Comments
HernBurford t1_j8slo0o wrote
His bill is highly self-motivated. Rep. Gerhard is an ex-felon and wants his guns back.
He was in prison because he provided guns and explosives for an anti-government standoff in Plainfield, NH. This bill and his motivations is highly dangerous.
smartest_kobold t1_j8sm5g5 wrote
The guy who helped acquire weapons for an armed standoff with the Feds?
IntelligentMeal40 t1_j8smzqa wrote
Speaking of the right to possess weapons, you know how if you have a medical cannabis card you are not supposed to be allowed to buy a gun? Since Sununu signed the law saying NH doesn’t enforce gun laws that aren’t NH gun laws, wouldn’t that be one of them? I can’t find a NH law that says you can’t have a cannabis card and a gun.
TheGrateKhan t1_j8so60o wrote
OP, you probably shouldve clarified that its only non-violent felons that would benefit from this. Not every felon. You got me slightly worried for a moment.
If you were punished for your offense, paid your debt, and rejoined the society that you were indebted to, you should be able to get all of your rights back. ESPECIALLY if you were a non-violent criminal.
VenserSojo t1_j8sodl0 wrote
On the one hand felons often commit further crime, on the other most of said felons just acquire weapons illegally regardless and from a legal standpoint punishment for their crime has already been served.
Realistically I'd just punish violent crime more harshly and reduce the amount a sentence can be lightened via a plea deal (in fact plea deals and the current criminal court carousel need to be retooled entirely).
Azr431 t1_j8sokfy wrote
The legislator that authored this is technically a non-violent felon and he’s the last person that should have access to guns.
HikeEveryMountain t1_j8spcfa wrote
Ok, but this revised law would require THREE VIOLENT FELONIES before firearm rights would be revoked. How about we meet in the middle and say 1 violent felony is too much?
largeb789 t1_j8spg44 wrote
The sponsor was basically a domestic terrorist. His bill doesn't make a distinction between violent and non violent gun and explosives runner.
natethegreek t1_j8spri2 wrote
so felons (after completing their sentence) should be able to vote too?
[deleted] OP t1_j8sqnzi wrote
[deleted]
Action-Calm t1_j8ssrhb wrote
I'll go further all felons not on parole/probation should have full constitutional rights. There is no provision for otherwise in the constitution.
graemeknows t1_j8su530 wrote
Oh, that's nice.
smartest_kobold t1_j8sufzl wrote
Do you think Jason Gerhard should be legally allowed to buy guns?
chain_me_up t1_j8sv31p wrote
Seems like a bad, self-motivated idea.
TATA456alawaife t1_j8sw644 wrote
I’m introducing a law that mandates everybody who sees me say that I’m super cool and awesome and handsome and also they have to pay me 20 dollars each time.
truelikeicelikefire t1_j8sw8be wrote
How do people like this get elected?
No need for answers. It's low information MAGAts
mcolorado3 t1_j8swju6 wrote
Big NOPE from me
Solid_Information_66 t1_j8sxej8 wrote
Don't commit a felony and they won't be?
dj_narwhal t1_j8sxlff wrote
How does one become an ex felon, is it not a lifetime title?
Solid_Information_66 t1_j8sxq56 wrote
It should be as easy for a convicted felon to get a firearm as it is for the average person to adopt a child.
TheGrateKhan t1_j8sxtwq wrote
To use a phrase, "i think the juice is worth the squeeze."
The number of regular people who would be helped by this bill outweighs individuals that might use this as an opportunity to reoffend.
I ask that you look past this one person and judge the bill on its own merit. Returning rights back to people after they completed their punishment.
Class B felonies, simple possession of small amounts of drugs, theft under 1k but more than $500. Not necessarily hardened criminals who want to make the world worse, but people who maybe made a mistake, had one bad moment in their life and are being punished indefinitely for it.
SheeEttin t1_j8syiqv wrote
Of course.
mafiafish t1_j8syw5f wrote
>Ex-Felon
>guns and explosives for anti-government standoff
NH state representatives sure are a fun bunch.
SheeEttin t1_j8sz2bb wrote
There's no law that says that. ATF form 4473 asks whether you are an "unlawful user of, or addicted to" marijuana, etc. It doesn't say anything about a MMJ card. You can have a card and not use marijuana, and you can use marijuana and not have a card. They're not related.
mafiafish t1_j8sz80h wrote
Voting makes sense - violent felons having access to weapons seems like something quite different.
Azr431 t1_j8t07v1 wrote
I disagree. We need fewer guns, not more. I'll leave it at that
MiggySmalls6767 t1_j8t0c8i wrote
As they should. Once you do you time in prison your time should be over. You are allowed to become a citizen again and that includes all the constitutional protections one is afforded as a United States citizen.
keegan1015 t1_j8t0i3k wrote
Not defending Gerhard, (I don’t know enough about him) but non-violent should not lose their rights permanently, think Martha Stewart, or MA OUI law 2.5yrs. Welfare benefits, anything that carries over two years, even if never enforced makes a person federally prohibited
FightTomorrow t1_j8t2xqm wrote
We treat our ex-cons as second class citizens and somehow expect them all to become upstanding members of society. A double standard I’ve never really understood.
1upnate t1_j8t37nb wrote
Hey, you're super cool, awesome and handsome. Here's $20.
FightTomorrow t1_j8t3aku wrote
Why shouldn’t they be?
Doug_Shoe t1_j8t3efm wrote
If a man pays his debt to society, he should have the same rights as everyone else. I could see withholding gun rights if he was still on parole or something like that.
Treating people like 2nd class citizens or monsters is a big reason why many reoffend. If you expect more of people then they will live up to it.
Missedanother1 t1_j8t4ode wrote
Gotta ask yourself Rep, how does this benefit the law abiding people of NH?
natethegreek t1_j8t57ps wrote
we were specifically talking about non-violent felons... but I agree they are different!
PissTapeExpert t1_j8t5v1p wrote
kearsargeII t1_j8t641m wrote
Ignoring the specific charges he got, I would think that he should not constitutionally be able to hold office at all. His direct aid to the Browns in their standoff in my mind should fall under section 3 of the 14th amendment, which prohibits anyone who attempts to rebel against the federal government, or provides aid to rebels, from federal or state legislatures. He didn’t built bombs because he was getting monetary kickbacks, he did it for batshit ideological reasons, the Browns by their own words thought they were leading a militia movement against a corrupt government, so I would think that it would apply in theory.
Practically, not sure that this should apply to a conviction of aiding tax fraud.
Sixfeatsmall05 t1_j8t6yn8 wrote
Ok, fine, but only if they can vote too
glockster19m t1_j8t74fq wrote
I mean let's be honest, it wasn't much of a standoff
The house was never surrounded, shots were never exchanged, they were literally letting supporters in and out of the house freely the whole time
kearsargeII t1_j8t7qj3 wrote
Jason Gerhard is a living example of someone who really shouldn’t own guns but would legally be allowed under this bill. Technically a nonviolent crime until you peel away the tax fraud conviction to show that he was arrested with pipe bombs that he was planning on using as IEDs against police arresting the Browns. The only reason he is currently out of prison is the feds changing mandatory minimum sentencing around explosives. He is basically a living gotcha for his own bill, an contrived set of circumstances seemingly designed to argue that his own bill is a bad idea.
The only way I could come up with a stronger argument against his proposed bills would be to target the absolutely batshit proposed three strikes rule for violent crimes, in which someone could kill two people and still legally be allowed to own guns.
NHGuy t1_j8t8dk6 wrote
> is a big reason why many reoffend
Citation please. That seems awfully simple
[deleted] OP t1_j8t97dq wrote
[removed]
Tuckersmom22 t1_j8t98z6 wrote
No, if their felony was a gun charge.
MiggySmalls6767 t1_j8tbpwm wrote
Exactly. What was the point of them sitting in prison for X years if you’re just going to turn it into a lifetime punishment designed to make them fail?
likes_sawz t1_j8tbw1a wrote
Even if the bill passed it would be ineffective because the federal regulations banning convicted felons from owning firearms take precedence. Also, lying about ones criminal history on a Form 4473 it itself a felony.
SlammySlam712 t1_j8tc0k8 wrote
I’m for non violent felons to have firearms just not violent offenders
DrOblivion5550 t1_j8tgk53 wrote
Best thing for the Live free or die state! lol. Arm everyone, and arm them to the "teeth".
giraffebutter t1_j8tgxz3 wrote
How in the fuck did he get elected…nm I figured it out
LBoogie5Bang t1_j8tieun wrote
This is why we don't get invaded and other countries spy on us remotely from far away. Live free or dye your hair funny colors and get a bunch of tattoos.😂😂
Swimming-Accountant6 t1_j8til5w wrote
Only if it’s a gun charge
Edit: they should only be able to get guns if it WASNT a gun charge
liber_tas t1_j8tiw6n wrote
Already legal under the NH Constitution, there's no exception for felons. But, the NH Supreme Court justices cannot read very well, probably because they went to government schools, so...
gtiballentine t1_j8tl24q wrote
Good!
Bomdiggitydoo t1_j8tlvnt wrote
Stay classy NH
baxterstate t1_j8tm14y wrote
Once you’ve served your sentence, are there rights you never get back?
dangerzonebjj t1_j8tmevk wrote
Ex felon?
Was he un convicted?
Patten33 t1_j8to1a7 wrote
You can be pardoned
LELANDYEE t1_j8tp7ln wrote
One and a half felonies.
Rolling_Beardo t1_j8tr7a9 wrote
This wacko should never be allowed near a gun again. He’s a domestic terrorist.
ralettar t1_j8tungw wrote
I’m open minded to treating those who have done their time with respect and I suppose that includes having their rights restored after they’re released.
Connect_Stay_137 t1_j8twjxm wrote
Felons that have proved reform definitely deserve their rights back.
coastalthree t1_j8twwqo wrote
There’s nothing dangerous about an anti government movement if you aren’t an authoritarian. Everyone should have the right to succeed from the union if they believe the government has become more than it was meant to be
THE_GREAT_PICKLE t1_j8tyd7h wrote
Yea, so, this won’t work dude. This is self-serving for him. For so many reasons this won’t work.
But this state is weird, who knows. It’s a terrible idea though.
alkatori t1_j8tz3sq wrote
Doesn't matter that NH won't enforce it. No FFL is going to risk losing their license by selling it.
alkatori t1_j8tzgc2 wrote
I'm more concerned with him being a rep than with him potentially having a gun.
Paper_Disastrous t1_j8tzqoi wrote
They could just move down to Bama. Plenty of confederates to hang with there.
Wintermute1969 t1_j8u393j wrote
Not sure how this would work. the 4473 has a felony question. you'd have to lie on the form, a felony in itself. seems a pointless law.
bubumamajuju t1_j8u4i3k wrote
The guy served 12 and a half years for buying food for a couple who evaded their taxes and providing weapons that didn’t result in any injuries or death.
According to this article, he would still be in jail if he didn’t get lucky with the Supreme Court changing the law he got convicted of?
I imagine he’s seeking his constitutional rights back due to the authoritarian loons who think rotting in jail for 12+ years is an appropriate punishment for helping a tax evader.
kearsargeII t1_j8u7bk3 wrote
Whitewashed as fuck.
Literally the only reason why there were no deaths in this situation was because the Marshalls made a calculated decision to attempt to negotiate a peaceful arrest, decided against storming the place after seeing reports of IEDs and poor cover, and ended up arresting the couple by sneaking in undercover. This is all greatly to their credit, probably the best possible outcome to this scenario that nobody ended up getting my killed.
Gerhard did absolutely fuck all to make it peaceful. He built pipe bombs for the Browns. He was arrested with parts, there were dozens of IEDs on the property, to the point where it took years for the property to be deemed safe to auction afterwards. He repeatedly made statements that he personally would use deadly force to defend the Browns. He did bring food for them, but that was far from the limit of his activities.
maat922 t1_j8u9i5s wrote
This is fantastic news. You should also get your voting rights back once you've served your sentence.
maat922 t1_j8u9unk wrote
Standing up to government thugs on the attack is about the most American thing a person can do and the exact opposite of "domestic terrorism".
maat922 t1_j8u9y06 wrote
Absolutely. Did he serve his sentence? Then yes.
DrOblivion5550 t1_j8ua546 wrote
asphynctersayswhat t1_j8ucdzd wrote
Aren’t the hardcore 2A people also the ones who speak about capital punishment as a deterrent. If they believe in deterrents, the the threat of losing your guns should absolutely be used to deter them from committing felonies. Seems pretty simple to me, just don’t be a felon.
underratedride t1_j8uee28 wrote
Shhhhh don’t tell them. They think they’re part of the “resistance”.
TiredCr0codile t1_j8ug7f4 wrote
This dipshit needs to be voted out
WapsuSisilija t1_j8ukx9z wrote
Domestic terrorist files bill to get guns back.
Alarmed_Pop6601 t1_j8urkyt wrote
I’ll never understand how these people get elected 😅🤦🏼♀️
ThatNewEnglandPerson t1_j8ust0o wrote
non violent felons should still have their second amendment rights
ColemanGreene t1_j8uuw5u wrote
Yeah, gun sellers are real big on the letter of regulations. Go to a gun show, you’ll see how much they’ll risk for cash in hand.
Able_Cunngham603 t1_j8uvt38 wrote
His website is Go Hard with Gerhard.
That tells me everything I need to know.
Able_Cunngham603 t1_j8uwfe2 wrote
Don’t forget great slogans like Get Hard with Gerhard!
AppropriateAd5325 t1_j8uzf1k wrote
He sound completely normal except for the fact he needs a gun in case someone says “Hey sweet cheeks” to him in a parking garage. “I mean I have a knife, but come on”. Seriously dude, i’m a 67 year old woman and I don’t feel I need to be armed to get to my car. And he likes to build bombs, and he’s a state rep? What the what?
AppropriateAd5325 t1_j8uztp6 wrote
It’s NH and a lot of these free staters have “interesting” ideas.
phantompenis2 t1_j8v32na wrote
no need for a law, the free market is working
Acanthaceae_Square t1_j8v4eff wrote
Praise the invisible hand!!!
decayo t1_j8v7oqo wrote
It was a federal judge, so it doesn't matter if he is a NH judge.
SearingDrake t1_j8vbbtb wrote
You’re super cool bro, here’s an award
[deleted] OP t1_j8vgtc3 wrote
Shall not be infringed is pretty clear.
tghost474 t1_j8vnj61 wrote
Yea so? If you served your sentence you have served your debt to society.
tghost474 t1_j8vnkp5 wrote
Dude you’re trying to use logic and reason here. Best of luck but a waste of your breath.
zrad603 t1_j8vppkn wrote
God forbid that the guy who sold weed in high school in the 1960's be allowed to own a gun.
zrad603 t1_j8vq3dn wrote
Well, the average person commits three felonies per day. https://www.amazon.com/dp/1594035229
zrad603 t1_j8vqcog wrote
zrad603 t1_j8vqhia wrote
like.... do you really think he couldn't get access if he wanted them?
Salt-Breakfast3030 t1_j8vznur wrote
Felons have the right to vote in almost ALL states.
In Vermont, you can vote from Prison.
daymuub t1_j8w87fs wrote
Take it or leave it
rossoEJ55 t1_j8w9w0i wrote
Ah so this is where all the people from Massachusetts who are going to ruin New Hampshire are.
overdoing_it t1_j8wckbv wrote
I think anyone not imprisoned or on parole should have full rights. Gun rights, voting rights, all of it. However I can see in certain cases a lifetime restriction of certain rights being part of the sentence or a condition of release. It should be taken on a case by case basis rather than a policy matter of banning all convicts indiscriminately. Simply, let the punishment fit the crime.
overdoing_it t1_j8wct6v wrote
> Seems pretty simple to me, just don’t be a felon.
That's not so simple, there's even a book about it - https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6611240-three-felonies-a-day
Doug_Shoe t1_j8wdfcs wrote
Sorry I don't have links at my fingertips ready to go. It's human nature. If you allow a person back into society then he has the opportunity to live like everyone else. If you banish him, then he goes to the criminal subculture. If you treat him differently, then every strike against him is motivation to leave regular society.
You can say "we want him to reform" all day long. If you don't let him reintegrate, then good luck with that.
blackfish236 t1_j8wf9lj wrote
Yes agreed the second amendment applies to all citizens
LELANDYEE t1_j8wi3ax wrote
Best I can do.
runz_with_waves t1_j8wjcq9 wrote
159:3 Convicted Felons. Except as provided in RSA 159:3-a, upon completion of a term of incarceration, including all other conditions and requirements of the sentence, a person who was convicted of a felony that did not involve committing an act of violence shall have the right to possess and use a pistol, revolver, or other firearm in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. In this section, "act of violence" shall mean physical harm inflicted upon another individual.
You serve your punishment and you get your Rights back. Seems reasonable.
alkatori t1_j8wlj43 wrote
Been to them. But the prices suck.
glockster19m t1_j8wn0cn wrote
Like I definitely don't support the browns, they were both straight up mentally ill and thought they Ed thought he was the second coming of Jesus Christ by the end of it
But it also just wasn't a stand off. They were literally arrested when two undercover agents showed up at their door with a sheet of fucking brownies and were let right inside
Android2715 t1_j8wquwc wrote
You can’t hold office if you’ve been convicted of higher tier crimes. You don’t get every constitution right back
moosesgunsmithing t1_j8wrmdt wrote
Yes there is. Marijuana is federally prohibited and the form 4473 is a federal form. Per the ATFs package to FFLs Marijuana use of any kind makes you a prohibited person.
ghostedemail t1_j8wsqqg wrote
In all fairness, some felonies are really stupid
[deleted] OP t1_j8wv61k wrote
[removed]
RoadAdventures t1_j8wvgou wrote
> Yes there is. Marijuana is federally prohibited and the form 4473 is a federal form. Per the ATFs package to FFLs Marijuana use of any kind makes you a prohibited person.
Absolutely correct.
You forgot to add that lying on 4473 is a felony, and that the feds love prosecuting anyone they catch doing that, so advising someone to omit their marijuana use when filling the 4473 is basically telling them to ask to be jailed.
SheeEttin t1_j8x006c wrote
Yes, but the question was about having a card, not using marijuana.
moosesgunsmithing t1_j8x0mdc wrote
The feds don't care if you have a card or not
FrenchToaststrea t1_j8x5u5t wrote
Criminals already have guns why not let ‘em have it
Kyle_Smiles t1_j8xa132 wrote
Reckless driving is a felony. 25 mph over the speed limit, how many times per week do you do that on the highway? Same with popping a wheelie. Technically you could lose your right to bear Arms over that. Too many things are felonies and it should be very difficult to lose your constitutional right to own firearms.
SheeEttin t1_j8xa8yd wrote
That's what I said.
ironiczealot t1_j8xfusu wrote
In the 10th Circuit, so, while that's some nice precedent that could fuel a positive decision nationally if a similar case ever gets appealed up to the Supreme Court, this has no bearing on NH right now whatsoever.
ironiczealot t1_j8xg25x wrote
Don't know how u/moosesgunsmithing meant his comment, but the Supreme Court has ruled that even if courts can't prove usage, merely having a med card is prima facie evidence of being a user. They very much do give a shit.
moosesgunsmithing t1_j8xgg9o wrote
As far as the feds are concerned, based on the communications I have had directly with the ATF, they treat having a medical card as being automatically an unlawful user and therefore a prohibited person. So that is what I meant.
ironiczealot t1_j8xh0x5 wrote
So we're in agreementness 😊
SheeEttin t1_j8xi72e wrote
What case was that?
IBlazeMyOwnPath t1_j8xmwln wrote
they should be able to vote regardless
If we provide the government with a pathway to disenfranchise people from voting by making something criminal, suddenly, we're going to find we have a lot of criminals...
largeb789 t1_j8xpyrw wrote
But it could have turned violent. They had traps in place. They were non compliant with the law.
glockster19m t1_j8xqd1r wrote
But again, it didn't turn violent
If anything it's an example of how easily the government could have avoided violence had they wanted to in similar situations like Ruby Ridge
largeb789 t1_j8xrzvm wrote
Ed Brown "vowed to resist arrest violently and die rather than go to prison." The only reason the standoff didn't turn violent was the marshals were able to trick them. I don't think Ruby Ridge would have unfolded the same way. I'm glad the feds learned from that and realized they were dealing with a couple nutters.
MiggySmalls6767 t1_j8ybxxa wrote
You should. That’s the point.
tylermm03 t1_j8zibz7 wrote
Dealers won’t sell to you if you’re a user of marijuana. When you fill out ATF form 4473 (a background check form), they ask if you use or abuse any illicit substances, and they specifically state that marijuana is federally illegal. If you lie and buy a gun anyways and they find out, you’ve committed a felony.
tylermm03 t1_j8zisau wrote
They ask on a 4473 if you’ve been convicted of a felony, if you lie on that form it is a felony and you will go to prison.
tylermm03 t1_j8zjpeo wrote
You should be allowed to carry a gun if you want to, I have no issues with current state laws considering how low our homicide rate is (it’s the lowest in the country). At the same time, it is against federal law to posses a firearm if you’ve been convicted of a felony unless you have it expunged. When you buy a gun at a dealer they ask you on the 4473 (background check form) if you’ve been convicted of a felony or domestic violence. If you lie on the form about anything, you’re committing a felony and you’d be dumb to think they won’t find out.
angryjonny_1 t1_j97z6ey wrote
First, if you’ve done your time, ALL rights should be given back.
Second, taxation is theft, so he practically didn’t even a commit a crime.
liber_tas t1_j99ym67 wrote
Yes. Also Un-constitutional, but, expecting the government to abide by the rules is probably too much.
JeffersonsDisciple t1_j8slnmi wrote
Non-violent felons shouldn't have constitutional rights taken away.