Jenn Coffey of Andover, an EMT and New Hampshire State Representative, has written a book called Knives, Lipstick, and Liberty: One Woman’s Journey. She has generously given the Beaconpermission to publish an excerpt from the book.
To buy the book, visit KnivesLipstickAndLiberty.com.
Knives, Lipstick, and Liberty: One Woman’s Journey
Chapter 13
In the summer of 2009 I wanted to buy a new rescue knife. I had one, and I had a seatbelt cutter and a window breaker, but all of them were separate tools. Now understand I was on my third oxygen tank key; I kept losing them, so I really wanted one tool that did it all. I found one I liked on Benchmade’s Web site, but then I found out I couldn’t buy it. Turned out because it was an automatic knife, or switchblade, to use a more widely known term, I couldn’t purchase it in New Hampshire.
The New Hampshire law allowed me to have one as an EMT, but only while on duty. Interesting catch, if you think about it. That means when I am off duty, driving home or to work, I am illegal. When I get to the station I am legal, but the best catch was that no one could legally sell me one in the first place. Now figure out how that one is suppose to work. EMTs were not the only ones with this crazy exception; it also applied to military personnel, who could carry switchblades only while on active duty. Same issue, off duty equals illegal. Fishermen and hunters were also exempt, but only while legally fishing or hunting. Police officers could have them any time they wanted, but again no one could sell to any of the exempted persons including the police. So was anyone really exempt from the law?
I ended up having discussions with Evan Nappen, one of the best attorneys I know and most certainly one of my best friends. He knows knife and gun laws, both federal and state, inside and out. We had a great discussion about the law and what legislation should look like to remove the ban. Something else important I learned from Evan was how the law was not equally applied to all citizens. It depended on who you were, and where you were in the state, whether you would get in trouble with the law or not. If you did get in trouble with the law it could mean a 12-month
jail sentence and thousands in fines and attorney’s fees. That really got my attention. Personally I have never been in favor of any law on an object; that has long been the routine we have seen around firearms legislation and bans.
As the National Coordinator for the Second Amendment Sisters I often participate in discussions of how a state or federal official is trying to ban this firearm or that firearm, never seeming to understand the issue. Someone who is bent on destruction will do it with whatever object they choose, and no law will ever stop a criminal, period. All that laws and restrictions succeed in doing is causing harm to law-abiding citizens. They never stop the bad guys from getting what they want and using guns the way they want.
I read a story about a young man in Florida who had some issues and got angry one day, attacking his father with a Christmas tree stand. Should we ban Christmas tree stands, or create
licensing for them? Of course not, yet the same thought process is used in regard to firearms and knives. Understanding what New Hampshire law was doing to some people caused me to want to change it. For example, there is a great shop in New Hampshire called Abe’s Awesome Armaments. Abe, the guy who owns the store, is really nice and is a federally licensed firearms dealer; he can sell all kinds of firearms. Yet, when a police officer that he knew came into the store and wanted an automatic (“switchblade”) knife, he thought, well, police officers are exempt from the ban so he can sell him one, right? Wrong. The very next day police raided his store, took $5,000 worth of inventory and charged him with the crime of selling an automatic knife. In another instance a young man was charged with carrying a dagger — also illegal in New Hampshire — even after he showed the police officer that he used the dagger in his religious practices, as he was a pagan.
These people were charged with crimes, and I could add more people to the list, yet every year in New Hampshire there is a large Highland Game festival that attracts hundreds. It really is a wonderful event, and many who attend are dressed in traditional Scottish dress complete with, you guessed it, Scottish dirks. Completely illegal under the ban, but I can not recall, nor find a story about, mass arrests at the Highland Games of people carrying Scottish dirks. As you can see, the law was applied to some but not all. Selective enforcement is discriminatory, and the ban itself serves no purpose; it doesn’t stop any crime. Heck, I have knives in my kitchen more dangerous than any switchblade, dirk, dagger, or stiletto. If those are scary to some, I can’t imagine what they would think of my carving knives.
Another interesting piece was how many states already allow the sale of switchblades, dirks, daggers, and stilettos. New Hampshire would not be the first, but if we did it right we could end up the best. Almost all of the other states, with the exception of Arizona, have restrictions on knives. In some of them, it is how you can carry; some require licenses, and some limit the length of the blade itself. I was aiming for Arizona and true knife freedom. The next step was to figure out the best way to craft the repeal bill and get it though the New Hampshire House and Senate, and the governor’s office; given that I was in the minority party at the time, that would take some planning. Evan and I got to work.
What we found was that New Hampshire, unlike other states with similar bans, could actually be an easy fix. New Hampshire law had one section that created the ban, so all we really had to do was strike out the words “switch knife, dirk, dagger, and stiletto,” and that would end the ban. Go figure, but there was a catch. This kind of repeal had only been attempted once before with sword canes and pistol canes, and that was done at a time when Republicans were in charge of both the House and Senate. It was a fight back then to remove just those two items. There had been a battle between the House and the Senate that led to a Committee of Conference, and the only way they would agree to lift the ban was to create a new enhanced criminal penalty if someone used one of those objects on another person with the intent of committing a crime. I pulled all the records from the archives, all the hearing notes and committee notes, along with the lists of those that supported and opposed the bill. I figured it would give me an idea as to whom to expect opposition from and who might be a friend in the fight. Funny thing was, our bill would not go the same way, but we will get to that part of the story soon.
My original plan was to go for bipartisan support from those that I knew had a healthy respect for Second Amendment issues, and try to keep the bill under the radar. Well you know what they say about the best-laid plans. I almost managed to pull it off, too.
Over the summer I would spend time going around to different people and shops to gain support for the bill. I thought I had gained the right supporters, but I was wrong. Even Evan was
surprised at what would happen next, and in the end it changed the whole approach to the bill. One thing was for certain, neither Evan nor I would give up on the idea of lifting this 1950s ban on knives, not now, not ever.
Chapter 14
The first thing we did was map out the co-sponsors. I was allowed to have only four other representatives on the bill, but could have up to five senators as well. I was able to secure the
House majority floor leader, Democrat Dan Eaton, and the House minority floor leader, Republican Shawn Jasper, as well as another Democrat representative, Joel Winters from the
Commerce committee, and David Welch, Republican representative from the Criminal Justice Committee, where the bill would be heard. That gave me equal bipartisan support in the House. I was not able to do the same in the Senate. I tried to gain support from Democratic senators but failed. I did manage to bring in three Republican senators, or so I thought. In the end there would only be one willing to stand with me, Senator Bob Letourneau.
What I didn’t know at the time was that there were people working to derail the bill before it was even finished being signed off by the co-sponsors to be introduced as a bill. Apparently one gun group was offended that I had not consulted them first; they believed that as a state representative I didn’t have the right to introduce a pro-second amendment bill without their
blessing. For another gun group it was that the bill was not pure enough; they objected to the inclusion of the enhanced criminal penalty provision, crafted after the original repeal bill 17
years earlier that removed the ban on pistol canes and sword canes. They also objected to the fact that brass knuckles would still be banned and were not included in my Knife Rights bill. These things caused them to be against it. Go figure, there go those best-laid plans again. In my efforts to gain support, I had thought I had recruited all the key players. What I didn’t expect was to be blindsided. Another gun-rights organization in the state that I had sent the bill to had remained mostly silent. Just after I signed off on the bill’s language I received a phone call while driving home one night that they had sent out a notice to their members not to support the bill. They had said nothing to me, had not made any inquires or requests. These are people that I had considered friends. They stated they never saw the language till I signed it off, that somehow my e-mail had failed to get to the right people. They stated I should have to come to them, and asked before I put in the bill. Were they serious, that I needed to ask permission from a lobbying group before I put in legislation? Not in my lifetime! Somewhere along the line they had forgotten I was there to represent my neighbors, not any one group or organization. Then they, or should I say one of their members, did something I never saw coming: they joined forces with another group they claimed to not like, and went to one of my legislative supporters, convincing them to withdraw their support. I still have the emails to this day. I was shocked that such backroom dealing would go on with people I had once respected. I know some will not agree, but I am going to avoid naming names here to save people some embarrassment. Others may stoop to that level, but I will not.
What I also didn’t see coming was the behind-the-scenes efforts to cost me the co-sponsors and try to end the bill before the fight really began. This is when we realized this was going to be
a fight, and a big one; this is when we realized we were going to need help, and the idea of keeping the bill under the radar was out the window. Some of them went so far as to threaten
other legislators with a fight on their re-elections if they supported me. I was told my district would see hate mail about me as well. Now, one thing I don’t take to is a threat, especially about an election. The thing about being a state rep in New Hampshire is that it is not a career. My career is as a medical professional, my love is for my family, and my passion is liberty. Being a state rep helps, but is not the be-all-end-all to succeed in what I do. Whether I have a seat in the House or a seat in the gallery, I am still going to work just as hard on the issues I believe in, no matter what. So basically the threat was to send me home to have more time with my family, and somehow that didn’t scare me — go figure.
The way I look at an election is simple. If the people in my community want to send me to Concord to represent them, I will be honored to do so and will do my best to work for them. If they choose to send someone else, I will support them and be thankful that they are representing me.
Now, let me back up a little here to explain a little something. The enhanced criminal penalty was something I didn’t particularly want to include, but was a vehicle to get the bill to pass.
Given the difficulty of the fight the previous bill had to lift a ban on objects no one really used, it seemed to make sense to stop that from happening again. Trying to get a repeal bill though, when you’re in the minority is equally hard, and just adds to the need to make the bill palatable to the most far-left person in the room. I expected to have a fight in the House and Senate, not with some of the state gun groups. Thankfully those two groups would prove to be very much in the minority themselves. What I didn’t see coming was the overwhelming support I would get, nor the surprising places I would see support come from. The story will get even more interesting.
The first to sign on supporting the bill was the Second Amendment Sisters, and that didn’t take any real convincing. I simply told them what I wanted to do; they could easily see how it was in fact a Second Amendment Issue. I wrote an article and it went up on the front page of the national Web site. It really was that easy. The Second Amendment Sisters is made up of some of the best women across our great nation and they know a good thing when they see it and will work to support it. The news of the Knife Rights bill would also find its way into the SAS national newsletter and their Web forum. SAS was making sure this issue was heard and brought to light.
Next, Pro-Gun New Hampshire put the SAS article on their Web site; with me and all of my co-sponsors on their advisory council, this was a bill they could support 100 percent. In fact it
was at a Pro-Gun New Hampshire advisors’ council meeting that the bill was discussed where Rep. Dan Eaton signed on. Pro-Gun New Hampshire was vital to helping secure bipartisan
support for the bill.
Evan decided the bill should have a vehicle in which to communicate the bill and its intent, so he put up a Web site. You can still find it here: www.knifelawonline.com. Evan and our
mutual good friend Sam Cohen worked to start the webpage by putting up some basic information as well as the bill itself. It would prove to be one of the best ways of communicating
and getting the message out. I didn’t know how fast it could be to get a webpage up until that day. I think the thing that I found most interesting was how many hits the Web site would
receive in such a short period of time. When Evan would tell me the response he was seeing, I was amazed every time. All of this was good, but more was coming and so were the dissenters.
One of the first major groups to join on supporting the bill backed out after the dissenters told them it just wasn’t good enough. In the meantime, we were actively working to secure the bill in the House committee, talking to members and talking to the chair of the committee. That was where I thought I was going to have my major fight, but it didn’t turn out that way. While socalled Second Amendment organizations worked to kill the bill, sending out postcards saying kill it or amend it, and others spent time working behind the scenes to pull support, we worked on the committee members. I was happily surprised to see that many saw the wisdom in the bill and agreed to amend out the enhanced penalty provision before we even stepped foot into the committee room. The chair was nice enough to work with me on setting up the date for the public hearing so I was ensured the ability to be there without having to worry about it conflicting with my paying job at the hospital. In the meantime word of the bill went viral on the internet. We gained support from around the country and the names just kept rolling in on the list of supporters. First off there was an organization called Knife Rights, Inc. They were like pit bulls grabbing onto the bill. They even hired their own lobbyist to work the bill. This was something I never expected; if anything, I expected to see lobbyists in there fighting against it. I especially thought law enforcement would be against it, but being who I am, I started talking to them. I spoke to my hometown chief of police and others, as well as the lobbyist for the New Hampshire Chiefs of Police Association. We had some very meaningful conversations and in the end, with help, I was able to win their support. AKTI (the American Knife and Tool Institute) soon joined our fight, offering whatever help we needed. Blade Magazine gave me the opportunity to write an article for their magazine about our efforts, and started blogging updates on our progress. They shined an international spot light on the New Hampshire Knife Rights bill.
National organizations like JPFO (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership), CCRKBA (Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms), Women and Guns
magazine, and Sword Forum, and national activists including Ed Becker, Aaron Zelman, Alan Gottlieb, Suzanna Gratia Hupp (one of my personal heroes), and many others were joining in
with offers of support. Evan added each one to the Web site with personal quotes. Many of these folks I had long admired, and it was humbling to be not only gaining their support, but having the chance to have conversations with them online and on the phone. It was as if it had all taken on a life of its own. We may have had some working against us, but our side had become formidable and our numbers of supporters increased by thousands. I was receiving letters from as far away as Israel thanking me for my efforts and telling me how important what we were doing was. Being able to have a conversation with Suzanna Gratia Hupp had to be one of the biggest thrills I had. She serves as the National Spokeswoman for SAS, and she took the time to chat with me while working in her stables one day. We had a great talk, and it was truly an honor for me to have that conversation. To think this all started because I needed a new tool!
I had personal phone calls with people like Les de Asis, CEO of Benchmade Knives, Steve Shackleford, Editor-in-Chief of Blade Magazine, Aaron Zelman, CEO of JPFO, and Alan
Gottlieb, CEO of CCRBKA, to name only a few. I was so humbled to speak to each of them; some of them, as I said, were my personal heroes. All of them encouraged me to keep going, and let me know they would help in any way they could. Many sent letters of support to the New Hampshire House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee, which would hear testimony
on the bill.
By the time we got to the House public hearing, the Web site was receiving about 500 hits a day, I was getting phone calls and emails from everywhere, and everyone seemed to know about this bill. When the day came for the public hearing, I was very prepared, and it showed. The committee complimented me on my thoroughness and asked me questions to explain various points they wanted to be clear on. Others testified as well; there were also four people there from the two gun organizations that tried to stop me who signed in against the bill. Abe, the gun dealer, came and explained how he had been criminally charged and had his inventory confiscated. Another gentleman who had had products confiscated at a local flea market testified, as well a man who showed a large rock and explained how easily it could also be considered a dangerous weapon. All and all we did a good job of showing how these useful tools should not be banned, and that laws pertaining to criminal acts were all that were needed, no matter the “weapon” of choice. I spoke of over a hundred jobs and hobbies that use these tools every day, and in fact how some were safer than the ones that were now legal. Evan did an excellent job of explaining the legal aspects and past cases he was aware of where people had been harmed by the current law, while harming no one. Knife Rights CEO Doug Ritter flew in from Arizona to testify on the bill in person and also had a local lobbyist, Bob Clegg, there as well. Both did an excellent job of painting the picture of the difference between the law abiding and the criminal.
All and all there were so many positive voices they drowned out the dissenters. I was happy to see Ralph Demicco from Riley’s Sport Shop there; he took a chance on bringing in various
knives to show the committee. It was an excellent demonstration that showed how each one could be opened at the same speed, the only difference being the mechanism that controlled
them. In the end the committee looked very favorable, but I had my concerns that even with the bipartisan support, some would vote against the bill simply because it was legalization of knives.
Now the waiting would begin, as in the House the executive session where the committee votes on a bill does not happen right away; it can be weeks or even a month later. We had pled our case and done well; the fate of it now rested in the committee. I was told later that there was no one who wasn’t impressed with the completeness of the presentation and that the amendment would go through without any issue. I asked for an amendment to include one change, that the bill would take effect upon passage into law instead of having a delay. They added it without any concern.
A couple of weeks later we would hear our verdict. I went to the committee room and sat in the audience waiting for them to get to my bill. It was getting late in the day and I was concerned they wouldn’t get to it and it would be put off. After completing work on a bill, the committee chair said to the committee that he saw I was there and out of respect for me would they not mind if they changed the order and voted on my bill next. I was grateful, and excited it would finally happen. What happened next was beyond my expectations: not only did they unanimously support the bill and the amendment that removed the penalties and changed the enactment date (I remember one committee member referring to the law as archaic and needing to be removed from the books), but they also voted to put the bill on the consent calendar. What that means is when it goes to the full House for a vote it is done as part of a package of bills that have received unanimous or almost unanimous committee approval, so that the full House can approve (“consent to”) these bills without discussion. It doesn’t stop someone from pulling a bill off and arguing against it on the House floor, but it does give it a shot at going through the full House of 400 members with unanimous approval. I did my best to tell everyone, and Evan put it up on the Web site. Word traveled fast. Now it was a wait to see what would happen on the House floor: would someone pull it, would it make it though? We would have to wait a couple more weeks to find out.
The day came that it went to the full House for a vote; I was nervously looking around the room as they announced the bills that had been removed from the consent calendar to be fought
on the House floor. Our bill was not one of them! In mere moments the bill passed with unanimous consent and would now go on to the Senate to start the whole process over. Battle number one had been waged and won — time for Phase Two.
To buy the book, visit KnivesLipstickAndLiberty.com.