By Dave Workman
Editor-in-Chief
A pair of Democrat-sponsored restrictive gun control bills has been rejected by the Republican-controlled New Hampshire House of Representatives in a move which should get notice nationally.
The New Hampshire Union Leader puts it bluntly: “Gun control bills go down in flames.”
WMUR News is reporting House Democrats are vowing to keep pushing for a 72-hour “waiting period” on the transfer of firearms, despite a devastating 216-154 vote.
House Bill 56 was promoted with the typical rhetoric. According to WMUR, Rep. David Meuse (D-Portsmouth) insisted, “Waiting periods provide a cooling-off period for people who might harm themselves or might harm others. Universal background checks can help reduce the risk of firearms falling into the hands of people that our laws, for very good reason, already prohibit from purchasing or possessing firearms.”
In rebuttal, the National Rifle Association posted a message at its website noting, “There is no evidence that waiting periods reduce violent crime. Instead, this simply denies someone the ability to buy a firearm for urgent self-defense.”
There was no small irony in a remark by Republican Rep. Jennifer Rhodes of Winchester.
“We keep on being told this is about suicide prevention, but the very people that are bringing us this bill saying it is about suicide prevention are voting for an assisted suicide bill,” Rhodes reportedly observed. “Make that make sense.”
Meanwhile, House Bill 352 was defeated on a 211-161 vote. This measure would have prohibited the carrying of firearms at New Hampshire polling places. According to the NRA, “This bill would have restricted your Second Amendment right while exercising your right to vote, creating more soft targets, and leaving you vulnerable to violent criminals who will not follow the law.”
WMUR quoted House Majority Leader Jason Osborne observing, “New Hampshire is the safest state there is, even safer than Canada.”
When Rand Research released its updated report last year on whether waiting periods had any significant effect on homicide, the results were, at best, inconclusive. According to Rand’s summary, “Evidence that waiting periods may reduce total homicides is moderate, and evidence that waiting periods may reduce firearm homicides is limited.”
The report reached a lengthier conclusion: “Excluding one study with critical methodological concerns, we identified eight qualifying studies that examined the effects of waiting periods on homicide rates. Based on analyses of the Brady Act that cannot disentangle the effects of background checks from those of waiting-period requirements, two studies found uncertain effects (Ludwig and Cook, 2000; Monroe, 2008). Examining changes to waiting-period requirements specifically, two studies found uncertain effects of the laws (Edwards et al., 2018; Lott and Whitley, 2001), one found that waiting periods had suggestive negative effects on total homicides (Hepburn et al., 2004), one found that waiting periods significantly increased total homicides (Fridel, 2021a), and one found that waiting periods significantly reduced total homicides among adults aged 21 years or older (Luca, Malhotra, and Poliquin, 2017). Roberts (2009) found that waiting periods were associated with declines in intimate partner homicide, although these effects were significant only for waiting periods of between two and seven days; estimates were suggestive for both shorter and longer waiting periods. Finally, one study found uncertain effects of the laws on violent crime (Lott and Whitley, 2001). Considering these studies and our assessment of their strengths, we find moderate evidence that waiting periods may reduce total homicides.”
