The article revolves around Senate Bill 116, which addresses the concealment of firearms without a permit in New Hampshire. The bill would attempt to legally allow individuals to do this without recourse from the law. The law is essentially a push towards less strict gun control laws, in an attempt to remove restrictions on those who wish to carry their firearms in the public sector. This issue is the underlying element in the articles that present the problem in light of the legal struggles. These struggles are between those who value public safety and those who value freedom to carry firearms.
This bill, however, was ultimately rejected by the state senator, Maggie Hassan, who vetoed the bill in favor of the current gun control laws. She argued that the current laws were adequate for their purpose, and used those grounds to support her position in opposition to the reframing of the gun control laws. By doing so, she set a precedent that other governors could follow in opposition to the legislation. This precedent essentially allows others to follow the lead that was set in this case, and prevent future legislation from passing.
The governor goes on to discuss this trend across the nation and the growing public concern over overreaching and non-commonsensical gun control laws. This is further evidenced by the growing number of governors across the country who are rejecting these types of reforms. In this way, the opposition to these changes is steadily increasing. This change can be seen on a national scale. While the precedent was set by the New Hampshire governor, others around the country shortly followed her example.
Numerous reasons for the change in this law have been given. First of all, the current laws, though they are argued to work, are also vague, and it is difficult to discern the correct legal framework due to the abstract wording. Changes to these laws would attempt to alleviate these issues through a rewording of the legal framework that the law is built around as well as the language it uses. This rewording would essentially allow the lawmakers to restructure the guidelines around which gun control regulation has traditionally be framed.
Another reason for the change in legislation is an ideological one. Those who backed the bill argued that it was a constitutional right of individuals to carry firearms. In this way, laws limiting their use would be unconstitutional. For this reason, changes to the laws were drafted, although they were ultimately rejected by the Governor. This rejection allowed the movement against the increase of anti-gun control legislation to take root and provided a legal framework for their ability to legislate further around the issue.
These articles discuss the opposition of the New Hampshire state Governor to the proposed restructuring of gun control laws. The issue in this case is that the second amendment guarantees these rights, however, the extent to which this right should infringe on public safety is debatable. For this reason, many lawmakers take the position of leaving the current legal structures in place. This common sense approach is becoming a standard in the legal world, as the importance of moderation is becoming increasingly well-regarded. In this way, the ideas of both those who see the issue from a conservative light and those who see it from a progressive light are beginning to come together in order to tighten the tide of changing gun control laws.
