This bill is a very controversial topic in New Hampshire. With controversial topics like this one, there's always two sides, people strongly in favor, and people strongly against, but we don't know if majority of New Hampshire’s people are for or against this bill. The majority of the senate was in favor, in fact, a report by NH1, “The New Hampshire state Senate, in a 13-10 party line vote, passed a measure that would repeal the need for a permit or license to carry a concealed handgun.” Almost all of the senate who voted for the bill to be passed were republican, and most who voted against were democratic. As far as the people, New Hampshire in the 2017 election voted blue, or for the democratic elect. A poll by The New York Times shows that 46.8% of people who voted voted for Clinton (Democratic elect) and 46.5% voted for Trump (Republican elect). Because of the senate’s democrats voting against the bill, and the republicans voting for the bill, you can predict that the majority of the state would vote against the passing of the bill.
Some of the reasons why not needing a permit to carry a concealed handgun is simply self defense. With today's world, the news filling up with stories of shootings and murders, good civilians with concealed weapons may be able to cut down the death rate of innocent people. Some might think that just because people have permission to carry a handgun, it’s going to be complete chaos. But An article written on The Union Leader, the daily newspaper for New Hampshire, explains why not needing a permit for a concealed carry is convenient. The Union Leader writes “no one needs permission to carry concealed in Vermont, and that state has not yet turned into a lawless wasteland.” Vermont is an example showing that just because people are allowed to carry concealed handguns and revolvers, it doesn’t mean that more people will be shot. If anything, this will lower the death rates because people victim to shootings and other violent acts will have protection. Another reason why the bill would have a positive impact is that so little people were denied a permit anyways, so eliminating the permit would save a lot of people time waiting for a permit that they are almost guaranteed anyway. According to Senator Lou D’Allesandro, out of the 2,518 people who applied for a concealed carry permit in the last year in New Hampshire, only 41 people were denied a permit. If 99% of people who ask for a permit are accepted, why take the time waiting for the permit when you could not need a permit. If the police force accepts 99% of people than the permit process might as well be a big waste of time.
Though there are positive points for the bill to be passed, everything has a good and bad side. Removing the need for a permit allows anyone to be able to carry a concealed carry. Not only does removing the needed permit allow people who weren’t accepted for a permit to carry a concealed handgun, but it eliminates any way we can restrict certain people from carrying. Shown in a graph in the article “Americans deaths in terrorism vs. gun violence in one graph,” by Eve Bower writer for CNN, the graph shows that in 2014, 33,599 people died to gun violence, versus 32 people died from terrorism. Everyone is so afraid of terrorism, when a conflict inside the U.S is more deadly. If more people had concealed handguns, the chance of a shooting is more likely and easy for someone with bad intentions. If anyone can carry a handgun, people with bad intentions could easily pull it out at anytime and injure and kill people. The law right now in New Hampshire is already working very well. Senator also says, “if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it!,” referring to the current laws. In New Hampshire, the current gun laws as far as concealed carry goes is working perfectly, and to change the current law would be a foolish mistake. The current law restricts possibly dangerous people from carrying a concealed handgun, and allows good citizens to carry. Current gun laws in New Hampshire work perfectly with allowing the right people and restricting the wrong people from carrying a concealed handgun.
There's a lot of controversy around the topic of the bill removing the need for a permit to carry a concealed handgun. Though the senate has voted in favor of the bill, the bill still has to go through the state’s governors. An article by NH1 News, states, “similar measures passed the GOP dominated state Senate and state House of Representatives the past two years, but were both vetoed by then-Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan.” If bills like the one removing needed permit for concealed carry have been vetoed in the past two years, who says this bill won’t be vetoed too? Gov. Maggie Hassan is Democratic, and has vetoed similar bills in the past, so it is most likely she will veto again. Though there’s a good chance the bill gets vetoed, many believe it will be passed this time. Jeb Bradley, Senate Majority Leader, states, “this issue is about protecting our citizens’ lives, liberties and loved ones and that is why we need to restore law-abiding citizens’ rights to carry a firearm.” Jeb Bradley states the positive impact concealed carry laws have on people. Jeb explains that the bill would increase security and safety for civilians of New Hampshire because they would be able to defend themselves against attackers. If Maggie Hassan thinks the bill has a positive impact like Jeb does, there’s a chance the bill could be passed.
This bill makes it so any New Hampshire citizen can carry a concealed handgun, but does it really mean anyone? Does this mean anyone, not matter their mental state, or criminal record can carry a concealed handgun? If this bill passes then they can't restrict anyone from carrying a concealed handgun no matter what their record is. Chief Peter Bartlett of the Hooksett PD, states, "The New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of Police has and remains opposed to legislation changes that remove the local police chief or governing authority's ability to assess the suitability of a person making application for a permit to carry a concealed firearm while at the same time being compelled to issue the permit.” If the police can’t reject certain people from carrying concealed handguns than they can’t keep firearms out of the wrong hands. Though having police decide who's eligible for a permit, police can be biased towards locals. An article published by The Union Leader, states, “you need to convince local officials, usually the police chief, that you are a suitable person in order to wear a loaded handgun under your coat, carry it in your purse, or transport it inside a motor vehicle.” If the local police chief is biased against you, it may be very hard to get a permit. Not needing a permit lets anyone carry without needing to obtain a permit, so law-abiding gun owners don’t have to go through a process to decipher if one is “suitable” to carry or not. The current system is good for people who are inexperienced with guns, and prevents possibly dangerous carriers to be restricted, but really hurts the experienced shooters who have to go through the process for the permit.