Monday, April 4, 2011

Lax New Hampshire Gun Laws reports more on the Craig List Killer story.

I suppose the implication here is not so much that the State of New Hampshire has lax gun laws, which it certainly does, but that the State Line Gun Shop doesn't do enough to ensure the bona fides of its customers.

Markoff, living in Quincy, bought the 9mm pistol Feb. 23, 2009 at the State Line Gun Shop in Mason, N.H., using another man’s New York driver’s license and falsely saying he attended college in New Hampshire, according to reports from the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives that were among the files released last week.

Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley said Friday, “This is an example of how lax gun laws in New Hampshire can contribute to gun violence in Massachusetts.’’

He said the gun used to kill Brisman was among 105 firearms bought in New Hampshire and used in Massachusetts crimes in 2009.
Does it mean that New Hampshire gun shops can sell to out-of-state customers? Or was his verbally claiming to be a student in NH enough? Either way, it sounds lax to me.

Do you think the State Line Gun Shop in New Hampshire works like the State Line Casino in Nevada which is situated just across the California border? There, a service is provided for California residents which is denied them in their own state. Is that how it works on the border between New Hampshire and Massachusetts? Does that seem right to you?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.


  1. If guns are the problem why is NH's crime rate lower?

  2. Because guns are not the ONLY problem. No one on my side of the argument ever says they are. Only you mendacious and tricky characters say we say that and then you get all defensive.

    New Hampshire lack some of the other major factors that are plentiful in states like Mass. and NJ.

    But guns are part of the problem, and since they're the most concrete part, about which something could most easily be done, compared to poverty and unemployment and education, for example, we need stricter gun control.

  3. Stricter gun control laws will only be obeyed by law abiding citizens, criminals will not obey any laws that are passed. If they want a gun they'll get one even if they have to kill to get it. When will people understand that crime and criminals need to be punished not inanimate objects such as guns. If someone commits a crime with a car do we pass laws restricting cars?

  4. You make tihs a black and white argument, ignoring the very clear and logical component that stricter laws make simple physical access to guns more difficul because there are fewer to get, illegally. Further you are ignoring the deterrent factors. While not perfect, they do contribute to reductions in gun violence.

    So, sorry, your point doesn't hold up. Evidence to support that it doesn't is the lower (often dramatically lower) incidence of gun violence in connection with crimes in other countries which have stricter regulation and enforcement.

  5. Yes, Anonymous, Dog Gone is absolutely right. You're argument doesn't hold up.

    You say "criminals don't obey laws," as if that's the first time we've heard it or responded to it.

    Most gun control laws are not aimed at the criminals because lawmakers are not stupid and they understand that, as you so wisely said, criminals don't obey the laws.

    The laws aimed at the law abiding are designed to eliminate or at least diminish gun flow from the good guys to the bad guys. They do this by constraining the LAW ABIDING to be more responsible. Get it?