From my niece Honorable Representative Jenn Coffey:
I have been told that many people have found themselves in trouble simply because they didn't realize they left New Hampshire. I would like to hear from folks this has happened to and what road they where traveling on that is not marked to inform you that you are crossing into Massachusetts. The kinds of things I have heard of is being pulled over for no seat belt, no helmet, using a cell phone. With that I have heard that with the traffic stop for some there have been secondary charges for possession of a weapon being a firearm or knife. Contact me with any questions, concerns or information.
Jenn
ps The issue of the liquor commission in NH targeting people with "colors" or "tribal markings" has been solved with language adopted by the Commerce Committee, the house will vote on the bill in January and it will then move over to the senate. This bill will prohibit the liquor commission from imposing restrictions on establishments relating to the clothing or appearance of their patrons or state. It also gives the liquor commission the authority to effect the liquor licenses of establishments that are regularly the site of violence.
Here is the language:
Amendment to HB 171(2011-2613h)Proposed by the Committee on Commerce and Consumer Affairs - CAmend the bill by replacing all after the enacting clause with the following:1 New Section; Liquor Licenses; Restrictions Prohibited. Amend RSA 178 by inserting after section 4 the following new section:178:4-a Restrictions Prohibited. The commission shall not require, as a condition for issuing, renewing, or continuing any on-premises license, or as part of an agreement with an on-premises licensee, that the licensee impose restrictions on any clothing, sign, symbol, logo, letter, physical marking, or tattoo of any patron or employee.2 Suspension or Revocation; Administrative Fines. Amend RSA 179:57, I to read as follows:I. The commission shall cause frequent inspections to be made of all the premises with respect to which any license has been issued under the provisions of this title. If any licensee violates any of the provisions of law or any of the rules of the commission adopted under this title or fails to superintend in person or through a manager approved by the commission the business for which the license was issued or allows the premises with respect to which the license was issued to be used for any unlawful purposes or knowingly designates to be in charge of the premises any person who has been convicted of a felony, unless the person has been approved by the commission pursuant to RSA 179:23, V, or otherwise fails to carry out in good faith the purposes of this title or if the premises are regularly the site of violence the license of such licensee may be suspended or revoked after notice and hearing, in accordance with RSA 541-A:31-36. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, the commission after the appropriate hearing may impose a fine of a specific sum, which shall not be less than $100 nor more than $5,000 for any one offense. Such a fine may be imposed instead of, or in addition to, any suspension or revocation of a license by the commission.3 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.AMENDED ANALYSISThis bill prohibits the liquor commission from imposing restrictions on on-premises licenses relating to clothing or appearance of patrons or employees. This bill also authorizes enforcement actions by the liquor commission against licensees whose premises are regularly the site of violence.
Rep. Jenn Coffey, NREMT-I Merrimack District 6 Vice-Chairman Commerce and Consumer Affairs Chairman Business and Banking Division http://www.jenncoffey.com/
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation
EXECUTIVE SESSION #8
112th Congress, 1st Session
December 14, 2011
Senator Kelly Ayotte
Statement for the Record:
Lautenberg Amendment #1 to S. 1449
Mr. Chairman, I am glad that Senator Lautenberg did not offer his Amendment #1 to S. 1449, the Motor Vehicle and Highway Safety Improvement Act of 2011. I strongly oppose this amendment and have serious concerns with it.
In New Hampshire we are proud to have the motto “live free or die.” Our state currently has helmet laws for minors under the age of 18, but leaves adult motorcyclists free to choose whether or not to wear a helmet.
This is an issue of states’ rights. Currently, states are free to choose what laws they enact with regard to motorcycle helmet use. In New Hampshire, we believe wearing a helmet should be the choice of the adult, not a mandate from the federal government. This issue has been decided at the state level, and will only be changed if the state decides it is in their best interest, and if doing so reflects the will of the people in New Hampshire.
This amendment would take that right away by indirectly forcing all states to pass mandatory universal helmet laws in order to receive funding for motorcycle safety. States without mandatory universal helmet laws – such as New Hampshire – would be subject to stricter eligibility criteria, and would be forced to use 50% of their grant funds to promote helmet use.
This amendment violates the original intent of the motorcyclist safety grant program, which has traditionally focused on encouraging states to fund motorcycle safety awareness, education, and training. This amendment would divert funds away from awareness and education and instead use them to place federal pressure on states to enact mandatory universal helmet laws. I strongly oppose this amendment.
RE: senate bill helmets
The Lautenberg amendment to mandate helmets was withdrawn. attached is a statement that was presented to the committee.. I thought you would like this.
Jenn
Jenn
Rep. Jenn Coffey, NREMT-I Merrimack District 6 Vice-Chairman Commerce and Consumer Affairs Chairman Business and Banking Division www.jenncoffey.com
