Firearms/NRA/Gun Laws
- Thread starter JayinNH
- Start date
- Views: 6647
fishman
Veteran Member
Everyone should read the latest article in the American Rifleman regarding confiscation of firearms by the Nazis and how it paved the way for the holocaust. /w3tcompact/icons/frown.gif/w3tcompact/icons/frown.gif/w3tcompact/icons/frown.gif/w3tcompact/icons/frown.gif/w3tcompact/icons/frown.gifWhat made it possible was the lists of gun owners compiled by local governments, probably with the best of intentions. Nobody knows what the future will bring. It's best to prepare for the worst and be pleasantly surprised if things turn out o.k.
Anonymous Poster
Epic Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2005
- Messages
- 29,678
Re: dekker
Any United States citizen not otherwise disqualified ,can carry concealed in Vermont.
Any United States citizen not otherwise disqualified ,can carry concealed in Vermont.
toddler
Gold Member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2001
- Messages
- 407
- Location
- North Carolina, USA
- Tractor
- Previously: Kubota B2710. Now Deere 3520
Re: dekker
You know, it's probably a good thing I'm coming to this late, because my opinion would probably piss off a bunch of the people who wrote the above, and since I'm late, they won't read this. Before I piss off those of you who read this, remember, in general, you're not the basis of my opinion.
I live in Vermont, where we have minimal restrictions compared to most states, but unlike Jay, I know that our lower rates of crime are not due to this. In fact, our system is as it is because we have a low number of gun related crimes. Personally, I wish Vermont were more like Lowell Mass., and I'm sure we will be someday.
Branch, if you read this, try not to be so blinded by your own desire for freedom to carry a gun, that you miss the reason for the laws you live with. If California had gun laws like Vermont, you can bet there would have been a much higher body count when you had riots a few years ago. And some of the count would have been police and non-participants.
Handgun users have a problem with missing their target a lot, and those stray bullets don't seem to stop for drywall or crib-sheets. Why don't you ask Bird what percentage of police officer fired rounds hit their target? If you guys think you could match a trained police officer, in doing as little unintentional damage with a handgun, you are nuts.
I take offense to anyone saying it should be as easy to get a carry conceal permit as it is in Vermont. If you want a weapon for protection, get a shotgun so you're less likely to kill your neighbor. Conceal it? Why, so you can surprise somebody? It's a gun, not leprosy, if you have a reason for it, wear it openly, or don't wear it!
Look, I'm the physician for a number of jails and prisons. Because I'm the doctor, and not corrections affilliated, my patients actually talk to me. You know what, there are a lot of them you don't want carrying guns! On the flip side, there are a couple of guys in for murder, whom I would be comfortable with getting gun permits. My organized crime patients aren't in for killing innocents! You think you can tell who my patients are easily? Backround check guys! If it becomes impossible to obtain a gun, then you can take offense that the government if violating your constitutional rights. Otherwise, shut up and understand where these regulations are coming from.
And yes, I know the current system is stupid, but if you gun hungry, NRA party line quoting voters weren't pulling for such a stupid level of gun freedom, then the equally silly liberal lobbyists on the other side wouldn't be pulling for such heavy and useless restrictions, and what eventually got passed would probably be workable. Also, if you step back and look at which of these two obviously silly extremes will do the most to protect the weak, innocent, elderly and ill, and cause the fewest police officer deaths, then it's the silly liberals, not the NRA type's.
Seriously, how can anyone be against backround checks? They work. I have patients whose presence in prison proves that.
Hey Rich, you made one of the dumbest statements on this thread. Hell yes drivers licenses cut down on the number of idiots on the road. I have a number of patients in jail or prison for driving without one. And any decrease is good. Branch, yes you can drive on your own property without a license, and as soon as you make bullets that honor your fences, I'll have no problem with you owning and firing as many guns on your property as you want.
Bob Pence, the voice of reason. It might be a bother, but the idea of mandatory safety training is sound. If they want to make a tractor safety course mandatory for anything over 15hp, then G-d bless, I'll take it and not care how arbitrary the 15hp cutoff is!
My vote would be for a mandatory gun safety course before any permit or license could be obtained, and a detailed backround check on anyone buying a gun. Any gun, their first, or their fortieth.
Carry conceal should go down the toilet, but carry shouldn't. If you pull a gun on someone inapropriately, there should be a serious fine, possible jail time, and possibly loss of the privilege. If the delay caused by a backround check and safety course bothers you, tough. Paper can be forged and a several day delay would decrease the number of guns bought illegally by my less stable patients. No it wouldn't eliminate it, but it would decrease it (trust me, that's from the horses mouth! Two of my patients have expressed gratitude to the NRA's voters for making it so easy for them to get guns at a shop). Yes they could go black market, but apparently that's not as easy or convenient as you'd think.
Anyway, the second ammendment was written to protect you from oppressive government, and if you think any amount of gun freedom would let you take on the US Government, you're nuts. Try and take a bigger view of why the laws are going where they are, and realize that just because the second ammendment deals with guns, and not travel privileges, it doesn't mean gun control laws are less constitutional than speed limit laws. You give up lots of rights for the privilege of living in this country: assault rifles, streaking, driving 90 in a school zone. Deal with it.
Todd
You know, it's probably a good thing I'm coming to this late, because my opinion would probably piss off a bunch of the people who wrote the above, and since I'm late, they won't read this. Before I piss off those of you who read this, remember, in general, you're not the basis of my opinion.
I live in Vermont, where we have minimal restrictions compared to most states, but unlike Jay, I know that our lower rates of crime are not due to this. In fact, our system is as it is because we have a low number of gun related crimes. Personally, I wish Vermont were more like Lowell Mass., and I'm sure we will be someday.
Branch, if you read this, try not to be so blinded by your own desire for freedom to carry a gun, that you miss the reason for the laws you live with. If California had gun laws like Vermont, you can bet there would have been a much higher body count when you had riots a few years ago. And some of the count would have been police and non-participants.
Handgun users have a problem with missing their target a lot, and those stray bullets don't seem to stop for drywall or crib-sheets. Why don't you ask Bird what percentage of police officer fired rounds hit their target? If you guys think you could match a trained police officer, in doing as little unintentional damage with a handgun, you are nuts.
I take offense to anyone saying it should be as easy to get a carry conceal permit as it is in Vermont. If you want a weapon for protection, get a shotgun so you're less likely to kill your neighbor. Conceal it? Why, so you can surprise somebody? It's a gun, not leprosy, if you have a reason for it, wear it openly, or don't wear it!
Look, I'm the physician for a number of jails and prisons. Because I'm the doctor, and not corrections affilliated, my patients actually talk to me. You know what, there are a lot of them you don't want carrying guns! On the flip side, there are a couple of guys in for murder, whom I would be comfortable with getting gun permits. My organized crime patients aren't in for killing innocents! You think you can tell who my patients are easily? Backround check guys! If it becomes impossible to obtain a gun, then you can take offense that the government if violating your constitutional rights. Otherwise, shut up and understand where these regulations are coming from.
And yes, I know the current system is stupid, but if you gun hungry, NRA party line quoting voters weren't pulling for such a stupid level of gun freedom, then the equally silly liberal lobbyists on the other side wouldn't be pulling for such heavy and useless restrictions, and what eventually got passed would probably be workable. Also, if you step back and look at which of these two obviously silly extremes will do the most to protect the weak, innocent, elderly and ill, and cause the fewest police officer deaths, then it's the silly liberals, not the NRA type's.
Seriously, how can anyone be against backround checks? They work. I have patients whose presence in prison proves that.
Hey Rich, you made one of the dumbest statements on this thread. Hell yes drivers licenses cut down on the number of idiots on the road. I have a number of patients in jail or prison for driving without one. And any decrease is good. Branch, yes you can drive on your own property without a license, and as soon as you make bullets that honor your fences, I'll have no problem with you owning and firing as many guns on your property as you want.
Bob Pence, the voice of reason. It might be a bother, but the idea of mandatory safety training is sound. If they want to make a tractor safety course mandatory for anything over 15hp, then G-d bless, I'll take it and not care how arbitrary the 15hp cutoff is!
My vote would be for a mandatory gun safety course before any permit or license could be obtained, and a detailed backround check on anyone buying a gun. Any gun, their first, or their fortieth.
Carry conceal should go down the toilet, but carry shouldn't. If you pull a gun on someone inapropriately, there should be a serious fine, possible jail time, and possibly loss of the privilege. If the delay caused by a backround check and safety course bothers you, tough. Paper can be forged and a several day delay would decrease the number of guns bought illegally by my less stable patients. No it wouldn't eliminate it, but it would decrease it (trust me, that's from the horses mouth! Two of my patients have expressed gratitude to the NRA's voters for making it so easy for them to get guns at a shop). Yes they could go black market, but apparently that's not as easy or convenient as you'd think.
Anyway, the second ammendment was written to protect you from oppressive government, and if you think any amount of gun freedom would let you take on the US Government, you're nuts. Try and take a bigger view of why the laws are going where they are, and realize that just because the second ammendment deals with guns, and not travel privileges, it doesn't mean gun control laws are less constitutional than speed limit laws. You give up lots of rights for the privilege of living in this country: assault rifles, streaking, driving 90 in a school zone. Deal with it.
Todd
Bird
Rest in Peace
Re: dekker
<font color=blue>if you step back and look at which of these two obviously silly extremes will do the most to protect the weak, innocent, elderly and ill, and cause the fewest police officer deaths, then it's the silly liberals, not the NRA type's</font color=blue>
Whew, Todd! Talk about extreme . . ./w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif Of course, you make some good points, but overall I'm afraid I think you're lost in left field somewhere; maybe a little out of touch with reality. <font color=blue>Why don't you ask Bird what percentage of police officer fired rounds hit their target?</font color=blue> You're right that most miss, even when the shooter is a good target shooter - the target ain't shootin' back and the adrenalin ain't flowin'. Reminds me of when I was a recruit in the Academy. I know which of the 29 recruits in the class was the worst shot; couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. But he was also the first member of the class to get into a real shootout after we left the academy; 5 rounds and never missed a one; stayed cool, calm and did what he had to do when his life depended on doing it right. And I'm not sure that characteristic is one that can be taught; I sometimes think you either have it or you don't. I don't consider myself a really good shot; but I'm well above average. However, I just thank the Good Lord that I never had to shoot anyone.
And if you really believe those cons level with you because you're a doctor instead of a correctional officer, then I'd like to sell you some ocean front property in Arizona./w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif
Bird
<font color=blue>if you step back and look at which of these two obviously silly extremes will do the most to protect the weak, innocent, elderly and ill, and cause the fewest police officer deaths, then it's the silly liberals, not the NRA type's</font color=blue>
Whew, Todd! Talk about extreme . . ./w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif Of course, you make some good points, but overall I'm afraid I think you're lost in left field somewhere; maybe a little out of touch with reality. <font color=blue>Why don't you ask Bird what percentage of police officer fired rounds hit their target?</font color=blue> You're right that most miss, even when the shooter is a good target shooter - the target ain't shootin' back and the adrenalin ain't flowin'. Reminds me of when I was a recruit in the Academy. I know which of the 29 recruits in the class was the worst shot; couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. But he was also the first member of the class to get into a real shootout after we left the academy; 5 rounds and never missed a one; stayed cool, calm and did what he had to do when his life depended on doing it right. And I'm not sure that characteristic is one that can be taught; I sometimes think you either have it or you don't. I don't consider myself a really good shot; but I'm well above average. However, I just thank the Good Lord that I never had to shoot anyone.
And if you really believe those cons level with you because you're a doctor instead of a correctional officer, then I'd like to sell you some ocean front property in Arizona./w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif
Bird
Branch
Silver Member
Re: dekker
I take exception to your conclusions. Since you Monday morning quarterbacked the riots in L.A., let me give it a shot too.
Would the people who pulled Denney out of the truck, in broad daylight, with millions of people watching via helicopter, done it if he'd had a way to defend himself (i.e. gun).
Now I don't know about the laws in Vermont, but here we have a 15 day waiting period. Did that somehow help in the riots. Does it keep you from seeing Calif. constantly in the news for violent crimes.
You say that Vermont has a low rate of gun related crimes although it has nothing to do with the minimal restrictions. We in Calif. probably have the highest number of restrictions, and a much higher rate of crime. What you're saying flys in the face of reality.
Your purely speculating on what more gun laws will accomplish. We have them here, they don't work, they can't/won't be enforced, they only effect the law abiding cititzens.
As far as your patients are concerned, ask them whether they would like to go up against a cop who may not shoot straight, or an un-armed populace. Why don't cops get mugged. Why aren't their cars "jacked". Why aren't they the targets of road rage. To me the answer is simple, but I'd like to hear your explanation for this phenomenon.
By the way, I'm all for training, classes, background checks. But if the purpose of those laws are to supercede the Constitutional right to bear arms then I'm against them. My dad always said that good intentions paved the way to hell.
You know, I can see the difficulty in devising laws and rules for the internet. It's something that man has never seen before. It just doesn't fit any previous inventions so it's hard to tell what we need to do to regulate it. Guns on the other hand are nothing new. Pistols, semi-autos, autos, everything from 17 to 54 caliber. Nothing new, just a little difference in packaging. Why is it such a strain to live with our existing laws. I'm not aware of any new ways to use a gun that doesn't have a law to deal with it. Why do we keep flogging this horse.
By the way, I'm not a gun nut. I haven't bought a new gun in 15 years. I haven't had the time to shoot any of them for the last 2 years. Their all locked away safely in a gun safe. I, at this point, don't even have the desire to shoot one, or carry it concealed. But I do have 5 kids who are all grown now and it's my responsibility to make sure they can have the guns of their choice, and inherit all the guns in my safe. If the liberal idiots, who know nothing about guns, had their way 5 generations of antique fire arms would be confiscated from me. Not a single one of them has been used in a crime. <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by Branch on 05/22/01 07:56 PM (server time).</FONT></P>
I take exception to your conclusions. Since you Monday morning quarterbacked the riots in L.A., let me give it a shot too.
Would the people who pulled Denney out of the truck, in broad daylight, with millions of people watching via helicopter, done it if he'd had a way to defend himself (i.e. gun).
Now I don't know about the laws in Vermont, but here we have a 15 day waiting period. Did that somehow help in the riots. Does it keep you from seeing Calif. constantly in the news for violent crimes.
You say that Vermont has a low rate of gun related crimes although it has nothing to do with the minimal restrictions. We in Calif. probably have the highest number of restrictions, and a much higher rate of crime. What you're saying flys in the face of reality.
Your purely speculating on what more gun laws will accomplish. We have them here, they don't work, they can't/won't be enforced, they only effect the law abiding cititzens.
As far as your patients are concerned, ask them whether they would like to go up against a cop who may not shoot straight, or an un-armed populace. Why don't cops get mugged. Why aren't their cars "jacked". Why aren't they the targets of road rage. To me the answer is simple, but I'd like to hear your explanation for this phenomenon.
By the way, I'm all for training, classes, background checks. But if the purpose of those laws are to supercede the Constitutional right to bear arms then I'm against them. My dad always said that good intentions paved the way to hell.
You know, I can see the difficulty in devising laws and rules for the internet. It's something that man has never seen before. It just doesn't fit any previous inventions so it's hard to tell what we need to do to regulate it. Guns on the other hand are nothing new. Pistols, semi-autos, autos, everything from 17 to 54 caliber. Nothing new, just a little difference in packaging. Why is it such a strain to live with our existing laws. I'm not aware of any new ways to use a gun that doesn't have a law to deal with it. Why do we keep flogging this horse.
By the way, I'm not a gun nut. I haven't bought a new gun in 15 years. I haven't had the time to shoot any of them for the last 2 years. Their all locked away safely in a gun safe. I, at this point, don't even have the desire to shoot one, or carry it concealed. But I do have 5 kids who are all grown now and it's my responsibility to make sure they can have the guns of their choice, and inherit all the guns in my safe. If the liberal idiots, who know nothing about guns, had their way 5 generations of antique fire arms would be confiscated from me. Not a single one of them has been used in a crime. <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by Branch on 05/22/01 07:56 PM (server time).</FONT></P>
cowboydoc
Super Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2000
- Messages
- 6,725
- Tractor
- JD 8320 MFWD, JD 6415 MFWD, FEL, and cab, John Deere MFWD 4600, John Deere 4020, John Deere 4430, John Deere 455 mower, Deutz, and Gehl 4610 perkins skidsteer
Re: dekker
Todd,
Your opinions are fine and you have every right to them. But you don't have any right to call another person's opinion dumb or insinuate that they are dumb or stupid just because of the way that they feel about an issue. Every one of us is entitled to his opinion and shouldn't have to worry about ridicule, especially here. Calling people gun hungry idiots, stupid, dumb, and such is not right. Out of everyone that has disagreed with opinions it has all been done in courteous manner.
I made my statement about drivers licenses and all the crazy rules to get and keep one because cars kill thousands more people than guns ever did. In deaths not due to health automobile accidents are #1 and guns are near the bottom of the list. Be a little more courteous and professional when expressing your views. A car is just as deadly a weapon as a gun. I know I suppose I'm just dumb for saying that too, but that's how I feel.
Bird and Branch thanks for your posts it saved me some writing.
Todd,
Your opinions are fine and you have every right to them. But you don't have any right to call another person's opinion dumb or insinuate that they are dumb or stupid just because of the way that they feel about an issue. Every one of us is entitled to his opinion and shouldn't have to worry about ridicule, especially here. Calling people gun hungry idiots, stupid, dumb, and such is not right. Out of everyone that has disagreed with opinions it has all been done in courteous manner.
I made my statement about drivers licenses and all the crazy rules to get and keep one because cars kill thousands more people than guns ever did. In deaths not due to health automobile accidents are #1 and guns are near the bottom of the list. Be a little more courteous and professional when expressing your views. A car is just as deadly a weapon as a gun. I know I suppose I'm just dumb for saying that too, but that's how I feel.
Bird and Branch thanks for your posts it saved me some writing.
EdDekker
Silver Member
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2000
- Messages
- 192
- Location
- New Ipswich, New Hampshire
- Tractor
- Kubota B2400, Bobcat 331 Mini-Excavator
Let me try to did out the characteristics of the various M16 models from my limited memory:
The M16 and M16 A1 had a Full-Auto mode and a Semi-auto mode.
The M16 A-2 and the M16 A1E1 replaced the Full-auto mode with the three-shot-burst-mode.
The M16 A3 had a Full-Auto and a Semi-auto mode.
The M16 A4 had a 3-shot-burst and a Semi-auto mode.
I think that one variant, but possibly a limited production model, had a three-way selector, Full-auto, three-shot-burst and semi-automatic.
The 'seal' you mentioned sounds like the transfer tax stamp issued by the ATF to show that the $200 transfer tax was paid and that the background check was successfully completed.
James Bardwell has a FAQ on NFA firearms http:// [url]http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/nfa_faq.txt [/url]
On some guns the Sear is the NFA regulated component. These are models with a receiver/housing common between the full-auto and semi-auto version. The sear can be dropped into any of these guns and will function in full auto.
Other guns the receiver is the NFA component.
The M16 lower receiver is the registered component for the actual M16 rifles. There are several AR15 conversions and I think they are treated differently. One AR15 conversion is a drop in sear. The sear must have a serial number and is an NFA firearm subject to registration and the transfer tax. I don’t think that the AR15 full-auto sear will work in a true M16.
I have considered purchasing an NFA gun but have not actually followed through the process.
When I lived in Lowell (MA) I didn't want to even think about the roadblocks that the Lowell Police would come up with in processing an NFA application. The form submitted to the ATF needs an endorsement from one of several specified local chief law enforcement officers. (I know one guys from the gun club who tried, the request was treated by the local police as a joke.)
Since buying my house in NH money has been going into house, tractor, tractor accessories, ... not feeding my gun safe. I haven't even been out shooting in 2 years, I want to go soon but...
I used to joke with my shooting buddies that my gun safe said in a deep voice "FEED ME" whenever I walked by. Richard (one of them) added that he was buying a second gun safe, his first was filled to capacity, his gun safe said "I AM LONELY" to him. With some of my tractor accessories already living outside, I am more likely to hear my garage talking than the gun safe.
(A Gearmore top-and-tilt kit is on order. )
(In my earlier post I stated that the Firearm Owners' Protection Act banned ownership of machine guns manufactured after 1984. The date is wrong. The correct date is May 19 1986.)
Ed
The M16 and M16 A1 had a Full-Auto mode and a Semi-auto mode.
The M16 A-2 and the M16 A1E1 replaced the Full-auto mode with the three-shot-burst-mode.
The M16 A3 had a Full-Auto and a Semi-auto mode.
The M16 A4 had a 3-shot-burst and a Semi-auto mode.
I think that one variant, but possibly a limited production model, had a three-way selector, Full-auto, three-shot-burst and semi-automatic.
The 'seal' you mentioned sounds like the transfer tax stamp issued by the ATF to show that the $200 transfer tax was paid and that the background check was successfully completed.
James Bardwell has a FAQ on NFA firearms http:// [url]http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/nfa_faq.txt [/url]
On some guns the Sear is the NFA regulated component. These are models with a receiver/housing common between the full-auto and semi-auto version. The sear can be dropped into any of these guns and will function in full auto.
Other guns the receiver is the NFA component.
The M16 lower receiver is the registered component for the actual M16 rifles. There are several AR15 conversions and I think they are treated differently. One AR15 conversion is a drop in sear. The sear must have a serial number and is an NFA firearm subject to registration and the transfer tax. I don’t think that the AR15 full-auto sear will work in a true M16.
I have considered purchasing an NFA gun but have not actually followed through the process.
When I lived in Lowell (MA) I didn't want to even think about the roadblocks that the Lowell Police would come up with in processing an NFA application. The form submitted to the ATF needs an endorsement from one of several specified local chief law enforcement officers. (I know one guys from the gun club who tried, the request was treated by the local police as a joke.)
Since buying my house in NH money has been going into house, tractor, tractor accessories, ... not feeding my gun safe. I haven't even been out shooting in 2 years, I want to go soon but...
I used to joke with my shooting buddies that my gun safe said in a deep voice "FEED ME" whenever I walked by. Richard (one of them) added that he was buying a second gun safe, his first was filled to capacity, his gun safe said "I AM LONELY" to him. With some of my tractor accessories already living outside, I am more likely to hear my garage talking than the gun safe.
(A Gearmore top-and-tilt kit is on order. )
(In my earlier post I stated that the Firearm Owners' Protection Act banned ownership of machine guns manufactured after 1984. The date is wrong. The correct date is May 19 1986.)
Ed
EdDekker
Silver Member
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2000
- Messages
- 192
- Location
- New Ipswich, New Hampshire
- Tractor
- Kubota B2400, Bobcat 331 Mini-Excavator
<font color=blue>How was your experience getting a permit in NH?</font color=blue>
Jason,
Well, the answer is I haven’t yet.
I didn’t need the permit to own the guns and take them in locked cases to the range, as I did in Massachusetts.
The permit to carry for protection isn’t a high priority.
I live just a few miles north of the Massachusetts border so I cross into Massachusetts frequently. I would have to consciously route each trip to keep from crossing the boarder into Massachusetts, or obtain a Massachusetts non-resident permit to carry for personal protection as well as the New Hampshire permit. When I stay in New Hampshire I don’t feel the need for protection.
I haven’t been to the range enough in the last 4 years to be willing to carry for protection. There just hasn’t been time to get to the range. I have had the new house, the garden, the tractor, writing my book, recovering from writing the book… all in the last 4 years.
Before I would carry for protection I would need to spend a lot of time at the range and probably take a refresher course at LFI.
Ed
Jason,
Well, the answer is I haven’t yet.
I didn’t need the permit to own the guns and take them in locked cases to the range, as I did in Massachusetts.
The permit to carry for protection isn’t a high priority.
I live just a few miles north of the Massachusetts border so I cross into Massachusetts frequently. I would have to consciously route each trip to keep from crossing the boarder into Massachusetts, or obtain a Massachusetts non-resident permit to carry for personal protection as well as the New Hampshire permit. When I stay in New Hampshire I don’t feel the need for protection.
I haven’t been to the range enough in the last 4 years to be willing to carry for protection. There just hasn’t been time to get to the range. I have had the new house, the garden, the tractor, writing my book, recovering from writing the book… all in the last 4 years.
Before I would carry for protection I would need to spend a lot of time at the range and probably take a refresher course at LFI.
Ed
dekker,
I hope you enjoy NH and your new house. I too live near the border of mass(about 20 miles). I make sure that nothing that can be considered a weapon is in my truck when I cross that line. I work in Chelmsford and Lowell. I think you will find a little more peace and quiet in NH. I've seen alot of changes in southern NH in the past 15 years that have made me look for a new house up north. I don't mind adding an extra 1/2 hour if I can have some breathing room from my neighbors. Houses go up so fast that the only way to ensure privacy is to own the surrounding property. Good luck with your new house.
Jason
I hope you enjoy NH and your new house. I too live near the border of mass(about 20 miles). I make sure that nothing that can be considered a weapon is in my truck when I cross that line. I work in Chelmsford and Lowell. I think you will find a little more peace and quiet in NH. I've seen alot of changes in southern NH in the past 15 years that have made me look for a new house up north. I don't mind adding an extra 1/2 hour if I can have some breathing room from my neighbors. Houses go up so fast that the only way to ensure privacy is to own the surrounding property. Good luck with your new house.
Jason
