BILL PASSED – HB127 State of Emergency Reform

In a 193-185 Roll Call vote, State of Emergency Reform passed the house on 3/22/2023. I am a cosponsor on this, alongside many liberty heavy-hitters, with Tony Lekas as prime sponsor.

This was one of the key components of my campaign to run for office. I moved from Massachusetts to escape lockdowns in 2020. I saw what an unrestrained executive branch could do, and was very disappointed when last term’s version of this bill was vetoed despite the governor’s promise of a signature.

The bill now has two paths forward: either down the same route as last term, with a likely veto, or incorporated as part of HB2 in the budget trailer bill. I made it clear in a whipping question that I would like to see HB127 incorporated as part of the budget to ensure the governor’s signature. As a freshman representative, it’s likely my threat to vote “no” on the budget over this would not hold a lot of weight, but I’m certain I am not alone on this issue.

FLOOR SPEECHES – March 16 (HCR4 – Article V Convention of States – Term Limits )

I gave the Parliamentary Inquiry today in support of HCR4 – an application to an Article V Convention of States for the purpose of proposing an amendment to the Constitution for U.S. Congressional Term Limits.

I am both a proponent for Article V CoS, as well as a supporter for Term Limits for all Federal positions – elected or otherwise. Cronyism is rampant in DC and it is obvious those that have been down there the longest are the least likely to fix the issues, and ultimately have voted against America’s best interests time and time again.

I could write an entire blog post about why I believe an Article V convention would be a solution to many of our problems with the Federal government, but I’ll save it for another day. Here is my parliamentary inquiry for HCR4:

Mr. Speaker, if I know that Congress has proposed over 12,000 amendments to the Constitution since 1789, and yet the States have proposed 0 despite both having the equal power to do so

And if I know that 82% of voters (87 percent Republican, 83 percent democrat, 78 percent independent) support term limits for Congress, showing rare bipartisan agreement,

And if I know the current system overwhelmingly protects incumbents, with only 20 percent of races being competitive, and fundraising for their next race becomes the primary focus of these incumbents, not serving their constituents,

And finally, if I know Congress has a current approval rating of 28 percent, and this is our chance, and our constitutional responsibility to correct, then I would pass the green button and support the committee recommendation of OTP on HCR4.

TESTIMONY – HB127 State of Emergency Reform

A huge pillar of my campaign was to fight back against lockdowns and mandates. The amazing 2021 House session tackled a lot of health freedom and civil liberty preservations, but one of the key restraints required to protect our liberties would be state of emergency reform. This would restrict the governor’s ability to indefinitely extend states of emergency, which grants his office the powers that many governors across this country used to implement lockdown measures that eviscerated businesses and ruined lives. Here is the video of my testimony in support of HB127, I am a cosponsor on this legislation. Rewind to see the great testimony from the bill’s prime sponsor, and NHLA’s Legislator of the year 2022: Tony Lekas of Hudson.

Starts at my testimony

Thank you Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Tom Mannion, I represent Hillsborough 1 – Pelham. I’m here to speak in support of HB127.

Despite a predecessor bill being vetoed last term, the Governor, in his 2023 inauguration speech, had this to say:

“In New Hampshire, we distill decision-making down to the lowest possible levels of power, empowering individuals to make their voices heard at the local level, where their voice is the greatest”

Sounds clear-cut, that decision making should be in the hands of the people. As one of the largest representative bodies in the world, the voices from the local level are amplified through their representation better here than any other state. If our districts require that a state of emergency continue, then this body would be the most knowledgeable about the individual circumstances and can vote accordingly to extend it.

At the Federal level, since the passing of the National Emergencies Act in 1976, the office of the President has declared 79 national emergencies, and 42 are still in effect to this day. The structure for ending these states of emergency is the same as New Hampshire, requiring the legislative branch to vote to end them. And since gridlock is not uncommon at any level of the government, they persist. It’s troubling to think a governor that may run for President is comfortable with retaining such power in his current position, and what that could mean for the country should they win a Presidential run.

The default state for any citizen should always be freedom from government interference in their lives, emergency or otherwise, and this body should have to convene and act, on behalf of the desires of our constituents, to disrupt that freedom only if absolutely necessary. It should not be a battle to return liberty to Granite Staters, and this bill corrects that.

I ask the committee to OTP HB127, and I’m willing to take any questions.

Representative Tom Mannion

Hillsborough 1 – Pelham

FLOOR SPEECHES – February 23 (HR8 + HR9)

Here are links to my floors speeches and parliamentary inquiries on the House YouTube channel, as well as the text of my floor speeches. HR9 ended up not having floor debate, but I had a prepared speech just in case.

The HR9 PI once again had me going viral in the liberty Twitter world, with my thanks to AFP’s Chris Maidment!

HR8 – Federal Assault Weapons Ban Resolution

HR8 was the first bill I argued on the house floor since becoming a New Hampshire State Rep, and it was entirely within my wheelhouse. It was to request the Federal government to enact an “assault weapons” ban.

Thank you Mr. Speaker.

I rise to speak in support of the committee report of ITL on HR8

The 20th Century was filled with millions of reasons to never permit a government to restrict your natural right of self defense.

Pol Pot – 2 Million

Adolf Hitler – 13 million

Joseph Stalin – 20 Million

Mao Zedong – 45 Million.

These are the lowball estimates of civilians massacred after private firearm ownership was banned by those leaders.

Contrary to what Biden may repeat in front of the cameras, our natural right to keep and bear arms is not so we can go deer hunting, or sport shooting. It is to prevent the horrors that have played out by fascist governments.

Supporters of a Federal Assault Weapon’s ban will echo the refrain that the founders could not have imagined modern firearms. But cannons existed, privateers owned battleship equivalents of the day. The founders were fully aware of the evolution of arms, and this is evident by the use of that specific word – “arms” in the 2nd Amendment. Not just muskets, not just swords, not just pistols, no such limitation is defined.

In Congress last session, HR1808 was the proposed Assault Weapons Ban of 2022. The bill swept so broadly it would make millions of owned firearms illegal overnight, also including several hunting rifle and shotgun models. During the hearing Congressman Dan Bishop asked: “Would anyone on the other side dispute that this bil would ban weapons that are in common use in the US Today?” Chairman Jerry Nadler replied “That’s the point of the bill.” This flies directly in the face of DC v. Heller, where the supreme court held that arms in common use were protected under the 2nd Amendment. This alone makes any bans unconstitutional based on precedent.

HR1808 also exempted all departments of the Federal Government from the ban. All departments. Congressman Thomas Massie attempted to amend the bill, clarifying that of course this wouldn’t include the Departments of Education or Agriculture. Since the bill supporters keep referring to AR15s as “weapons of war” and “only useful for mass murder.” Why would a department of teachers or farmers need this? When answering this very question, the bill supporters said “Because they may need to defend themselves.”

Okay… so they aren’t only useful for mass murder or just for war? And apparently the rest of our lives aren’t important enough to let us defend ourselves in the same manner. This type of monopoly of force is precisely the outcome the founders wanted to prevent by including the second amendment. 

Which, I will add, doesn’t grant us any right. We are born with the natural right to self defense,  to protect ourselves, our families, and our property. The 2nd amendment, along with the entire bill of rights, is a list of restrictions on the Federal government to protect our natural rights and liberty.

Support liberty against tyranny, vote ITL on House Resolution 8.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Thank you, Mr. speaker.

Mr speaker, if I know that the CDC reported a renewed assault weapons ban would have no measurable difference on gun violence.

And if I know that any bill banning firearms in common usage violates the Heller v. DC ruling,

And if I know that Columbine occurred during the last Federal assault weapons ban,

And if I further know we have to only look to the last century to see the disastrous outcome of governments having monopoly ownership over firearms,

And, Mr Speaker, if I know the definition of “shall not be infringed” I would press the green button and ITL HR8.

HR9 – Federal American Marshall Plan Resolution

Thank you Mr. Speaker.

I am here to support the committee report of ITL on HR9.

$31.5T. That’s the current US debt. That is about $250k per taxpayer. That is a debt to GDP ratio of 120%. 

In 2020, the US government injected (printed) approximately $4T dollars in the name of COVID relief. In 2022, another $4T was printed under the ironic name “Inflation Reduction Act.” Coupled with the latter was a provision to hire 87,000 IRS agents. You don’t hire that many agents to just go after a handful of billionaires to make them pay “their fair share.” These agents would go after your tips, and your $600 Venmos. 

Both of these trillions of dollars spending sprees have caused record inflation, and global hesitancy with respect to the dollar. The Saudi’s are shopping around for alternate currencies to trade for their oil, which likely means they’ll be getting a healthy dose of regime change and a hefty plate of freedom soon.

The effects this mass creation of money had on prices is still rippling through the market today, so much so the current administration circled their media empire to try and gaslighting us into thinking inflation is a good thing because it means wages might go up. Might. Meanwhile your savings are depreciating. 

A one-for-one America-centric Marshall Plan would, in today’s dollars, cost at least $173 billion. And with the mismanagement and earmarking of the previous $8T, there’s no way the price tag wouldn’t be identical in scale. And it’d almost certainly contribute half its cost to be lit on fire in Ukraine. Well, not literally, because burning the dollars would at least remove them from circulation and help us in some way.

During testimony it was also made adamantly clear that any projects divvied out under this plan would have prioritized, if not grant exclusively, contracts to union workshops, discriminating against the massive amount of independent workers in the country. This type of cash-dump would also feed up through union dues and be paid directly into ActBlue accounts to fund the next generation of lawmakers to craft union-preferential labor bills and so on and so on. But I digress.

We cannot afford a project of this scale. Not only that, but we cannot trust the Federal government to helm such an endeavor. They have proven to be reckless with the checkbook. Until a Convention of States ratifies a balanced budget amendment to the US Constitution, every effort should be made to dissuade further big project spending from the Federal government.

And with that I ask you to vote yes on the ITL motion on HR9.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr speaker, if I know the Federal government has spent more money in the last 3 years than ever before, with large portions of that money being misappropriated or going unaccounted for,

And if I know that a project of this size would undoubtedly inject trillions more into the $32.5T national debt, a debt to GDP ratio of 120 percent,

And if I know the inflation reduction act added positions for 87000 IRS agents to squeeze taxes from us to compensate unstoppable Federal spending,

And if I further know that we are still experiencing rapid inflation due to these federal spending sprees, and that inflation is one of the most insidious taxes,

And, finally Mr. Speaker, if I know that Taxation is Theft, then I would press the green button to ITL HR9.

TESTIMONIES – February 8th (Criminal Justice Committee Gun Bills)

February 8th was a long, packed day of gun bills. I testified or registered my opposition against all the bills that would infringe on our natural right to keep and bear arms, and spoke in support of the two (including my own bill) that would further protect your rights in the afternoon.

A Twitter meme was created highlighting a part of my testimony against HB78, that went viral in the liberty community. Thank you to LPNH!

HB 32 – Gun-Free School Zones (Opposed)

There’s a common expression I use frequently when discussing why I carry: When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. This bill prohibits this type of personal rapid response in a crisis situation anywhere near a school. It creates a publicly-advertised soft target. In other states with similar provisions, this is the exact type of area where mass shooting events occur – places where there will be the least amount of resistance from law-abiding citizens that obey these ordinances.

The bill shifts the responsibility of defense of life entirely onto law enforcement. And while it’s more comfortable to think Uvalde police department is the only department that would wait outside the school for hours, and tase you if you try to enter to do their job for them, I’m not confident that would be the case. You see, courts at all levels have repeatedly affirmed that law enforcement are under no obligation to risk their lives to save yours or the lives of your loved ones. 

I know the reaction to mass shooting events is to do SOMETHING. And I agree, but this is NOT the right “something” to do. The solution to this problem is not to prevent teachers, janitors, counselors, or parents on site from being first to respond to a crisis situation. Frankly, I’m of the opinion that more teachers should take firearm training and carry. To me, it is akin to any other emergency situation – learning the Heimlich maneuver, CPR, automatic defibrillator usage, what to do in case of fire, etc. I don’t believe in mandating carry, but administrations being more encouraging for it, and including training courses for those that are interested would be nothing but beneficial.

HB 59 – Expanded Background Checks (Opposed)

To start, this bill opens with the definition of “Commercial sale” as including gifts. So, let me run a hypothetical. A father is raising his son up way up in Coos county, they go hunting and target shooting on weekends. The son is raised in a gun-friendly environment, is very well trained and capable thanks to the great mentorship of his father. When the father deems his son to be mature enough, the father gifts his son the rifle they’ve been using for years as a birthday gift, same as his father did before him. It is now the son’s to own. His eyes light up with wonder, a smile spreads across his face, and Dad is now guilty of a class B misdemeanor thanks to HB59. Tough break, pops.

Since FFL firearm purchases are already subject to background checks, I want to highlight what I believe is unconstitutional in the ATF Form 4473. If we are going to be lapdogs to arbitrary federal rules, I think I should elaborate exactly what that entails and how it is a violation of granite staters’ rights.

I want to credit LibertyBloc for bringing this to my attention. In all the times I completed this form, the specific legal language the ATF uses never popped out at me.

Question 11b states:
“Are you under indictment or information in any court for a felony, or any other crime which a judge could imprison you for more than one year?”

“Indictment.” Not guilty of. So no trial, no jury, no conviction, no sentence, yet answering “yes” would prohibit purchase of a firearm. So you are being denied liberty without due process of law, and being forced to bear witness against yourself. This violates the Fifth Amendment.

Question 11c covers conviction, so 11b sticks out as unnecessary and unconstitutional. And the subject of felony conviction and firearm ownership is another bill this committee has heard and I submitted testimony for.

Question 11e states:

“Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? (in bold) WARNING: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.

This question is dubiously worded – as it says “unlawful user,” and immediately reminds you that any use of marijuana is unlawful. This question, as with all of these, violates the fifth amendment protection against bearing witness against oneself, as well as the 10th Amendment, which gives all authority not explicitly outlined in the US Constitution to the states, which includes drugs.

This goes on, and I would argue that we shouldn’t be completing these forms in the first place, let alone making a dad run one for gifting his son a rifle. Criminals do not acquire firearms through these means, they steal them, or the federal agencies (like during the Obama administration) ferry them to Mexico and they come back into circulation that way. It also won’t be too long before all the newly-Taliban-owned arms make their way around the planet. I’m certain the DoD didn’t run a background check on those guys before leaving them guns.

HB 76 – Mandatory Firearm Purchase Waiting Period (Opposed)

During the summer of 2020, I watched live streams of fiery, but mostly peaceful protests across the country. The citizens were angry, and I agreed with their anger, but not the methodology. Private businesses, even those with black owners, were torched. In some of the larger cities with more violent protests, terrified business owners were told by 911 dispatchers – the police were unavailable to help and that they were on their own.

Hearing this, I was thankful we live in a country where we can arm ourselves against such violence. But in states with firearm waiting periods like California, you cannot just go get a firearm to protect your business, your family, your property. These people learned the hard way, that their feel-good “sensible gun control” measures would have costly consequences. A cop acting criminally half a country away would result in near-overnight reaction from an rightfully angry community, but would end up destroying the livelihood or homes of people wholly uninvolved. And they were told by both the police and gun store owners: you’re going to have to wait.

It’s easy to be a Monday-morning quarterback, and say they should’ve already had the gun, but the same people pushing for waiting periods don’t actually believe this, either. They’d rather you be disarmed and hope the waiting period is enough of a deterrent to keep you from bothering at all. They believe a waiting period would stop some heat-of-the-moment gun purchase for a vigilante looking for vengeance, or whatever thriller movie scenario they have cooked up. That same person will just get it illegally should a waiting period be introduced. The only people being affected by this are those that wish to remain within the law, and will ultimately be harmed by it.

If another country-wide protest is on the horizon, and your state has a mandatory waiting period, you may as well pack your things and leave town. Just don’t expect your home to be there when you get back.

HB 78 – Repeal Gun Sanctuary Law (Opposed)

The federal government creates so many rules and laws that even their bloated agencies are incapable of enforcing them all. As such, they rely on our law enforcement to waste time and resources aiding in any number of potentially unconstitutional acts. They reward such obedience with things like bearcats, that those police and then use to smash in the front of a private residence just because they can.

Our law enforcement should be focused on the laws of New Hampshire. We are not obligated to assist the feds with whatever new rules they create, especially as it pertains to firearms. The ATF’s own rules are extremely fluid in nature as they don’t wait for a law to come from Congress to just decide to ban new things. The latest are pistol braces, but before that, an Executive Order from President Trump banned bump stocks, only to be overturned by the courts. So, in the interim, while these unconstitutional rules and EOs come into existence with no oversight, any one of us could become a felon in our sleep.

Last year’s House Bill 1178 put an end to wasting our law enforcement’s time with these wild swings in policy from DC. If the feds want to enforce these laws, there’s sadly not much we can do (yet?), but they are going to have a much harder time going it alone. Despite what the ATF and others believe, we have a natural right to self defense, and we respect that in New Hampshire. I personally believe the ATF is an illegal organization, responsible for many deaths caused by their actions over the decades. I do not want our state law enforcement agencies cooperating with them, and ideally we’ll create an alert system, warning communities they are in danger whenever they are on the move, akin to midwestern tornado sirens.

HB 106 – Red Flag Laws (Opposed)

This bill creates what is commonly referred to as a “Red Flag Law,” or as I refer to it – second and fifth amendment violations. Without a conviction, without a jury trial, a jilted ex can have your firearms seized by the state, for up to a year, after which time you have to plead with the court, on your own dime, to have your property returned to you. And if that angry ex continues to “fear for their life,” you’re never getting them back. If, by some miracle, they move on and forget to continuously file, you can then, again, on your own dime, plead to the courts to have your property returned to you. Oh, after paying their storage fees. This type of system reminds me a lot of crooked tow company rackets. 

Now, for something darker. As an Iraq war veteran, I fortunately emerged mentally sound from my time over there. Not all of us did. While the VA offers free mental health care, there is a fear amongst Veterans that if they seek help, their guns will be taken away. And, while largely unfounded, the mere existence of Red Flag Laws, with language about “potential harm to themselves”, it’s understandable why the vets feel the way they do. So, instead of getting the help many of them need, they’d rather tough it out. They’d rather grapple with their demons alone than have their firearms confiscated, and I completely understand. However, the deadly scenario the Red Flag Law is attempting to prevent, can become the reality instead.

HB 351 – Mandatory Locking Mechanisms (Opposed)

I was not able to testify against this, but registered my opposition with the committee.

HB 444 – Firearms Prohibited at Polling Places (Opposed)

I was not able to testify against this, but registered my opposition with the committee.

HB 474 – Establishing Penalties for Violation of Right to Keep and Bear Arms (Supported – Prime Sponsor)

Last year we had a fantastic bill, HB1178 come through this committee and ultimately be signed into law. It is commonly referred to as the gun sanctuary bill, as its language is modeled after immigration sanctuary provisions in various states and cities across the US. The difference being, this one solidified New Hampshire’s dedication to protect its citizens rights against federal overreach. This law was already covered in the hearing of HB78, so I’ll focus on HB474.

During the testimony for our sanctuary bill, one of the chief complaints from our citizens about it was the lack of penalties or “teeth” to any law enforcement that decided to ignore NH law, and aid the feds in trampling our natural right to keep and bear arms. This bill corrects for that. I consider it a government accountability bill. It waives Qualified Immunity, and permits a wronged individual to have their day in court.

Furthermore, I do not believe our state could benefit from employing federal agents that have disregarded our natural rights, and bars them from employment if they have a history of doing so. This type of insidious perversion-from-within would ultimately diminish the quality of law enforcement in the state, dragging them down to the levels of rights-trampling federal agents. We should be ostracizing individuals with this mindset, not allowing them to train alongside or manage police departments with granite staters that respect the rights of our citizens. 

The militarization of police, which is causing disharmony and strife in our communities traces back to federal programs, doctrines, and enforcement of their laws. If we hope to mend the distrust of law enforcement, bills like HB474 are a path towards it. We should not be employing individuals that consider our rights an obstacle for them to overcome, and create arbitrary rules on the fly with no Congressional feedback, only to be eventually struck down by the courts after the harm has already been done.

HB512 – Exempting Firearms and Accessories Manufactured in New Hampshire from Federal Regulation (Supported)

For too long we’ve accepted that if a product is manufactured inside of the US, regardless of whether it left the state it was made in, that the Federal Government must have a say in the process. In 1942, Wickard v. Filburn was the case that is the justification for the explosive, monstrous growth we’ve seen in the federal government. In this case, Filburn grew wheat to feed his livestock, but the US had imposed limitations on what farmers could produce. Since he could have maybe sold his wheat across state lines, the federal government used that as justification to impose regulations. And the Supreme Court, being very open to expanding federal power and with extremely loose interpretation of the Constitution, sided with the feds.

Fast-forward to 2023, I legally cannot manufacture a suppressor, or buy one from a New Hampshire manufacturer without ATF permission, just to protect my hearing, as a consequence of that interpretation. The ATF is more than happy to use the Wickard v. Filburn decision, since anything I make for myself, could potentially have been sold across state lines, and that then gives them jurisdiction over it. I believe now is the time to push back against the federal overreach we’ve grown too accustomed to. The founders would be sick to see how the states have bowed down to consolidated power in DC. The current SCOTUS makeup appears amenable to correcting past mistakes, and we should join Texas and many other states that are challenging commerce clause interpretations, especially as pertains to firearm manufacturing.

Hearing Alert: HB474 – Relative to Enforcement of Federal Firearms Laws and Establishing Penalties

I am the prime sponsor of House Bill 474, and will be introducing it to the Criminal Justice committee February 8th. This will be a public hearing, and I encourage you to come out in support, or to file a testimony online.

WHATHB474 Hearing
WHENWednesday, February 8, 3:15PM
WHEREState House
Concord, NH
Reps Hall
COMMITTEECriminal Justice

This bill gives teeth to the gun sanctuary bill signed into law by the governor last year. It specifically allows individuals to sue police that violated their natural right to bear arms. Additionally it prevents federal agents from being employed by the state as law enforcement, if they previously have violated those same rights.

February 8th is a big day for several pro- and anti-gun bills. Please come or submit testimony online.

If you, or anyone you know, wishes to testify on behalf of this bill, please come out to the hearing, it is open to the public. Online testimony can also be submitted here, using the table above to populate the form. If you need help, reach out to me:

TESTIMONY – HB646 Eliminating Vehicle Inspection Mandate

Starts at my testimony

Thank you chair and members of the committee. My name is Tom Mannion, I represent Hillsborough District 1 – Pelham. I’m here to introduce House Bill 646 – eliminating the vehicle inspection mandate for non-commercial vehicles.

I’ll start with a small story: a few years back I was driving up 495 and my alternator gave out. I coasted across a couple lanes of traffic and managed to pull over safely. As I awaited AAA, I looked over at my car inspection sticker – not even a month old. 

These stickers do not give a force field of safety, they do not guarantee a car will make it a year without problems. What they do, however, is create headaches for the rest of us, and burden low-income families disproportionately. These families stretch car lifetimes, because they have to. When presented with a list of nitpicky problems that must be addressed to get the state-sponsored gold star, they’ll just continue to operate with a rejection sticker and eat whatever potential fines, because it’s cheaper than repairs or buying a new vehicle.

Only 14 states require annual safety inspections. 14! “Safety inspections” is also a misnomer. The Government Accountability Office published a study that showed NO correlation between vehicle crashes and inspection mandates. In fact, 94% of vehicle crashes are caused by driver error, with mechanical failure being 2%. And, like my Dodge Avenger on 495, those failures can still occur WITH an inspection sticker. So we’re inducing a burden onto drivers for no provable benefit.

Direct dollar cost components aside, there’s a time-cost as well. The stations are open during average work hours, requiring taking time off to get our permission slips. So hourly workers are not only paying the cost of the inspection, but losing out on wages for the time required to get it done.

The other arguments against inspections are from an emissions standpoint. released a study outlining that in 2020, when most of the industrialized countries locked down production, and vast quantities of individuals were no longer commuting, the global CO2 emission levels were only slowed by, at most 7.5%. Think about how we’re still reeling from supply chain shortages, the evisceration of small businesses, rampant inflation and teasing of a global recession, and we barely moved the needle for CO2. And the EPA thinks emissions testing granite stater’s sedans is justified. They have their scary extortion threats that they’ll just keep our tax money and not pay for their highways. So we’re operating a program out of fear of Federal retribution, costing granite staters money to comply with yet another overreaching mandate from DC, and there’s enough evidence from 2020 to conclude that it doesn’t even serve the intended purpose. Over half the states don’t require emissions testing. I guess Florida doesn’t have highways or dense urban areas that the EPA claims requires annual testing.

Back to the supply chain shortages, for a moment. During the last few years, getting parts required to repair vehicles has experienced waves of difficulty. How are you supposed to bring your vehicle up to compliance when parts aren’t available? Do the police take this into account, and just look the other way? All the fear mongering about cars exploding into rusty shrapnel (or whatever the argument is) on the highway is on hold? Or are we not supposed to drive to work until the supply chain is corrected? What if I’m part of the supply chain itself and can’t legally drive to supply the parts to fix my car? 

I think it’s time to join the 36 other states that do not require annual safety inspections. I urge you to vote OTP on HB646. I’ll take your questions.

Representative Tom Mannion

Hillsborough 1 – Pelham



One of the points made by opponents of the bill was that inspections would not catch my alternator problem I described in the intro. This is an argument that supports removal of the inspection, contrary to their position. If the inspections intended purpose is to catch vehicle problems that may lead to a crash, they fail in that job.

Hearing Alert: HB646 – Eliminating Mandatory Vehicle Inspection for Non-commercial Vehicles

I am a co-sponsor on House Bill 646, and will be introducing it to the Transportation committee January 31st. This will be a public hearing, and I encourage you to come out in support, or to file a testimony online.

WHATHB646 Hearing
WHENTuesday, January 31, 10:30AM
WHERELegislative Office Building
Concord, NH
Room 201-203

This bill will simply remove the annual requirement for inspections for non-commercial vehicles. We are one of 15 states that still require them, and there is no correlation between vehicle crashes and mandatory inspections. In fact 94% of all crashes occur from driver error, only 2% are from mechanical failure. There are no metrics on whether inspections would have helped reduce that tiny percentage, however, insurance company rates do not favor states with mandatory inspections, and they’re a fantastic indicator for efficacy of vehicle safety policy.

If you, or anyone you know, wishes to testify on behalf of this bill, please come out to the hearing, it is open to the public. Online testimony can also be submitted here, using the table above to populate the form. If you need help, reach out to me:

TESTIMONY – HB229 Defend the Guard

Starts at my testimony, rewind for entire bill hearing.

Thank you mister chair, and members of the committee. My name is Tom Mannion, I’m representing Hillsborough District 1, Pelham. I’m a Marine Corps infantry veteran that enlisted in 2004 to hunt down those responsible for 9/11. However, I didn’t even get the chance to do that. Like all service members, I went where I was told, even though I didn’t completely understand why. You’re going to hear counter arguments today, but take it from an enlisted grunt that has been knocked onto my ass into Iraqi dirt by a VBIED, there’s nothing that can convince me to continue sending our guardsmen into harm’s way without going through the correct process.

My first deployment to Iraq started in August of 2005. One of the guys in my platoon was from New Orleans and learned about Hurricane Katrina over a satellite phone call back home. He was raised by his grandmother, and she was alone during the catastrophe. We gave him our allotted sat phone time to make calls to neighbors and to make sure she got out safely. It wasn’t until years later I found out that the Louisiana National Guard was deployed to Iraq right around the same time we were. The Department of Defense sent active duty Marine Corps infantry battalions to help with Katrina, using warfighters to fulfill the mission objectives of search-and-rescue guardsmen. 

The motto of the National Guard is “Always Ready, Always There,” but the operations supporting unconstitutional wars prevents them from fulfilling this. Florida national guardsmen were training Ukrainian soldiers instead of helping with hurricane disaster relief, fires in Oregon were left to spread because their guard was in Afghanistan. Kentucky guardsmen were in Syria, protecting the interests of oil companies instead of aiding their neighbors back home when tornadoes devastated communities.

This committee was briefed by the Adjutant General just last week, where he said over 300 of our New Hampshire Guardsmen were deployed to the middle east right now. Imagine if we got smashed by a Nor’easter and needed those 300 soldiers here to assist our families and neighbors. They would not be there, instead they are off supporting an unconstitutional, undeclared war.

Another terrible consequence of these unending wars is the mental and emotional toll on our servicemembers. Again, as this committee was briefed last week, New Hampshire is one of the states with the highest suicide rate among veterans. This is a serious problem that we, in this legislature, can combat by passing HB229. Force Congress to do their Constitutional duty, to risk the ire of their constituents by voting for these nonsense wars that do nothing to protect us at home, before committing the lives of our guardsmen. These men and women signed up to defend us, the least we can do is vote OTP to show we are defending them.

I’m happy to answer your questions.

Representative Tom Mannion

Hillsborough 1 – Pelham

Hearing Alert: HB229 – Defend the Guard

I am a co-sponsor on House Bill 229, also known as the “Defend the Guard Act.” This bill will come before the State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs committee for a public hearing January 20th.

WHATHB229 Hearing
WHENFriday, January 20, 10:00AM
WHERELegislative Office Building
Concord, NH
Room 206-208
COMMITTEEState-Federal Relations and Veteran’s Affairs

The purpose of this bill is to require Congress to formally declare war before New Hampshire will send its National Guardsmen to a conflict zone. It is simultaneously a life-saving measure, a state’s rights assertion, and a call on our representatives in DC to properly follow the Constitution and use the powers granted to them. More information on the many states filing this type of legislation, and FAQ’s can be found here:

If you, or anyone you know, wishes to testify on behalf of this bill, please come out to the hearing, it is open to the public. Online testimony can also be submitted here, using the table above to populate the form. If you need help, reach out to me:

Public testimony helps put names, faces, and stories to a bill and communicate to committee members the importance it has to constituents.

State Representative – Hillsborough County District 01 (Pelham)