They voted to change the house rules to ban weapons -- guns, pocketknives, possibly all manner of objects -- in not just the house and senate chambers, but the entire state house and LOB, walkways, cafeteria, and so forth. Which must be considered, I am minded to note, to include at least a portion of their parking lot!
And they did this in spite of a house bill last year to similar -- actually, lesser -- effect being considered ITL by 279 representatives out of the 298 who voted. (Yes, that's right, an ostensible 94% majority against the committee's actions.) And further, despite the plain language of the state constitution in Part the First, the bill of rights, in the sections of same which are nowadays commonly numbered as Articles 2a and 8. What do these sections say, you may ask?
2-a. All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.
8. All power residing originally in, and being derived from, the people, all the magistrates and officers of government are their substitutes and agents, and at all times accountable to them. Government, therefore, should be open, accessible, accountable and responsive. To that end, the public’s right of access to governmental proceedings and records shall not be unreasonably restricted.
Lest this be unclear, I have taken the liberty of highlighting certain relevant sections.
The two prongs of this dilemma must surely now be plain before you. Is it a reasonable restriction of my right of access that I should thus forfeit my right of defense, whenever I decide to travel to Concord to listen to or testify at a hearing, or to petition my legislature, or to sit and listen to their proceedings? It is reasonable that my representative, who wishes to defend himself and his peers, should forfeit this right in order that he may properly represent me and my fellow townsfolk?
Clearly, I think not. Clearly, evidently, plainly, as the nose upon one's face, I say this is not only unreasonable but a breach of duty, and an assault upon our state constitution. I do not think treason to be too strong a word.
But what do others think? Specifically, what do my duly elected representatives think? That is to say, the individuals who are purported to represent me and my neighbors in the legislature? Such is the subject of this blog entry, horrified as I was by their individual responses when I spoke with each of them.
As of this writing, I have only spoken with my three representatives in the house. I have not yet spoken with my senator (Deborah Reynolds) or with councillor Ray Burton or with the Governor. I will seek to update this blog with their reaction to this constitutional crisis.
But what, you may be wondering, was the response from the reps for Grafton County District 10? From representatives Townsend, Mulholland, and Laliberte?
The solitary item of good news I can offer is that they each took my call in good part, and spoke plainly of their opinions, and listened to mine. This is a trait common to most state politicians in New Hampshire, albeit not to most of our representatives at the federal level. One or two -- Michael Rollo, for examble -- will dissemble from this position, but broadly speaking the representatives like to provide the appearance that they do indeed represent you, and to maintain a good humor in the face of disagreement. In deference to their good nature, I have done my utmost to represent them fairly herein, and not to take any quotes out of context. My quotes are their exact words, unless I have placed them in square brackets, in which case it is the clear and plain sense of the conversation.
My first conversation, albeit not my first call, was with Suzanne Laliberte, who lives in Enfield Center. She had not heard of the new house rule, and after I explained it to her she made plain that she was in favor of it. "Too many people, because they've got a gun," she explained, "will go right off and start shooting it without any reason whatsoever."
The reader will forgive me, I hope, for my taking a moment to digest what I had just been told before attempting any response. I was incredulous.
She went on to explain how it is just like the "problems with road rage" and pointed out to me "that's why we've got security personnel, the military personnel who are aides to the governor."
(Last I looked, I thought they were acting in the capacity of state police, although I know from speaking with them that some of them are ex-military and I dare say some may be in the reserves or guard. Still, a strange way to perceive things.)
I attempted a conversation with her on the subject of her fellow legislators and their fitness and suitability to carry a concealed weapon. Did she not think that they, at least, should be allowed to carry? She would not budge from her avowed position. At last, a principle I can respect, I thought: she does not elevate the legislators above the people. But alas and alack, it was not to be. Her reasoning was more pragmatic. After all, she demurred, "I don't mean to speak disparagingly of my colleagues. But there are some of them... [she gasped] I hope to hell they don't have guns! I don't think I would trust them with guns!"
I asked whether she had herself seen or heard of any trouble, any problems arising from people carrying weapons in the state house. She said simply, "No." She was also kind enough to clarify that, as she put it, "I feel quite differently about pocketknives." Did she feel differently enough that she would be against the rule, after all? No, indeed not, she has enough of a hard time carrying a cellphone, a prohibition against pocketknives isn't a big deal, even although she herself may have carried one from time to time.
My overall impression was that she finds the idea of guns off-putting. Perhaps she is one of the emotionally sensitive people about whom Chuck Townsend spoke, when I talked with him, below. But first to Catherine Mulholland, of Grafton.
Cathy, too, had not heard of the rule change. I explained it to her, and paused, thinking that she might have a reaction. She did not. When pressed, she said, "It never occurs to me to carry a weapon anywhere." I am not sure whether she was trying to persuade me of her lack of imagination or to make an actual point, but I did take this as something of a bad sign.
She went on, talking about the new rule, "Do I think it is a terrible thing? No. I don't think it is a big deal."
I suggested to her that perhaps the unconstitutionality of it might qualify it as a "big deal". I mentioned the state constitution specifically. Her immediate and off-the-cuff reaction was, "I've never read the constitution, but I suppose so." So shocked and appalled was I, that I could find no better response than to ask her whether she recalled her oath of office. She responded, "Well... I've read bits of it." I enquired as to which bits. "The first twelve pages." She paused, and continued, "I think constitutions are a bit silly, frankly."
She was kind enough to clarify that at the federal level... well, "I've read the US constitution, most of it. You can't become a citizen without reading it." No, you cannot. In fact, you swear allegiance to it in order to become a citizen, as she apparently has done, having come from England. I wonder whether she told the immigration officials that she regarded it as a mere silly thing? Isn't it true that perjury on such matters can be grounds for nullification of one's naturalization papers? But I digress.
Clearly I was on a losing wicket expecting that she might feel any duty to our founding documents. And so it was that I enquired about how she viewed her representative duties, to what principles or persons she considered herself accountable. "Frankly," she said -- and I must agree, she did seem to be speaking her views frankly -- "when you represent people in New Hampshire, you only represent about half of them. The other half you don't represent."
I enquired as to whether it might not be the case that, without regard to which segment of the electorate might have voted for one, shouldn't one, as a representative, be attempting to represent all of the people in one's district? Her response to this was swift and certain. She opined, "I would spend my life in the house in the bathroom if I tried to represent one and all."
I attempted to find common ground, and we rapidly established that her opinion is that representing all interests fairly would result in little getting accomplished. My view is the other side of the same coin, that fewer laws would be enacted and less regulation would be created. She apparently views this as a bad thing as much as it seems to me desirable.
She was, in parting, kind enough to point out that the reps were not paid much. I said, "Thank goodness!" and again I saw that we were looking at different sides of the same coin. Except her coin would be larger than I would wish, and in her pocket. I observed that it would be a shame if this happened, since then we would have less representative government and more career politications. She disputed that this was necessary, and pointed me to a panacea. Apparently she think the Vermont politicians -- and pay scale -- should be a positive example to us all.
Onwards... and so to Charles Townsend of Canaan.
He, at least, was vaguely aware of the new rule, and of the brouhaha surrounding it, having seen some commentary in the day's paper.
He too, was in favor of the rule, especially seeing as it was nothing more or less than a re-enactment of a previous rule (1996-2006). Now, this is not my understanding, but moreover, whatever form the rule used to take it was certainly not acted upon as it is now being contemplated. I understand that people -- both legislators and others -- used to carry in the LOB and throughout most areas, although perhaps not in the gallery of the house chamber, I am not sure. So, whatever the rule may have been, it was clearly not enforced with any vigor.
He attempted to make that the issue, by saying that his understanding -- and he did admit that he looks forward to reading the precise text in more detail -- but nonetheless, his understanding was that, "there would not be any searches or metal detectors or things like that." This seemed rather irrelevant to me, since not only do I fervently believe that the current inclination would be to enforce this rule vigorously, moreover it is a point of principle, and tacitly encouraging the breaking of a rule as you are creating it would be absurd. He acquiesced on that point.
But, he explained, "I am in favor of the principle of not having firearms in the LOB [...this] doesn't do anyone any good[...] I suspect that there have been some people who have been close to out of control in chambers, [who] have been upset by votes. I can see that there's good reason for the legislature to want to make sure that a shooting incident doesn't happen in the legislature. [However] I don't see any reason to be afraid of pocketknives. What the committee is concerned about -- I am sure -- is someone in the gallery shooting as many people as they can."
Like Fort Hood or Virginia Tech, I asked? Yes, yes, like Fort Hood.
Yet he didn't agree that the extent of the loss of life at Fort Hood was exacerbated by the gun-free zone.
I pointed out that the state police are not always present in the gallery, and when they are, it is often one person, and often outside the door. I asked whether it might not be possible that concealed carry might prevent as great a loss of life as would otherwise be possible, in his scenario. He made plain that he had images of a cowboy and western saloon shootout with everyone shooting at and through everyone else, and clearly didn't see this as an improvement on just having the one murderer shooting. I moved on. I spoke of the right to defend oneself. I asked what happened when one left the chamber, and walked to one's car.
He said that I was just being fearful. I explained that I was advocating prudence.
Then, I attempted to bring the conversation back around to the constitutionality of the matter, to the natural rights which underlie this issue. In citing articles 2a and 8, I was prepared for him to be unfamiliar with article 8, but was taken aback that he was not familiar with 2a. So I quoted 2a to him, and summarised 8.
But, critically, and tellingly, he introduced a new concept, indeed what is for him a fundamental right. Namely, the "right" to a "feeling of security". He contemplated that the article 2a right might be "less important than the feeling of security of everyone else who is in the building". I suppose he thinks that the would-be armed man is less entitled to feel secure than everyone else. But moreover, he expounded, "most people feel less secure when others have firearms". I enquired as to whether he was saying that a "feeling of security" is a natural right. He said, "It might be. I don't know." He admitted that I had given him "things to think about".
Yes, indeed, and we need to give this legislature more "things to think about". We need them to think about their oaths, their sacred honor, and their constituents. And above all the sacred and blessed document which is our state constitution and the ideals expressed and embodied within it which together have served us so well for so long.
Live Free or Die! Death is not the worst of Evils!
P.S. It was pointed out to me that, talking of the state constitution, Part 2 Article 8 has some bearing also. It states,
The doors of the galleries, of each house of the legislature, shall be kept open to all persons who behave decently, except when the welfare of the state, in the opinion of either branch, shall require secrecy.Although this is less relevant to me than the right enumerated in Part I Article 8, and although it speaks only to the State House and not to the LOB, this certainly serves only to reinforce the constitutional arguments which have already been advanced.
Constitution trumps statute, and it has been clearly mooted that the committee was acting well outside of its scope of authority in making this rule. Hopefully the speaker will see sense, and soon. If nothing is done to reverse this rule, then we will find ourselves heading down the slipperiest of slopes.
No comments:
New comments are not allowed.