On the two gun bills coming up for a vote, Rep. Brandon Giuda precisely captured my own thoughts:
Regarding concealed carry permits, if you or anyone else provides me with one legitimate reason to keep mandatory concealed-carry permits, I will consider it. Last year in attempting to determine how many concealed-carry permit holders in NH had committed a violent crime (after receiving their permit), I learned the answer is universally zero.
Therefore, if only law-abiding citizens are getting permits, what purpose does permitting serve?
It is undeniable that criminals don’t abide by the law and carry concealed without ever applying for the permits. Therefore, why do we have a permit system that applies only to law-abiding citizens who commit no violent crimes?
Your example of the man who went to the police station with loaded guns in the front seat of his car is a great example of why permits serve no purpose. He was denied a permit and the denial did absolutely nothing, for after the denial he broke the law. If he wanted to carry concealed without a permit, like criminals do, you wouldn’t have even known about it.
Please explain why you oppose what Vermont has had for years, and has created no problems there. Shouldn’t we hold all Constitutional rights to the same height, or only those you are passionate about?
It really bothers me when the Police Chief’s Association opposes 2nd Amendment laws, when they have absolutely no statistics to support their position. I have discussed this with Robert Wharem (president of that Ass’n) and he doesn’t have one statistic he can point to in support of the position – this was also evident by the lack of statistics in the letter sent to all reps. Therefore, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the Police Chief’s simply want less guns in the hands of citizens, no matter how it tramples on Constitutional rights.