Hundreds in N.H. rally for gun rights

Associated Press

Garrett Lear, who calls himself the Patriot Pastor from Wakefield, N.H. speaks at a rally to promote the right to bear arms in front of the Statehouse in Concord, N.H. on Thursday. Speakers criticized Democrats in Washington for favoring new gun control laws following the Connecticut school shooting that left 26 dead last month.

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — Several hundred gun rights advocates — some toting rifles and holstered handguns — flocked to the Statehouse Thursday to oppose weapons bans and efforts to repeal parts of New Hampshire's expanded stand-your-ground law.

Speaker after speaker rallied the crowd of about 300 to hold firm to their firearms and their right to bear them.

"The line in the sand is easily moved," shouted Jerry DeLemus, a firearms instructor and head of the Rochester 912 gun-rights group. "We're in New Hampshire. That line is going to be cut deep into granite."

The rally comes a day after former Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, still recovering from a Tucson shooting spree that killed six people two years ago, implored federal lawmakers curb firearm violence, saying that "too many children are dying." Also Wednesday, hundreds of residents of Newtown, CT. — where 26 children and staff were killed in a massacre in December — urged limits military-style rifles and high-capacity ammunition magazines.

But Garrett Lear, the self-described "patriot pastor," told the New Hampshire rally Thursday that "gun control is a steady hand."

Speakers criticized Democrats in Washington for favoring new gun control laws following the Newtown shooting.

Bob Guida, who campaigned unsuccessfully for Congress in the 2nd District, told the crowd, "We're here to raise the alarm," before leading the crowd in chant.

Steve Stefanik of Manchester told the Associated Press that no one is going to take away his rights or his weapons.

"They will not disarm us," Stefanik said. "That's what our weapons are for. We'll take them on. There're 80 million of us. They don't stand a chance."

Many in the crowd waved American flags or yellow ones bearing the slogan, "Don't tread on me." There was no sighting of supporters of gun restrictions or bans.

About 200 people attended a House hearing last week on a bill that would repeal parts of a law that Republicans pushed through two years ago — over a governor's veto and law enforcement's objections — allowing people to use deadly force to defend themselves any place they have a right to be without having a duty to retreat.

The deadly force law is based on the Castle Doctrine, which says a person does not have to retreat from intruders at home before using deadly force. The New Hampshire law — passed in 2011 — expanded that principle to public places.

House Majority Leader Steve Shurtleff, D-Concord, is proposing again requiring people to retreat in public if it is safe to do so.

The Thursday afternoon rally was organized by leaders of two conservative New Hampshire groups — the Rochester 912 Project and the Granite State Patriots. Those who signed a petition were given a raffle ticket to win 100 rounds of 9 mm ammunition.

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

In order to make comments, you must create a subscription.

In order to comment on, you must hold a valid subscription allowing access to this website. You must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your profile. To subscribe or link your existing subscription click here.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned from posting comments.



GARY SAVARD's picture

There was a shooting at an

There was a shooting at an Atlanta GA middle school yesterday afternoon in which one student was wounded before an armed security guard at the school disarmed the student with the gun. Why isn't this blasted all over the place? Because it doesn't play to the folks that call the NRA plan to have some type of armed security in our schools absurd and rediculous.

Jason Theriault's picture

Problems with the NRA plan

1.Even Obama says armed guards might be the right answer at SOME schools. But it isn't the answer at all schools.
2. A well trained guard, like what the president has, can be a great boost to security. A poorly trained guard that is mass produced to get into schools is a bad idea. Imagine the TSA with guns.
3. Who is going to pay for all this?
Lets look at just Auburn. Auburn has 10 schools. Lets say 2 guards@ 50K a year(salary+benefits+training+ equipment) per school. So, you just added $1,000,000 to the school budget of $35 million.

There are close to 100,000 public schools in the United States. That amounts to $10 billion dollars. Will gun owners be willing to shoulder a 10 billion dollar tax? That would equate to a $600 tax on every gun sale(basing the numbers of gun sale as close to equivalent to the NICS Background checks performed in 2012). Or should the general public be force to pay so that gun owners can keep us safe from the Canadians?


Nowhere is it written

That ownership of any weapon is constitutionally guaranteed. Justice Scalia - one of the most conservative judges in my memory - has said that gun ownership may be regulated. the National Firearms Act bans the ownership of fully automatic weapons without a very hard to get and expensive license and the black helicopters filled with Muslim Sleeper Cells didn't swoop down to confiscate your REmington Model 700 or snatch all your women.

Gun rights advocates are basically flinging everything they can hoping that people don't understand that their selfishness doesn't trump the right of anyone, much less a six year old, to live a long and good life.

Yes, no law will prevent all gun murders, but just because driving while intoxicated doesn't stop drunks from getting behind the wheel and killing their neighbors doesn't mean we don't need drunk driving laws.

Chicago and Manhattan are held up as cities with gun laws and gun murders supposedly proving laws don't matter, but those cities are surrounded by places where guns are as easily bought as a six pack - all you have to do is be of age. Mass has tough laws, but a Mass resident wanting a gun has only to drive to Cabelas to get one.

It's all about tightening access to military style weapons.

Robert McQueeney's picture

How did the current gun laws affect this?

Quoted from the above article: "residents of Newtown, CT. — where 26 children and staff were killed in a massacre in December".

The area that this mass killing took place in was, no doubt, one of those gun free zones. It appears certain that all the law abiding citizens were obeying the law by not bringing their guns to the gun free zone. It's all too apparent that they obeyed the law, because, had there been anyone with a gun there, they would have had opportunity to stop the carnage at some point. Instead, everyone had to wait for the alarm to be raised and then wait for armed police response, who were not stationed at the school. That is an awful lot of time for an armed criminal in an area full of law abiding unarmed citizens.

So no, let me get this straight, people are pushing for new laws against law abiding citizens????? What law against law abiding citizens could possibly have have prevented this armed criminal from killing all those people?

How about we pass laws that severely punish criminals who use weapons. I'm thinking that life in prison for a first conviction, and for any conspirators, would be a good start. How about we actually punish and remove from society any criminals who actually use a gun in a crime? Why don't we legislate against the criminal?

Jason Theriault's picture


What law against law abiding citizens could possibly have have prevented this armed criminal from killing all those people?

If the NFA was extended to all guns, that might have done it. That way, to get a gun, one would have to pass a background check and have the permission of the local sheriff or chief of police, who might have objected to said guns in the house with someone with mental health issues.

Guards aren't the solution either. There were police officers at Columbine, who helped people get out, but didn't engage the shooters because they were waiting for SWAT. They didn't kill themselves for 40 minutes after police first got there.

David Marsters's picture

Gun Laws

Life in prison costs the tax payers. Go to Home depot get some rope and hang the person in a downtown area so people can watch if they would like to.


Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...