For those that don’t know me, I’m a Marine Corps infantry veteran with two combat deployments to Iraq. This experience has turned me into a vehement anti-war advocate as I don’t believe that United States’ foreign policy has made us safer, and all the death we’ve caused across the planet has, in fact, increased hatred towards our nation. Following from those wars, the United States fought on the same sides as Al-Qaida in various regime change operations in the middle east during the Arab Spring, trained individuals in Syria that eventually left to help form ISIS, and are assisting the Saudis in the genocide of the Houthis in Yemen. Not one of these actions has made us safer and will breed the next generation of terrorists across the globe.
The 2001 AUMF is still in effect, over a decade after bin Laden was killed, and is currently being used as justification for regime change in the African country of Niger. Senator Rand Paul tried to end or fix the AUMF in various ways twice this year, both times failing to get more than 11 votes. Waiting for the House and Senate to correct the massive mistake they made in 2001 by handing unlimited unilateral military power to the Executive Branch is a waste of time.
As such, I’ve devised as best a shield as possible to protect the next generation from being drafted and sent to these unconstitutional military conflicts, borrowing language from sanctuary state policies combined with the exception baked into Defend the Guard. This has culminated in what I like to refer to as Selective Service Sanctuary State legislation.
This simply states that New Hampshire law enforcement will not cooperate with Federal agencies in the locating, apprehension, or transportation of individuals failing to register or show for selective service call ups, unless Congress formally declares war or the homeland is invaded.
I have several Republicans co-sponsoring, and I’m reaching across the aisle to try and get this as an even R/D split. Pushing back against the ravenous military industrial complex, which is profiting off the deaths of our youth, is a nonpartisan issue.
Within the legal system of the New Hampshire, there is a presumption of innocence, until otherwise proven in a court a law. New Hampshire also enacted civil asset forfeiture reform, so an innocent person does not have to fight the government out of pocket to get back their property which was seized before any conviction was made.
But, we still have another law on the books within the protective order statute that requires a defendant to petition the court, and then prove their innocence to have any firearms and ammunition return to them upon termination of the order. This is backwards from due process.
I filed a bill to invert the responsibility onto the plaintiff, that they must petition the court and argue their case why the defendant shouldn’t be permitted to have their property returned. I also took umbrage with two other sections of the law that allowed police to charge for a “storage fee” and then again be off the hook for damaged property. I was especially surprised hearing one anecdote where the “storage fee” was more than the weapon was worth!
In the modern age, interacting with voters has never been easier. I consider myself one of the terminally online millennials that spends too much time on Twitter (or X, whichever you prefer). As such, a Granite Stater tagged me in a Twitter post that New Hampshire should legalize monkeys as pets. In the replies a list was compiled of animals that are not prohibited by other states for ownership.
With that, I volunteered to submit a bill on behalf of these folks, and the language back from OLS is the most Ron Swanson of versions imaginable, simply stating “no permit required.” I like the elegance of it a whole lot.
I have 10 days to sign off and am looking for co-sponsors, so share this to your Representatives, and we can take a step forward with liberty-via-Twitter activism!
Bill filing begins on September 11, and here is a list of bills I will be submitting this year.
Transparency in Military Recruiting
I will require schools and the DMV to provide casualty and suicide rate statistics of servicemembers, veterans, and civilians caused by US conflicts of the 21st century whenever military recruiters are hosted, anytime the ASVAB is administered, or when driver’s license applications include the Selective Service registration checkbox.
It’s important that young people are given all the information before making life-changing decisions, and military recruiters are not very forthcoming with information that will hurt their quotas. With escalating global tensions, I believe transparency is critically important.
Repeal Select Service Registration Awareness and Compliance Act (RSA 187-A:38-41)
The act prohibits students from enrolling in public colleges if they have not registered for Selective Service (the draft). This is not the responsibility of the state to enforce and I believe it should be repealed.
Selective Service Sanctuary State
I will combine language from Defend the Guard and sanctuary state laws from other states to read that New Hampshire will not provide resources to aid the Federal government in apprehension of draft dodgers, unless Congress formally declares war.
As part of this, I’ll add an option to the Selective Service registration checkbox on license applications to denote conscientious objector status out of the gate.
Campus Due Process
I will submit the FIRE Campus Due Process bill. It provides an accused student with due process (presumption of innocence, access to evidence, right to acquire counsel) in any suspension/expulsion hearing.
Due Process in Temporary Relief Protective Order
It came as a surprise to me to learn that NH has a de facto Red Flag Law within the protective order RSA (173-B:4). There’s pieces of this that require more due process that I am looking to improve.
In addition, the method of returning property to its rightful owner upon expiration of the order involves the accused getting a court order. Instead, the police should have to return the items upon expiration, unless a court order exists to the contrary.
Right to Die
This one is a bit rough, but a pure libertarian stance. You have the right to do with your body and life as you choose, to include ending it. Many folks are suffering with terminal illness with no hope for cures, often in extreme pain, putting their family in emotional and financial strain. I’ll ensure the legislation has enough safeguards in place to prevent abuse, to avoid any situations similar to the anecdotal instances of bad MAID prescriptions occurring by state-run medicine in Canada.
Co-sponsorships and the Future
There are other bills being conceived that I’ve offered to co-sponsor, that I won’t spoil too much on until I’m sure they are being filed. They include topics like augmenting sheriffs to a more constitutional role, transparency from the college system, loosening up car inspections, suppressor legalization, police vehicle visibility, and others.
It’s important to remember the House is basically 50/50 split, so anything too partisan is unlikely to pass. That being said, Overton window shifting is important, and bringing issues to light via legislative testimony can get a foot in the door to expanding liberty in future sessions.
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 October 11th.
WHAT
HB229 Hearing
WHEN
Wednesday, October 11, 10:00AM
WHERE
Legislative Office Building Concord, NH Room 206-208
COMMITTEE
State-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: https://defendtheguard.us/
This is a rare second chance at a public hearing. We need to flood the zone with supporters, so spread this far and wide. 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: tom@mannion4nh.com
I’ll start with a bit of history on State of Emergency (SoE) Reform this session.
HB127 was the bill I was co-sponsored on that included last term’s SoE language. It left Executive Departments committee with an 11-7 vote to pass. From there, a roll call vote of 193-185 passed it out of the House. The Senate then ran defense for the Governor, with their committee recommending to kill the bill, stating “it does nothing” and unceremoniously allowing it to die on the Senate floor by a cowardly voice vote.
There’s some debate on the excuses, some claiming they believed the text didn’t change current law, and then others claiming they knew the text was included in HB2 so they killed the standalone bill since the Governor would veto. This is a running theme with the Senate – instead of forcing the corner office to bear the shame of vetoing bills that would make him look bad, they find excuses to do his bidding and act as his representation in the Legislature, instead of their constituents’.
Meanwhile, the House stuffed the text of HB127 into the budget trailer bill (HB2) as a safeguard, assuming the standalone bill will once again get vetoed. The budget was a battle in an of itself, but ultimately passed out of the house with a voice vote after the Freedom Caucus attempted, but failed, to correct the massive overspending.
When HB2 arrived in the Senate, the language of HB127 was the first to be struck. This, again, was likely due to the request of the Governor. Thankfully Melissa Blasek at RebuildNH spotted this in the hard-to-follow daily reports on the GenCourt website and notified myself and several other Reps. We immediately took to the phones and contacted Senators Gray and Carson, explaining we would not vote for this budget if SoE was not included.
If @NHSenateGOP doesn't put SoE reform back in the budget, I'm voting "no" when it comes back over.
SoE reform presence doesn't guarantee my "yes" vote, but its absence guarantees my "no" vote.
— Tom Mannion – NH State Rep (@mannion4nh) May 25, 2023
I also took to Twitter.
There was an angry return phone call from Gray where he once again tried to claim the language “does nothing” but as soon as I explained what it changed, he stated the Governor would likely veto the budget if the language was included, meaning Gray knew the language did *something* but assumed I would back off, or was quizzing my knowledge of my own co-sponsorship – not sure which. He said my attitude was brinksmanship, which is true, but some priorities are too important to compromise over.
Barring CoC games and anything egregious being added in the coming week, I'm back on board for the budget.
— Tom Mannion – NH State Rep (@mannion4nh) May 30, 2023
Much to the Governor’s chagrin, I assume.
This brings us to yesterday, June 8th. The Concur motion on the Senate-amended HB2. They did a lot of dancing around with numbers, moving some spending from 2024 into this year by consuming a budget surplus and claiming they cut down the budget by ~$750M by doing so. But the real choice now had to be made: Pass the bloated budget, and take whatever wins from it that we can, or send it to a committee of conference.
If the bill went to committee of conference due to Republicans not getting on board, the Senate would absolutely strip SoE as the first order of business as a “well, we gave you what you wanted, but it wasn’t enough, so now you get nothing” retribution. They’d also add in a bunch of junk to win over the solid voting block of the Dems, meaning the bad budget would only get worse. My choice was to pass the budget and get a few wins in HB2, to include SoE Reform, faster Interest and Dividends tax phase out, minor occupational licensing reform, and an alert system to Federal checkpoints.
The budget ultimately passed with a resounding super majority of 326-52. Coupled with the unanimous 24-0 vote from the Senate, any veto from the Governor will be overturned. I campaigned on SoE reform, and the path was rocky, but we’re going to get there.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
WHAT
HB474 Hearing
WHEN
Wednesday, February 8, 3:15PM
WHERE
State House Concord, NH Reps Hall
COMMITTEE
Criminal 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: tom@mannion4nh.com
State Representative – Hillsborough County District 01 (Pelham)
Tom Mannion for New Hampshire 