Some parts of the country have a tendency to vote a certain way overall. Sure, there are exceptions and surprises occasionally, but in general, some groups of states consistently vote Republican or Democrat.
For example, you’ve heard of “fly over country,” the derogatory term that those leaning more politically left have given to the Midwest and the South because those areas are much more likely to vote Republican than the “Left Coast” or New England which tend to be Democrat strongholds overall.
(In case you’re wondering, they use the term “fly over country” because they don’t want to ever visit a red state. They’d rather fly over it from one coast to the other (with, maybe, a stop off in Michigan, Wisconsin, or Minnesota.)
Which is why it surprised me when a state in one of the areas that overall tend to go blue passed pro-gun legislation. The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) reports that New Hampshire’s governor signed two pro-gun bills into law this month:
H.B. 1279Â amends New Hampshire’s self-defense laws to clarify that an affirmative defense can be raised when deadly force is used in defense of third parties. This law takes effect on January 1st, 2027.
H.B. 1365 amends New Hampshire’s License to Carry a Pistol or Revolver application process. That process no longer requires applicants to provide personal references, employment information, or personal medical or mental health history.
Essentially, the first bill is to help people defend themselves in court when they have to shoot to protect someone else.
The second bill protects people’s privacy when they choose to get a carry permit for interstate travel (amazingly (because it’s in New England), New Hampshire is a constitutional carry state).
Both of these are good moves for legal gun owners in that state. After all, why should legal gun owners be targeted by prosecutors when they’ve taken action to save a life? (They shouldn’t be targeted for that.) And privacy is fundamental, so exercising our Second Amendment rights shouldn’t require us to compromise our 4th Amendment rights.
The only negative thing that I can really say is that neither of these pieces of legislation should have been necessary, but, sadly, I’m not surprised that they were.
