To the editor,
Rep. Cormier of Alton has characterized the actions of the Belknap County Republican caucus' incredibly partisan invocation of RSA 24:14 as an effort toward checks and balances to the budget, giving voice to the people. What she fails to mention is the damage that this action has created, and the dictatorial and undemocratic character of it.
What dire emergency has come to pass that this extreme measure was brought to bear? Has the relationship between the commissioners and the county delegation somehow slipped into chaos? Is the delegation so bereft of management skills that this disagreement could not be settled in negotiation? If so, woe betides the legislature. This kind of blunt force action is an unconscionably poor choice that is indicative of either a total failure in leadership (most evident at the hearing) or a grandstand political stunt.
Speaking to the issue of "giving voice to the people", every Belknap County voter who participated in the last election indicated a choice for who they wanted to run the county. This delegation's usurpation of commissioner's responsibility negates the voter's choice, and is more than troubling; it is trampling on democracy itself. Who are you to so lightly negate the will of the people as they voted? You have broken faith with your constituents, skewed the working governance of the county, and created a partisan impasse with the minority delegates. All of this over a fiscal problem that should have been solved with elementary administrative skills. But I forget, to this caucus, proclaiming principle is more important than problem solving.
Call your delegate and demand that the delegation rescind the 24:14 motion. It may be legal, but it is wrong, inappropriate, and unproductive. Tell them that your vote is not theirs to caste aside. If there were a disaster that destroyed the county commission, it would be an appropriate act. Under this circumstance, it represents the worst in governance.
Andrew Sanborn
Sanbornton

To the editor,
If you have contacted a local or federal anti-gun representative regarding gun control, the response (if you get one) is canned. So I propose the following canned response to their canned response.
"By your canned response I see that you are marching in lockstep with the Obama administration on this issue. You say you strongly support the Second Amendment, but, as one who actually does support the Second Amendment, you must lack my level of conviction.
You source the famed 'Luntz Survey', as is every other anti-gun politician and member of the liberal media. It famously declares most NRA members as being for background checks for all purchases at gun shows. This study was paid for by a rabid anti-gun group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns. The results being reported are based on the results of misleading questions. For example, most gun owners DO agree that gun sellers at gun shows should be required to perform background checks. That is because gun shows are vastly operated by gun DEALERS who are required by federal law to perform background checks. If the question had been more clear — had the respondents been asked if background checks should be required for all private sale transactions and transfers, including gifts and inheritances, (as is being proposed) the results of the poll would have been totally inverted, and Mayors Against Illegal Guns wouldn't have paid for Luntz's services in the future. When you see a poll, the first question should always be, 'who is paying for it, and why?'
You use the catchphrase, 'Gun Violence.' Come on. It is murder. It is violent, senseless, heartless murder. 'Gun Violence' PURPOSELY takes the focus off the crime and focuses the act on the instrument used, because that is the objective; controlling private ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens (Republicans mostly, the people that voted against you, as you are surely aware.) It predetermines law abiding people as guilty for crimes they did not nor will not commit. It is like blaming the phallus of every man for the acts of a rapist — it makes no sense, it is illogical, it is bizarre — but with the media behind you there will be a certain level of success, especially with the Honey Boo-Boo crowd. And on a side note, why do we ignore the murders occurring in inner cities which account for the vast majority of crimes used in these statistics, yet exist in areas where guns are prohibited?
High capacity magazines... what is a high capacity magazine, besides what the anti-gun crowd define as such? Did we see a massive reduction in shootings after the '94 ban? How could Columbine have occurred? What happens to the millions of existing magazines after such a ban? What will prevent the bad guys from making them, or importing them — I mean, if people can bring illegal immigrants, pot, cocaine etc. into this country, why not guns and magazines? So what we have is simply an incremental step in disarming America. Hunting and shooting sports will be destroyed, self-defense will be hindered (surely we will not deplete the magazine capacity of those who protect our elected officials), the spirit behind the Second Amendment will be stomped on, and it will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stop another school shooting. And when that next school shooting does occur, that incident will be exploited to take away 10 round magazines... then sniper rifles, scatter guns, Saturday night Specials, etc. We know the routine, this is about getting rid of guns, if we wanted to stop school shootings we'd protect our kids at least as well as we protect our money.
I'm sure this e-mail will have little effect on your opinion on the matter, you probably spent your life hoping for the opportunity to promote such an agenda. Just realize that as a constituent, I feel like you guys are blaming me, punishing me and demonizing me for the acts of brutal, horrible people to promote an agenda I see as tyrannical. And I have done nothing wrong besides lawfully utilize and embrace the rights handed to me by God and our founding fathers."
Terry Threlfall
Tilton

To the editor,
I am writing today so that everyone who has read my last two letters can fully understand the history of the 2nd Amendment. The original support came from the federal legislative branch, the legislature of each state and the executive branch in the ratification process. This support has also been provided by the U.S. Supreme Court and the supreme court of various states in the rulings that have been made.
In 1837, the state of Georgia passed a statute banning the sale of all pistols (except larger pistols known as "horseman's pistols") and other weapons. The Georgia Supreme Court held that the statute was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment to the federal constitution. It said "...the right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not merely such as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in on, in the slightest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying of a well regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free state."
Prior to the Civil War, the Supreme Court of the United States likewise indicated that the privileges of citizenship included the individual right to own and carry firearms. In the notorious Dred Scott case, the court held that black Americans were not citizens and could not be made such by any state. This decision, which by striking down the Missouri Compromise did so much to bring on the Civil War, listed what the Supreme Court considered the rights of American citizens by way of illustrating what rights would have to be given to black Americans if the court were to recognize them as full fledged citizens:
It would give to persons of the negro race, who are recognized as citizens in any one state of the union, the right to enter every other state, whenever they pleased.... and it would give them full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might meet; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.
In an 1878 ruling the Arkansas Supreme Court held "If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege."
In 1902 a ruling from the Idaho Supreme Court contains the wording of the 2nd Amendment and the wording of the Constitution of Idaho and says "Under these constitutional provisions, the legislature has no power to prohibit a citizen from bearing arms in any portion of the state of Idaho, whether within or without the corporate limits of cities, towns, and villages."
In 1903 the Supreme Court of Vermont, in a ruling on a local ordinance that banned people from carrying pistols said "The people of the state have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state. The result is that Ordinance No. 10, so far as it relates to the carrying of a pistol, is inconsistent with and repugnant to the Constitution and the laws of the state, and it is therefore to that extent, void."
The Colorado Supreme Court held in a 1972 ruling against the city of Lakewood held that "...this ordinance would prohibit gunsmiths, pawnbrokers and sporting goods stores from carrying on a substantial part of their business. Also, the ordinance appears to prohibit individuals from transporting guns to and from such places of business. Furthermore, it makes it unlawful for a person to possess a firearm in a vehicle or in a place of business for the purpose of self-defense. Several of these activities are constitutionally protected."
There are hundreds more rulings from the courts reaffirming our right to bear arms but to me the most defining ruling comes from the Oregon Supreme Court in 1980 where they said, "We are not unmindful that there is current controversy over the wisdom of a right to bear arms, and that the original motivations for such a provision might not seem compelling if debated as a new issue. Our task, however, in construing a constitutional provision is to respect the principles given the status of constitutional guarantees and limitations by the drafters; it is not to abandon these principles when this fits the needs of the moment. Therefore, the term "arms" as used by the drafters of the constitutions probably was intended to include those weapons used by settlers for both personal and military defense. The term 'arms' was not limited to firearms, but included several hand-carried weapons commonly used for defense. The term 'arms' would not have included cannon or other heavy ordnance not kept by militia-men or private citizens."
I believe this series of letters clearly shows that our right to posses and carry "arms" cannot be infringed upon by government at any level. If we want to prevent the tragedy of multiple victim murders then we need to concentrate on identifying and stopping the assailant to prevent these incidents and stop trying to merely change which weapon he or she will use.
Greg Knytych
New Hampton

To the editor,
Today, five hundred some Republican Party delegates will take the first step towards retooling New Hampshire's GOP; their goal is the reversal of last November's drubbing by the Granite State's liberal Democrats, who joined with Independents and demoralized Republicans to reject the party's conservative message... gone stale.
These dedicated representatives of our party will be swimming against a rip ride of rejection of the status quo, when they select the next chairman of the state Republican Party.
Should the five hundred party faithful cast their lot with the same GOP "leadership" who presided over back-to-back election debacles? Should they second the opinions of the old guard, who favor Republicans who've been rejected — resoundingly — by New Hampshire's electorate? Is doing things in lock step with the past, the way to the future of the Grand Old Party?
Or, with the fate of conservatism having in the balance, should they do the unthinkable — and select a chairman with new ideas, an understanding that it now takes more than Republican votes to win, and who has nothing to do with past failures?
This Republican hopes they make the right choice, even though it may mean standing tall against resistance to change.
Bruce Van Derven
Bristol