Are New Hampshire lawmakers
The question arises in light of two mishaps last week, both of which were reported on in Friday’s Valley News. In one, Rep. Caleb Dyer, a 20-year-old freshman legislator, somehow missed the ramp leading to a legislative parking garage in Concord and drove his green Buick up on the adjacent concrete barrier, where it remained hung up until a tow truck freed it. No one was injured. In the other, as Rep. Carolyn Halstead, R-Milford, hurried to take her seat for a House Education Committee hearing on all-day kindergarten, her loaded handgun somehow became unmoored and dropped to the floor as she removed her backpack. The gun’s safety was on, and it did not discharge.
Both lawmakers were mortified. “Needless to say, this was pretty embarrassing,” Dyer acknowledged. Halstead, who is licensed to carry a concealed weapon, was rebuked by House Speaker Shawn Jasper and apologized, although we are pretty sure she did not draw the correct lesson from her misadventure. “I don’t normally carry a backpack,” she said. “I guess that’s not a good combination.” Others might argue that the combination of firearms and a public hearing by a legislative committee is much worse, a point previously demonstrated in 2012 by then-Rep. Kyle Tasker, whose pistol fell from his shoulder holster at the start of a House Criminal Justice and Public Safety (!) Committee meeting. Nevertheless, lawmakers and the public continue to be allowed to carry firearms in the Statehouse and the neighboring Legislative Office Building.
A contributing factor to Dyer’s accident may soon be addressed by the House leadership, which is weighing a plan to replace the aging legislative parking garage, with its steep and narrow ramp, with a new one. Meanwhile, the Republican-dominated Legislature appears likely to address problems with concealed-carry handguns by . . . removing the current licensing requirement, which is said to be onerous because law enforcement officials have too much discretion to decide who is suitable to receive a permit and who is not. A Senate committee last week approved a bill to repeal the permit requirement, and the legislation now moves on to the full Senate.
Just how burdensome is the requirement? The one-page application asks for some basic identifying information such as name, address, date and place of birth, height, weight, sex, occupation and employer. (Providing a Social Security number and/or a telephone number is optional; fingerprints and a photo are not required.) The names of three references are required and applicants are asked to affirm that they are not a felon or a drug addict, have not been convicted of domestic violence and haven’t been committed to a mental institution by a court. The law directs authorities to issue the concealed carry license to anyone who has good reason to fear injury to himself or his property, or has any other proper purpose (which is defined to include hunting, target shooting and self-defense) and who is deemed a suitable person. Applicants who are denied can appeal to court, where the burden of demonstrating unsuitability rests with the licensing authority. In short, the questions do not seem on their face to be unduly prying, nor does the process confer unfettered discretion on law enforcement.
But if the Legislature is in fact determined to repeal the licensing requirement, it ought to impose a new one: that every state resident who carries, or intends to carry, a concealed firearm take a day-long course of instruction in how to responsibly store, carry, handle and use the weapon. This should cover when its use is legally justified, how to assess risk and the moral considerations, psychological effects and physiological responses involved in shooting another human being. The individual should also be required to pass a qualifying test on the shooting range using his or her own weapon.
After all, as legislators have amply demonstrated, accidents do happen.