NH Taxes

[HomeWood]

I moved to NC from MA for work in 2001. So many people coming here to escape from high tax and high cost real estate states. Then they vote the same as they did back home. These people are like locusts. NH has suffered from the same thing. We bought property in Sanbornton a few years ago for our retirement home (can't wait to get back!). Limited government and live free or die!

[Hillcountry]

Originally Posted by HomeWood

I moved to NC from MA for work in 2001. So many people coming here to escape from high tax and high cost real estate states. Then they vote the same as they did back home. These people are like locusts. NH has suffered from the same thing. We bought property in Sanbornton a few years ago for our retirement home (can't wait to get back!). Limited government and live free or die!

Unfortunately, NH is slowly going blue. Senate demon-rats passed 4 new gun control bills today. Hopefully our governor will get his veto pen ready.

[MAXUM]

More boiler plate "feel good" so called gun control stupidity. Also interesting that we are doing this because the amount of gun violence in NH is so high

Establishing gun free zones? LOL beautiful - let's rename them to what they really are, live target practice ranges for the mentally deranged. I thought we cared about our kids... guess not better to leave them completely defenseless and then advertise that they are.

A three day waiting period? Great that gives the mentally deranged aforementioned three days more days finalize their plans and stockpile ammo before going on a shooting spree. I guess these dumbocrats didn't bother to notice that most of the large scale horrific shootings that have occurred historically the perpetrator had spent months accumulating what they needed and planning their deed.

Mandatory background checks on commercial gun sales? In case these fools didn't know, you need an FFL to conduct commercial gun sales and as such you are FEDERALLY mandated to do a criminal background check or the FFL holder is guilty of a felony.

What does this do to stop criminals? Nothing at all.

Pat them all on the back aren't they all a bunch of geniuses?

[Garcia]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

More boiler plate "feel good" so called gun control stupidity. Also interesting that we are doing this because the amount of gun violence in NH is so high

Establishing gun free zones? LOL beautiful - let's rename them to what they really are, live target practice ranges for the mentally deranged. I thought we cared about our kids... guess not better to leave them completely defenseless and then advertise that they are.

A three day waiting period? Great that gives the mentally deranged aforementioned three days more days finalize their plans and stockpile ammo before going on a shooting spree. I guess these dumbocrats didn't bother to notice that most of the large scale horrific shootings that have occurred historically the perpetrator had spent months accumulating what they needed and planning their deed.

Mandatory background checks on commercial gun sales? In case these fools didn't know, you need an FFL to conduct commercial gun sales and as such you are FEDERALLY mandated to do a criminal background check or the FFL holder is guilty of a felony.

What does this do to stop criminals? Nothing at all.

Pat them all on the back aren't they all a bunch of geniuses?

The too often piece that is missing in this discussion is the increasing rate of guns and suicide. In 2016, the last year for which the CDC provides numbers, 22,938 people committed suicide by firearm, while 14,415 people died in gun homicides. Historical data shows it’s been this way for a while:

This is not simply a mental health issue, either. Instead, it is an availability issue. Suicide attempts with guns are much more "successful" than by other means. The more relaxed the gun laws are, the higher the rate per capital. And, the successful rates of suicides are highest among white men, not coincidentally the same group that is most likely to have access to a gun.

I'm not suggested banning guns, just pointing out that to have a meaningful discussion about guns and the second amendment, I believe suidice is an essential part of the discussion.

[iw8surf]

Originally Posted by Garcia

The too often piece that is missing in this discussion is the increasing rate of guns and suicide. In 2016, the last year for which the CDC provides numbers, 22,938 people committed suicide by firearm, while 14,415 people died in gun homicides. Historical data shows it’s been this way for a while:

This is not simply a mental health issue, either. Instead, it is an availability issue. Suicide attempts with guns are much more "successful" than by other means. The more relaxed the gun laws are, the higher the rate per capital. And, the successful rates of suicides are highest among white men, not coincidentally the same group that is most likely to have access to a gun.

I'm not suggested banning guns, just pointing out that to have a meaningful discussion about guns and the second amendment, I believe suidice is an essential part of the discussion.

I think mental health and the outrageous amount of people prescribed anti psychotic medication is one of the biggest drivers. You quoted 22,938 people committed suicide by using a fire arm in 2016.

Sadly this is only 50% of the total people who committed suicide by any means in 2016. So if any other attempts that were not successful were added to that list it would show a larger finger pointed at general mental unwellness than a "gun" problem. A gun is just a tool used to achieve a result, unfortunately this result is ending their life, whether they use a gun, knife, pills or any other means what the underlying reason is for that action is what needs to be addressed. Not eliminating the tool. Would completely eliminating any of the top 5 ways people do it help, sure but is that the right way to address the overall problem? I don't know.


The gun debate is definitely one that warrants discussion in our society. But I think we overlook mental health because we are in no position to offer proper mental support in our health care system and it is much easier to blame an object or availability.

[Garcia]

Originally Posted by iw8surf

I think mental health and the outrageous amount of people prescribed anti psychotic medication is one of the biggest drivers. You quoted 22,938 people committed suicide by using a fire arm in 2016.

Sadly this is only 50% of the total people who committed suicide by any means in 2016. So if any other attempts that were not successful were added to that list it would show a larger finger pointed at general mental unwellness than a "gun" problem. A gun is just a tool used to achieve a result, unfortunately this result is ending their life, whether they use a gun, knife, pills or any other means what the underlying reason is for that action is what needs to be addressed. Not eliminating the tool. Would completely eliminating any of the top 5 ways people do it help, sure but is that the right way to address the overall problem? I don't know.


The gun debate is definitely one that warrants discussion in our society. But I think we overlook mental health because we are in no position to offer proper mental support in our health care system and it is much easier to blame an object or availability.

I don't disagree with you. I just think we are remiss if we don't include in the discussion the increased successful rates of suicide by guns. And yes, we need to get serious about mental health and devote meaningful resources. Central to all is the willingness to hold constructive debate, something we are doing less and less of in these polarizing times.

[Hillcountry]

Originally Posted by Garcia

The too often piece that is missing in this discussion is the increasing rate of guns and suicide. In 2016, the last year for which the CDC provides numbers, 22,938 people committed suicide by firearm, while 14,415 people died in gun homicides. Historical data shows it’s been this way for a while:

This is not simply a mental health issue, either. Instead, it is an availability issue. Suicide attempts with guns are much more "successful" than by other means. The more relaxed the gun laws are, the higher the rate per capital. And, the successful rates of suicides are highest among white men, not coincidentally the same group that is most likely to have access to a gun.

I'm not suggested banning guns, just pointing out that to have a meaningful discussion about guns and the second amendment, I believe suidice is an essential part of the discussion.

So sane, law abiding people should be punished because someone that is unstable "might" use a gun to off themselves? Where does it end? What about suicide by hanging? That seems to be a pretty popular one as well...should we ban rope and neckties? What about jumping off of bridges and buildings? Ban sidewalks and pedestrian traffic from bridges? I could go on and on.
The facts are people that hate guns do not want anyone to have them. Cory Booker and others want total confiscation. they have an AGENDA against firearms being pushed and funded by billionaire liberals. No "meaningful" discussion needed. Our God given rights to defend ourselves and our families are being slowly eroded. LIVE FREE OR DIE!

[Garcia]

Originally Posted by Hillcountry

So sane, law abiding people should be punished because someone that is unstable "might" use a gun to off themselves? Where does it end? What about suicide by hanging? That seems to be a pretty popular one as well...should we ban rope and neckties? What about jumping off of bridges and buildings? Ban sidewalks and pedestrian traffic from bridges? I could go on and on.
The facts are people that hate guns do not want anyone to have them. Cory Booker and others want total confiscation. they have an AGENDA against firearms being pushed and funded by billionaire liberals. No "meaningful" discussion needed. Our God given rights to defend ourselves and our families are being slowly eroded. LIVE FREE OR DIE!

This shows why meaningful debate on guns and mental health is so hard - it's such a polarizing issue of us vs. them. Before anyone jumps to conclusions I own guns and am not advocating a ban.

[Biggd]

I have a few friends that are big gun nuts and I wouldn't consider them completely sane. They are sane until they are not. They all seem to have anger issues and if they are having an episode when carrying I wouldn't trust them not to do something stupid.

[Hillcountry]

Originally Posted by Biggd

I have a few friends that are big gun nuts and I wouldn't consider them completely sane. They are sane until they are not. They all seem to have anger issues and if they are having an episode when carrying I wouldn't trust them not to do something stupid.

Then they aren’t really your friends I guess...

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by Hillcountry

Then they aren’t really your friends I guess...

They are when they aren't raging idiots. When that happens they aren't friendly to anyone.

[Hillcountry]

Originally Posted by Garcia

This shows why meaningful debate on guns and mental health is so hard - it's such a polarizing issue of us vs. them. Before anyone jumps to conclusions I own guns and am not advocating a ban.

It all boils down to “you can’t legislate the human condition and live in a FREE society”
Sadly, most liberals want to keep trying.

[Bigstan]

Originally Posted by Hillcountry

Sadly, most liberals want to keep trying.

Why wouldn't they ? Looks to me like they're winning, one small victory at a time. They're playing long term, in a decade or two we'll look back and wonder how we lost/gave up everything along the way....

[iw8surf]

Originally Posted by Bigstan

Why wouldn't they ? Looks to me like they're winning, one small victory at a time. They're playing long term, in a decade or two we'll look back and wonder how we lost/gave up everything along the way....

Truth.. We will be living in New Venezuela in 20 years not New Hampshire....

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by iw8surf

Truth.. We will be living in New Venezuela in 20 years not New Hampshire....

You're showing your real colors and they aren't red, white, and blue.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[tis]

Yep, isn't it funny how the minute the Democrats take over the legislature they add every tax they can think of.

[jazzman]

Why do we have to be liberals/conservatives, republicans/democrats, left/right. I hate all these labels where we paint everyone into a corner. We all live on a continuum and I'd like to think we could all at least talk about common grounds. If one side has to "win" we'll never sort this stuff out.

I guess that's what we get when we have to live our lives on facebook/twitter/SMS where everything has to be said in 180 characters or whatever the limit is.

[Major]

Sadly for liberals, we have this little thing called the Second Amendment. It's funny, the right to bear arms is specifically identified in the Bill of Rights of our great Constitution, yet liberals are obsessed with the idea restricting this fairly broad right. Other so called rights, such as marriage, voting, abortion, etc., aren't even mentioned in the Constitution, yet liberals want the Federal government to place no restrictions on these so called rights.

With respect to gun laws, we can all learn a valuable lesson from Happy Gilmore!

[Hillcountry]

Originally Posted by Major

Sadly for liberals, we have this little thing called the Second Amendment. It's funny, the right to bear arms is specifically identified in the Bill of Rights of our great Constitution, yet liberals are obsessed with the idea restricting this fairly broad right. Other so called rights, such as marriage, voting, abortion, etc., aren't even mentioned in the Constitution, yet liberals want the Federal government to place no restrictions on these so called rights.

With respect to gun laws, we can all learn a valuable lesson from Happy Gilmore!
Attachment 14938

I want that t-shirt...

[Garcia]

Originally Posted by Hillcountry

It all boils down to “you can’t legislate the human condition and live in a FREE society”
Sadly, most liberals want to keep trying.

Again, as long as we keep perpetuating the us vs. them mentality, meaningful coexistence will never be attained. Sadly, to me anyway, it's not happening - too much finger-pointing at "them" as the cause of the problem.

[Major]

Originally Posted by Garcia

Again, as long as we keep perpetuating the us vs. them mentality, meaningful coexistence will never be attained. Sadly, to me anyway, it's not happening - too much finger-pointing at "them" as the cause of the problem.

Garcia, what you fail to realize is that we have already compromised. There are many, many restrictions and laws on gun ownership, most of which are state laws. Try owning a gun in Mass. Not an easy process. Mandatory training and then left to the discretion of the local police. Like I said above, we have less rules and regulations for voting, which isn't even a constitutional right.

The left's version of compromise is confiscation, and both of us know that is ultimately the goal. Whenever I've bought guns, I've been through a background check. What more do you want? The issue is mental health, and mental health patients have rights in today's world. Limiting my rights as a gun owner doesn't achieve your purpose. Doesn't make the world safer, and in the end, is a limitation on liberty.

[Garcia]

Originally Posted by Major

Garcia, what you fail to realize is that we have already compromised. There are many, many restrictions and laws on gun ownership, most of which are state laws. Try owning a gun in Mass. Not an easy process. Mandatory training and then left to the discretion of the local police. Like I said above, we have less rules and regulations for voting, which isn't even a constitutional right.

The left's version of compromise is confiscation, and both of us know that is ultimately the goal. Whenever I've bought guns, I've been through a background check. What more do you want? The issue is mental health, and mental health patients have rights in today's world. Limiting my rights as a gun owner doesn't achieve your purpose. Doesn't make the world safer, and in the end, is a limitation on liberty.

Everyone on both extremes of this and so many other issues thinks exactly like this in that they think they already compromised too much and it is the other side that is the problem. Extreme conservativism and extreme liberalism are two sides of the same coin.

But then again, that's why I think this is such a great country. We can have strong polarizing views, we can disagree, and we have the power to elect those people we think will best represent us.

[Major]

Originally Posted by Garcia

Everyone on both extremes of this and so many other issues thinks exactly like this in that they think they already compromised too much and it is the other side that is the problem. Extreme conservativism and extreme liberalism are two sides of the same coin.

But then again, that's why I think this is such a great country. We can have strong polarizing views, we can disagree, and we have the power to elect those people we think will best represent us.

Explain to me how the left has compromised. We have a Constitutional amendment that is pretty clear. No restrictions, no boundaries. Gun owners have given, given and given.

The issue is that the left has absolutely no legal standing for its positions on this issue. Anything beyond unfettered, unregulated gun ownership is a compromise from the right. Background checks are a compromise. Training courses are a compromise. Registering with the local police department is a compromise.

Again, exactly how has the left compromised on this issue?

[Garcia]

Originally Posted by Major

Explain to me how the left has compromised. We have a Constitutional amendment that is pretty clear. No restrictions, no boundaries. Gun owners have given, given and given.

The issue is that the left has absolutely no legal standing for its positions on this issue. Anything beyond unfettered, unregulated gun ownership is a compromise from the right. Background checks are a compromise. Training courses are a compromise. Registering with the local police department is a compromise.

Again, exactly how has the left compromised on this issue?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This statement has been interpreted very differently by individuals, states, and the judicial branch over the centuries. It's only within the past 10 years or so (District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008) that the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision recognized the right of a citizen to own a gun for self protection.

This has been a contentious issue since our country was founded - which is one reason it is the Second Amendment and not in the original text of the Constitution.

So again, while I hear your point, there are many on the opposite side of the issue who feel all they have done is compromise (allow handguns, concealed carry, semi automatic guns, individuals, etc).

My main point (my opinion, of course) is that the extreme right and the extreme left each spend too much time blaming the other and are equally to blame for a lack of meaningful dialogue. As an example, I feel that hardcore Bernie supporters in the 2016 election and hardcore Trump supporters had more in common than either side was willing to admit to (the system is rigged, Washington is ineffective, the middle class is being shut out, etc.). Yet, they are venomous in their attacking of each other.

[Garcia]

In closing I need to follow Maxum's plan - get out of work, away from my computer, and out on the water! Have a great Memorial Day weekend everyone!

[Mr. V]

Originally Posted by Hillcountry

So sane, law abiding people should be punished because someone that is unstable "might" use a gun to off themselves?

I believe it is incorrect to characterize all people who kill themselves as "unstable."

I'd suggest a better phrase would be "very unhappy with their life."

None of us ask to be born; if we don't like living in this world we should be free to remove ourself from it, without stigma or recrimination.

No, I'm not suicidial: far from it, but I can understand how and why many people choose to kill themselves.

"Live free or die."

[gillygirl]

Originally Posted by Hillcountry

So sane, law abiding people should be punished because someone that is unstable "might" use a gun to off themselves? Where does it end? What about suicide by hanging? That seems to be a pretty popular one as well...should we ban rope and neckties? What about jumping off of bridges and buildings? Ban sidewalks and pedestrian traffic from bridges? I could go on and on.

The facts are people that hate guns do not want anyone to have them. Cory Booker and others want total confiscation. they have an AGENDA against firearms being pushed and funded by billionaire liberals. No "meaningful" discussion needed. Our God given rights to defend ourselves and our families are being slowly eroded. LIVE FREE OR DIE!

My husband committed suicide two years ago. He wasn’t insane, he was suffering from post-surgical depression. You might want to educate yourself on mental health issues.


Sent from my iPad using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Hillcountry]

Originally Posted by gillygirl

My husband committed suicide two years ago. He wasn’t insane, he was suffering from post-surgical depression. You might want to educate yourself on mental health issues.


Sent from my iPad using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

Sorry for your loss but I said “unstable” not insane.
Someone that commits suicide is certainly unstable for whatever reason.
Again, sorry you lost your husband.

[gillygirl]

Originally Posted by Hillcountry

Sorry for your loss but I said “unstable” not insane.

Someone that commits suicide is certainly unstable for whatever reason.

Again, sorry you lost your husband.

Thank you for your sympathies. You did start of your post with “So sane, law abiding...” which implies that insane people commit suicide. Perhaps you just chose the wrong word.


Sent from my iPad using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Hillcountry]

Originally Posted by gillygirl

Thank you for your sympathies. You did start of your post with “So sane, law abiding...” which implies that insane people commit suicide. Perhaps you just chose the wrong word.


Sent from my iPad using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

Perhaps. My intent was to talk about punishing good, law abiding people with burdensome laws that ultimately have no affect on what liberals perceive to be problems but are actually agenda driven and based on emotion and not fact.

[tis]

The truth is politicians don't want to solve anything. They want to create issues to get voted into office but never solve them. They have been talking about the same issues my whole life. They want to take our money and waste it.

[ushaggerb]

I'm pretty sure there are some good people with laudable ideas and ideals that go into politics. Only to be crusehd under the sheer weight of the bureaucracy. I couldn't imagine running a business where there's a line drawn in the sand every time so that if you say "yes", I say "no". Stalemate (checkmate really).

They also have no relationships to work off of. I read something few years back. Used to be that somewhere north of 90% of Congress lived in D.C. for some period of time. They visited each others homes, saw each other at gatherings, created relationships, even friendships. Their political interaction was changed by the personal relationships they had. Now, as I remember, the number living in D.C. is under 5%. Low likelihood of ever cooperating.

Even if a spending initiative was good for us, likely 1/2 would say "no" because the other half said "yes." Takes nay saying to another level.

[tis]

Originally Posted by ushaggerb

I'm pretty sure there are some good people with laudable ideas and ideals that go into politics. Only to be crusehd under the sheer weight of the bureaucracy. I couldn't imagine running a business where there's a line drawn in the sand every time so that if you say "yes", I say "no". Stalemate (checkmate really).

They also have no relationships to work off of. I read something few years back. Used to be that somewhere north of 90% of Congress lived in D.C. for some period of time. They visited each others homes, saw each other at gatherings, created relationships, even friendships. Their political interaction was changed by the personal relationships they had. Now, as I remember, the number living in D.C. is under 5%. Low likelihood of ever cooperating.

Even if a spending initiative was good for us, likely 1/2 would say "no" because the other half said "yes." Takes nay saying to another level.

I agree. It's the political SWAMP and there is a guy that is trying to fight it and see what a tough time he is having.

[ApS]

The states where a dollar is more than $1:

https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/...-in-each-state

[Biggd]

This whole thread has gone to the swamp!

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

Mandatory background checks on commercial gun sales? In case these fools didn't know, you need an FFL to conduct commercial gun sales and as such you are FEDERALLY mandated to do a criminal background check or the FFL holder is guilty of a felony.

The actual House Bill talks about licensed sellers of guns:
https://legiscan.com/NH/text/HB109/id/1833352

1 Purpose. It is the purpose and intent of the general court in enacting RSA 159-E to require commercial firearm sales and transfers in New Hampshire to be processed through a licensed firearms dealer, who will conduct a background check and create a record of each sale. The general court believes this law will protect public safety by helping to keep firearms out of the hands of felons, domestic abusers, and the dangerously mentally ill.

2 New Chapter; Background Checks for Commercial Firearms Sales. Amend RSA by inserting after chapter 159-D the following new chapter:

CHAPTER 159-E

BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR COMMERCIAL FIREARMS SALES

159-E:1 Definitions. As used in this chapter:

I. “Commercial sale” means a sale, transfer, or exchange of a firearm that takes place at, or on the curtilage of, a firearm or "gun" show or pursuant to an offer to sell, buy, transfer, or exchange a firearm that took place at a gun show, or pursuant to an advertisement, posting, listing, or display.

II. “Firearm” means any weapon or device designed to be used as a weapon, which will, is designed to, or may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive, explosion, or other means of combustion, or the frame or receiver of such a device, provided the term “firearm” shall not include the term “antique firearm” as defined in 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(16), or a weapon that has been rendered permanently inoperable and is incapable of being readily restored to a firing condition.

III. “Individual” means a natural person.

IV. “Law enforcement” means any person employed by the United States, or a state, county, city, or town, or other political subdivision as a police officer, peace officer, or another position involving the enforcement of the law and protection of the public interest.

V. “Licensed firearms dealer,” “licensed dealer,” or “dealer” means a person who has a valid federal firearms dealer license under 18 U.S.C. section 923(a), and all additional licenses required by state or local law to engage in the business of selling or transferring firearms.

VI. “Person” means any corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, club, organization, society, joint stock company or other entity, and shall include any entity that engages in business in this state, in whole or part, through Internet or mail order sales.

VII. “Prohibited person” means any individual or person who is prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 922(d) or pursuant to state law.

159-E:2 Firearms Sales to be Conducted Through a Licensed Dealer.

I. No individual or person shall engage in the commercial sale of a firearm unless:

(a) The individual or person is a licensed firearms dealer;

(b) The purchaser is a licensed firearms dealer; or

(c) The requirements of paragraph II are met.

II. If neither party to a prospective firearms transaction is a licensed firearms dealer, the parties to the transaction shall complete the commercial sale through a licensed firearms dealer as follows:

(a) The seller shall deliver the firearm to the dealer, who shall process the sale as if he or she were the seller, except that the seller may remove the firearm from the business premises of the licensed dealer while the background check is being conducted. If the seller removes the firearm from the business premises of the licensed dealer while the background check is being conducted, the purchaser and the seller shall return to the business premises of the licensed dealer, and the seller shall again deliver the firearm to the licensed dealer prior to completing the sale.

(b) Except as provided in subparagraph (a), the dealer shall comply with all requirements of federal, state, and local law that would apply if the licensed dealer were selling the firearm from his or her inventory to the purchaser, including but not limited to, conducting a background check on the prospective purchaser, which shall include a check of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), and compliance with all federal, state, and local recordkeeping requirements.

(c) If the transaction is not prohibited, the dealer shall deliver the firearm to the buyer after all legal requirements are met.

(d) If the dealer cannot legally deliver the firearm to the buyer, the dealer shall return the firearm to the seller without requiring a background check and the transfer to the buyer shall not take place.

(e) The dealer may impose on the purchaser a reasonable fee to cover administrative costs incurred by the dealer for facilitating the transfer of the firearm, plus any applicable fees permitted under state or federal law.

159-E:3 Exception. This chapter shall not apply to a noncommercial, private sale, transfer, or exchange of a firearm between individuals, provided neither party to the transaction is a prohibited person. If the status of either party’s eligibility to own or possess a firearm cannot be ascertained, the transaction shall be completed through a licensed firearm dealer pursuant to RSA 159-E:2, II.

159-E:4 Penalties.

I. Any individual or person who violates any provision of this chapter shall be guilty of a class B misdemeanor for a first offense, and a class A misdemeanor for a second or subsequent offense.

II. The local law enforcement agency shall report all violations of this chapter by a licensed firearms dealer to the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

159-E:5 Other Laws.

I. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to modify or change the duties of the department of safety pursuant to RSA 159-D.

II. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require or authorize any state, county, or local law enforcement agency to establish or maintain a registry of firearms sold or transferred in accordance with this chapter.

3 Applicability. The provisions of section 2 of this act shall apply to the sale of a firearm on or after the effective date of this act and shall not apply to sales completed prior to the effective date of this act.

4 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2020.



LBAO

19-0019

11/7/18