduced the Business Enterprise Tax, because they think with higher tax rates they will get more money for them to spend. They don’t realize that slightly lower taxes now can encourage more businesses to open or expand in NH, thus increasing tax revenue in the future.

HB 370 would repeal school choice for lower income families. The current Education Tax Credit allows businesses to donate money to a scholarship organization, and then take a partial credit against their business taxes for their donation. The scholarships are targeted toward families with below-average income. Recipients can send their kids to a public charter school, to a different public school, or to a private or parochial school.

Democrats proposed HB 370 to repeal the Education Tax Credit. For a party that claims to believe in a woman’s right to choose, the Democrats oppose a woman’s right to choose what school to send her children to. They think the government should make that choice for her, based solely on her zip code, not on what is best for her children. They claim that the program costs money that should be spent on public schools, but the fiscal analysis shows that repealing the program will actually cost the state money.

The repeal probably will pass the House on a party line vote. If you believe in lower-income families having more choice about which school is best for their children, there is still time for you to contact your Reps and ask them to oppose this bill.

The week of February 19-22, there will be another 113 public hearings, and the House will vote on 74 more bills. Here are some of the more interesting hearings:

Tuesday, 2/19 10:30 in LOB (Legislative Office Building) room 201 – HB 617, increasing the gasoline tax and registration fees. Anyone who wants to testify can just show up and sign in, then wait your turn.

Wednesday, 2/20 9:15 LOB 102 – SB 183, repealing photo ID for voting.

Thursday 2/21 10:00 in Representatives’ Hall, HB 290 and then HB 609, both having to do with carrying firearms. They obviously expect a very large turnout to have scheduled Reps’ Hall instead of a normal LOB committee room.

HB 290 would prohibit unlicensed persons from openly carrying a pistol or revolver in a public building. The sponsors clearly don’t understand this simple truth: law-abiding citizens obey the law, criminals ignore the law. Criminals don’t openly carry weapons; they carry concealed without a license. This bill would take defensive weapons away from the good guys and do nothing to take guns away from the bad guys.

HB 609 would allow the voters of each school district to authorize licensed school employees to carry a concealed weapon on school property. We all hope that the occasion will never arise where a criminal intent on mass murder makes his way into a school, but if the unthinkable happens, would you want a licensed school employee to be able to stop the murderer? This bill does not mandate concealed weapons; it lets the voters of each district make that decision. This is local control as it should be. One other point – some bad guys will be deterred just by the thought that some adults might be armed, even if in fact nobody is actually armed.

In the coming weeks we will learn more about Governor Hassan’s proposed budget. Already it is apparent that her revenue estimates are unrealistically high. Legislators will have to make some hard spending choices that she avoided making.

The El Paso Miracle

El Paso, Texas, has high poverty and minimal gun control. It’s right across the river from one of the most violent cities in the western hemisphere, Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. Yet, El Paso is one of the safest big cities in the U.S.

Chicago, famously, has strict gun control and is one of the most dangerous cities in the country. Gee, maybe gun control doesn’t work quite the way its proponents imagine.

How’s that gun control working out?

Chicago has some of the toughest gun control laws in the country. It’s also the murder capital of the United States. In the past 10 years more Americans have been murdered in Chicago than killed in the Afghanistan war.

In a city where it is illegal to buy a handgun, the bad guys have no trouble getting them. More than three-quarters of the 4,797 homicides were committed with a handgun. A rifle, e.g. an AR-15, was used less than 1% of the time.

Compared to Chicago, Afghanistan is relatively peaceful. 2,166 Americans were killed.

Less than a mile from President Obama’s Chicago home, an innocent teenager was one of the more recent homicides. With her death Chicago’s January has had more murders than any other January in more than a decade.