Tag Archives: 2nd Amendment

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: tom@mannion4nh.com

New Hampshire Firearms Coalition Grade – A*S

I have received an A rating for my survey responses from the New Hampshire Firearms Coalition.

I promise to maintain Constitutional carry within New Hampshire, and will work to keep Federal mandates/regulations at bay to protect granite staters’ rights from infringement by any government body.

Thank you for the grade, and I promise my legislative service will follow suit!

NRA Grade – AQ!

NRA-PVF has posted their grading for New Hampshire candidates, and I’m excited to announce I received an AQ rating based on survey questions. The “Q” is attached to signify that I don’t have a voting record (yet), and their grade is based on my questionnaire responses.

My primary slate mates, Sandy Panek and Jeff Tenczar also received AQ ratings!

I am a strong supporter of your right to keep, bear, and print arms. My voting record will reflect that in Concord, upgrading the AQ to an undeniable A.

HB1178 Signed Into Law

Governor Sununu signed HB1178 into law Friday, making New Hampshire a “gun sanctuary” state. This was one of the high profile bills I was watching like a hawk and am excited to see signed.

Any Federal laws/regulations that differ from those in NH RSA cannot be enforced by local/state law enforcement, and support cannot be provided for Federal agencies enforcing them.

This comes a week too late for a Salem, NH man that was arrested for “possession of a machine gun.” Barring any future details that may arise, it appears to me that this man was arrested while minding his own business. If he intended to use them for a mass shooting, or was selling them across state lines, or had discharged them recklessly within a dense area of the city, the headline and charges would certainly have included this information. So it reads to me that this man did nothing actually wrong, and there are no victims to this alleged “crime.”

Furthermore, the final line of that article lists NHSP and Salem police as aiding in the investigation alongside Federal agencies. This type of cooperation is disallowed by HB1178, leaving the infringement of rights entirely in the hands and on the dime of the Federal government so our State tax dollars can be spent on actual crimes instead.

Mass Shootings & Police Inaction

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the police are not obligated to risk their lives to protect you and your family. Regardless of what we believe the police should do, the courts have given them reassurances they are off the hook and don’t have to risk life and limb on our behalf. I, personally, find that distasteful, but I come from the Marine Corps Infantry, fully expecting to be shot at, blown up, and to breach hostile structures. A lot of police don’t sign up for that.

With that clarified, it becomes extremely evident that we are all responsible for our own protection. And violent riots of 2020 further proved that there IS a place for standard sized (30 round) magazines and semiautomatic rifles. Removing the right to own and carry firearms for defense of yourself, your property, your family, your business, and others is ludicrous. Proposals to do so will accomplish nothing, and are non-starters. There is no debate here.

We entrust teachers with our children’s safety during a normal school day. If a child is choking or injured in the classroom, a teacher will do everything in their power to help. We, as a country, should also permit them to carry personal firearms in the classrooms and act as a final line of defense for their students. We already trust them to spend hours alone with them, and teachers generally care about the safety and wellbeing of their students (let alone their own lives) enough to use a firearm in defense. Ideally these individuals would seek training, as any good firearm owner should, increasing their effectiveness should the need arise.

Thankfully New Hampshire allows individuals to carry inside of schools. This contributes to New Hampshire’s status as one of the safest states in the country. While outside my purview as a future State Representative, I urge the repeal of the Federal Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1990, which would make many teachers criminals for just trying to protect their students.

I will oppose any measures that attempt to disarm citizens, including teachers carrying in their classrooms. Remember: when seconds count, the police are minutes away… and then could stand outside the building for 40 minutes before coming to save your kids.

Nullification: HB1178 Passes

House Bill 1178 is off to the Governor’s desk to be signed, excellent work in nullifying Federal gun control measures within our state.

There is a pesky amendment that watered down the original intent, providing plausible excuse for New Hampshire law enforcement to back-door assist in unconstitutional firearm raids (under a different name) but I’ll immediately work on getting it removed.

“Ghost Guns”

President Biden recently held a press conference where he conflated crime statistics of firearms without a serial number (filed off) with home-built firearms. Statistics for 3D-printed/milled firearms use in crime is often combined with run-of-the-mill stolen firearms with serial numbers illegally removed. So, as with all gun control arguments, the statistics are inaccurate and disingenuous —intentionally so.

We, as Americans, can manufacture firearms for self use. The ATF’s regulation for serializing only comes into effect when acting as a dealer of firearms. This country has a long, proud history of individuals constructing their own arms, including the revolutionaries that fought for our independence. Even should an ATF regulation come into place, I will oppose it.

Another misconception Biden often repeats is that “you couldn’t own a cannon” at the time of the Constitution’s ratification. This is untrue. Privateers owned entire battleship-equivalents of the era, equipped with several cannons.

Biden also likes to talk about recreation or hunting when mentioning what we “need” for ammunition, magazines, or feeding devices. The 2nd Amendment does not mention recreation, nor hunting. While both are valid uses for firearms that I support, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is defense of oneself, from any threat, to include tyrannical government. It’s also pretty insulting to claim servicemembers are “bad shots” because they carry standard capacity magazines.

Joe “shoot the shotgun in the air out your front door” Biden will never have to defend his home or family as he will have Secret Service protection for the rest of his life. We do not have such a luxury. As such, I support HB 1178, and any future bills like it, which nullifies any Executive Order from his office, Federal legislation, or bureaucratic regulation that would restrict your right to buy or construct firearms, and carry magazines of any capacity you please.