By TOM FAHEY
State House Bureau Chief


 
 

Published Oct 21, 2011 at 3:00 am (Updated Oct 20, 2011)  

 
 
 






CONCORD — New Hampshire residents would no longer have to obtain licenses to carry concealed weapons under a bill a key House committee voted for Thursday.

By a vote of 12-5, the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee recommended passage of House Bill 536, which allows anyone but convicted felons and the mentally ill to carry pistols openly or concealed, loaded or unloaded, without a permit.

The bill continues the current permitting system so gun owners can produce a state permit in other states that have agreements in place that recognize them.

Gun rights advocates said the bill, amended from its original version, preserves the important points they hoped to win.

“This does the one thing we believe is most important, and that is it makes a license to carry optional,” said James Wheeler, treasurer of the New Hampshire Firearms Coalition.

“We believe the Constitution is an individual license to carry,” he added.

Police say they think the bill is a bad idea.

Sunapee Police Chief David Cahill said the bill eliminates the careful balance that current law strikes on concealed weapons permits.

“To think that government is taking away one of your Second Amendment rights through permitting, I think is ridiculous,” said Cahill, who just ended a term as president of the N.H. Association of Chiefs of Police.

“Going without a permit to carry just opens the door for all those people who wouldn’t have been able to get one,” he said.

Current law requires local law enforcement to make a decision on a license with 14 days of an application. Denials can be appealed to the local district court, where police and the individual present their arguments, Cahill said.

The committee also passed a bill that makes it more difficult for towns to pass ordinances regarding gun use and possession. HB 334 bars gun bans on any public property, whether it is owned by local or state government, unless the specifically ban is authorized in state law. The bill passed on an 11-6 vote.

In addition to making licenses optional, HB 536 also makes it easier for anyone to sell pistols and revolvers to licensed dealers, state residents or anyone they know.

The committee stripped much of the more extreme language from the bill as it was originally filed by Rep. J.R. Hoell, R-Dunbarton. His version ended the ban on guns in courtrooms, and called for the arrest of police chiefs who denied permits to someone unless they were a convicted felon. It would also have made it a crime for police to stop someone carrying without a permit, and would have made it legal to carry a blackjack, brass knuckles and slingshots.

Wheeler said the main point of the bill, allowing anyone to carry a concealed weapon, is protected.

He said the bill will not affect the state ban on guns in courtrooms or federal laws barring them in schools.

He argued that the bill corrects flaws in the current system.

“Citizens shouldn’t be required to ask for permission from the government before they exercise their constitutional rights,” Wheeler said.

Emailing my reps in support immediately

Eh, I have no problem with the system that we currently have. I know of 1 person who was denied a permit that IMO was rightfully denied (multiple DWIs and an assault on a LEO that was plead down to a resisting arrest IIRC). Not your ideal citizen. Now if this passes he'll be able to carry lawfully because he doesnt have any felonies, yay. There is also not currently any way (that im aware of) to check mental illness as it would be a violation of HIPPA laws.

I actually like being able to request to see a permit when i sell a firearm, it saves doing an FFL transfer and it gives me peace of mind knowing that the person has had some sort of background check. Now I probably won't have that ability so I'll HAVE to insist on a transfer.

More important to me than changing the Permit laws is changing the laws to protect someones rights to carry on private property to a limited degree.  I can understand businesses having rules about no firearms in their facility, by having a policy of no firearms on property (even in my locked vehicle) infringes on my right outside the facility (ex. my ride to and from work).  There was a talk about legislation in this regard, however I have no idea what ever became of it.

I agree with you entirely.

If they're that dangerous, they should be in prison.

In my opinion if you are legal to own it you should be legal to carry it-period.
I will still get my permit anyway for the reciprocity and for ID purposes on private sales.

No offense but it seems that your opinions on this are for your own selfish reasons rather than what is actually constitutional.  Your convenience isn't what should dictate how laws are written and passed.

I was mearly pointing out that the current system works fine (IMO) and does have some benefits. NH is a SHALL ISSUE state so unless you have an issue on your record that would prohibit you from obtaining a permit (as in the example I gave) you will recieve a permit. The current system doesn't limit my constitutional rights as you can still open carry without a permit or carry concealed and unloaded. Renewing a permit is painless other than the time it takes to go to your town hall and drop off the application every 4 years. For me that's worth that little extra "pain in the ass" if it helps screen out those who shouldn't be carrying.

It also allows reciprocity from other states which you will still have to get a permit for.

I just don't see the current system as a big deal and this is a pretty minor issue. NH has some of the least restrictive gun laws in the country so I think these people that we elected to run the state could be focused on bigger issues.

No offense taken.

Good luck to my brothers in NH. You've got on heckuva state up there.

At least for non-residents, NH does impose a discretionary suitability test, which has resulted in denials and has been judicially upheld, which would make them very comparable to Connecticut–– may issue and usually does.

TITLE XII
PUBLIC SAFETY AND WELFARE
CHAPTER 159
PISTOLS AND REVOLVERS
Section 159:6
   159:6 License to Carry. –
   I. The selectmen of a town or the mayor or chief of police of a city or some full-time police officer designated by them respectively, upon application of any resident of such town or city, or the director of state police, or some person designated by such director, upon application of a nonresident, shall issue a license to such applicant authorizing the applicant to carry a loaded pistol or revolver in this state for not less than 4 years from the date of issue, if it appears that the applicant has good reason to fear injury to the applicant's person or property or has any proper purpose, and that the applicant is a suitable person to be licensed. Hunting, target shooting, or self-defense shall be considered a proper purpose. The license shall be valid for all allowable purposes regardless of the purpose for which it was originally issued. The license shall be in duplicate and shall bear the name, address, description, and signature of the licensee. The original shall be delivered to the licensee and the duplicate shall be preserved by the people issuing the same for 4 years. When required, license renewal shall take place within the month of the fourth anniversary of the license holder's date of birth following the date of issuance. The license shall be issued within 14 days after application, and, if such application is denied, the reason for such denial shall be stated in writing, the original of which such writing shall be delivered to the applicant, and a copy kept in the office of the person to whom the application was made. The fee for licenses issued to residents of the state shall be $10, which fee shall be for the use of the law enforcement department of the town or city granting said licenses; the fee for licenses granted to out-of-state residents shall be $100, which fee shall be for the use of the state. The director of state police is hereby authorized and directed to prepare forms for the licenses required under this chapter and forms for the application for such licenses and to supply the same to officials of the cities and towns authorized to issue the licenses. No other forms shall be used by officials of cities and towns. The cost of the forms shall be paid out of the fees received from nonresident licenses.
   II. No photograph or fingerprint shall be required or used as a basis to grant, deny, or renew a license to carry for a resident or nonresident, unless requested by the applicant.

It doesn't say what reasons would be for denial, but in the case I mentioned the denial was the right call IMO. I have heard many cases of non resident applicants not receiving their permit within the 14 days specified by the RSA. There was also a Maine member here who was under 21 being told he was too young to get his license, even though the RSA doesn't specify age. Last time I talked to him he had a meeting scheduled with the NHSP director IIRC but never heard how he made out. I got my permit when I was 19. If you look on the NH State police website they also state under the FAQ page that you cannot conceal carry an unloaded firearm without a permit and have ammunition on you, which is BS. I emailed the contact person for their site and was told "they'd look into that" that was about 5 years ago.

I'm not saying our system is perfect, there are problems with any system, but I don't think it's bad and it could be a lot worse. Yes, I do like that you can use the current permitting system as a tool when selling firearms. The last time I renewed my permit it was ready 2 days after I dropped off the form. To me that's fine and I would happily continue to do so if it weeds out even 1 dumbass.

I'll pull the case law later. There is judicial precedent, which I have posted previously, which allows them to deny people based on suitability.

The thing I fear - and I haven't seen the proposed RSA - is that if you still want a permit so you can carry in reciprocity states, this could open the door to making the permit requirements more onerous, i.e., fingerprints, pictures, training courses with tuition costs, higher permit fees, shorter permit period.

I'm perfectly happy with it as is.

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New Hampshire, One Noble Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes to press. Errors may be reported by E-mail at the following address: [email protected]. Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00 a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court's home page is: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme.

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

___________________________

Plymouth District Court

No. 2003-388

Cary Silverstein

v.

Town of Alexandria

Argued: January 14, 2004

Opinion Issued: March 15, 2004

Gabriel Nizetic, of Plymouth, by brief and orally, for the plaintiff.

Donahue, Tucker & Ciandella, of Exeter (Christopher L. Boldt on the brief and orally), for the defendant.

NADEAU, J. In this action pursuant to RSA 159:6-c (2002), the plaintiff, Cary Silverstein, appeals an order of the Plymouth District Court (Kent, J.) upholding the defendant Town of Alexandria’s denial of his application for a license to carry a concealed weapon. We affirm.
The record supports the following facts. On or about May 31, 2002, Silverstein applied to the police chief (chief) for the Town of Alexandria (Town) for a license to carry a concealed weapon. At some point in time, Silverstein and the chief had a discussion about Silverstein’s criminal offenses and the chief requested that he provide transcripts of the court proceedings. Subsequently, Silverstein informed the chief that the Massachusetts court transcripts were unavailable, but that certified copies of case dispositions could be obtained. The chief suggested that he obtain them.

Several days later, on March 3, 2003, the chief issued a letter denying the application. The letter stated:

After review of background data provided me regarding your pistol permit application, I have determined that you are not a suitable candidate to carry a concealed weapon. This decision is not made lightly and [is] without prejudice. It shall be the policy of this Chief to let the background information and criminal history stand on its own merits. You do have legal regress [sic] in the courts.

After receiving the letter, Silverstein tried to contact a Town official to resolve the license denial without going to court. On March 28, 2003, Silverstein attended a town meeting where a question was raised about whether he was actually a resident of the Town.

On April 3, 2003, Silverstein filed a petition in the district court seeking review of the chief’s denial of the license. See RSA 159:6-c (2002). Following a hearing held on April 17, 2003, the district court denied the petition without prejudice, upholding denial of the license based upon lack of suitability. The court found that Silverstein had failed in his obligation to provide the chief with requested information. The court also found that Silverstein was not a resident of the Town, and thus was required to apply to the director of state police for a license to carry.

Silverstein moved for reconsideration. Among other things, he argued that residency should not have been considered as a ground for denial of the license. The court denied the motion for reconsideration, finding that the chief had a reasonable basis for his determination that a permit should not issue. With respect to the issue of residency the court noted: "The fact that the Police Chief discovered some of the information after the denial of the permit is not important as the court cannot sanction the granting of a permit when there is evidence that it should not be granted." This appeal followed.

We first consider the standard of review for appeals pursuant to RSA 159:6-c. We have previously held that "the statute contemplates that the district court [will] hear evidence and make its own determination whether the petitioner is entitled to a license." Kozerski v. Steere, 121 N.H. 469, 472 (1981) (quotation omitted). In the absence of a sufficient record of the proceedings below, we assume the evidence supports the trial court’s findings and review the record for errors of law. Rix v. Kinderworks, 136 N.H. 548, 553 (1992).

RSA 159:6, I (Supp. 2003) provides, in pertinent part, that a resident may apply to the selectmen of a town or a full-time police officer designated by them for a license to carry a concealed weapon. Non-residents seeking a license must apply to the director of state police or the director’s designee. Id. The licensing authority shall issue a license if it appears that the applicant has good reason to fear injury to his or her person or property or has any proper purpose, and "is a suitable person to be licensed." Id. The statute further provides that the license shall be issued within fourteen days of application, and, if denied, the reason for such denial will be stated in writing and provided to the applicant. Id. Appeals from the denial of a license application are taken to the district court pursuant to RSA 159:6-c.

On appeal, Silverstein first argues that the district court erred in finding that the chief did not violate his rights by taking almost ten months to act upon his application. The Town contends that this issue is not properly before the court in an appeal pursuant to RSA 159:6-c. We agree. An appeal under RSA 159:6-c is limited to the issue of whether the petitioner is entitled to a license. A separate appeal avenue to superior court is provided for alleged violations of the licensing sections of RSA chapter 159 by a licensing authority. See RSA 159:6-e (2002). Accordingly, we do not reach this issue.

Silverstein next argues that the district court improperly admitted evidence related to his residency at the license denial hearing. Because the chief’s denial letter was premised solely upon lack of suitability, Silverstein argues, the court should not have heard or considered "after-acquired" evidence bearing upon whether he was a resident of the Town. The Town, on the other hand, asserts that Silverstein has failed to provide us with any record that he objected to the admission of evidence of his residency, and further argues that, because residency is a precondition to licensure by the chief, it may be raised at any time.

The record reveals that the district court upheld the license denial, at least in part, upon an appropriate ground, i.e., lack of suitability. Thus, we need not reach the evidentiary issue or the argument regarding use of an alternative ground to support the license denial. Cf. Douglas v. Douglas, 143 N.H. 419, 427 (1999) (court did not reach assertion of error in disqualifying defendant’s brother as next friend and co-counsel because it upheld the trial court’s decision upon other grounds).

Finally, Silverstein argues that, in deciding the appeal, the district court impermissibly shifted the burden of proof from the chief to him. This argument is premised, in large part, upon the court’s oral ruling that:

As far as the burden of providing information, I believe when the chief asked for original information to clarify, it shifts the burden of providing information to in fact the applicant to justify or provide further detail about whatever it says in the application or whatever information his investigation turns up.

Silverstein argues that the foregoing comments indicate that the district court relieved the chief of his obligation to show, by clear and convincing proof, that his denial of the license was justified. We disagree.

Although the burden of proof at the hearing is placed upon the licensing authority, the initial burden of establishing suitability before the licensing authority rested with the applicant. See RSA 159:6, I. The record reflects that, prior to acting upon the license application, the chief sought additional criminal background information relevant to the issue of suitability. Read in context with the court’s other findings, it appears that the court considered evidence of Silverstein’s failure to provide the requested information as further support for the chief’s initial decision to deny the license based upon lack of suitability. Cf. Drucker’s Case, 133 N.H. 326, 331 (1990). The court could make such a finding without shifting the ultimate burden of proof on whether the denial was justified.

The parties agree that the hearing record presented in support of the appeal is incomplete. The moving party is responsible for presenting a sufficient record to enable the court to decide the issue presented on appeal. Sup. Ct. R. 13(3); Murray v. Developmental Servs. of Sullivan County, 149 N.H. 264, 267-68 (2003); Rix, 136 N.H. at 553. In the absence of such a record, we are constrained to assume that the evidence presented supports the trial court’s decision and are limited to reviewing the record for errors of law. Id. Given the lack of any record of the Town’s case in chief, it is impossible to reconstruct all the evidence supporting the license denial. There is evidence, however, that concerns about a significant and unexplained arrest history were expressed at the hearing and were relied upon by the court in rendering its decision. Accordingly, we find no error of law with respect to the court’s decision upholding the license denial.

The remaining arguments and issues have either been addressed in the context of our foregoing analysis of other arguments or are without merit and warrant no further review. See Town of Nottingham v. Bonser, 146 N.H. 418, 430 (2001); Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

Affirmed.

DALIANIS and DUGGAN, JJ., concurred.

http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2007/bleir101.pdf

Another case- in short, recklessness with a firearm (in this case making certain comments regarding the use of firearms, and using a concealed, loaded firearm as a prop) was apprpriate grounds for revocation of Bleiler's permit based on suitability.

Dan Garand v. Town of Exeter (2009)
http://law.justia.com/cases/new-hampshire/supreme-court/2009/garan094.html

Selected quotations/ excerpts:
Background:

Not to be a dick but what's your point by this?

He did numerous things wrong during the application process starting with possibly not even applying in his own town, his residency is questioned. Didn't provide the chief with the information he requested and so on. I think this was a good call for them to deny the permit and exactly why I think the current system works just fine.

"There is evidence, however, that concerns about a significant and unexplained arrest history were expressed at the hearing and were relied upon by the court in rendering its decision"

Yes our current system allows for them to deny permits for just cause, which I think this is a justified denial.

Good call by them IMO.

For the record the case I stated above for the denial for DWI's and resisting arrest (was assault on a LEO that was plead down to resisting) was my uncle, who has since gotten at least 1 more DWI.

I think they made the right call in denying him as well.

I think this was a good revocation as well. Unfortunately IIRC he got it back on appeal.

Keep em coming, these are all good examples of people that should be denied IMO.

Lengthy criminal history, threaten to kill cops blah blah blah.

Keep up the good work by denying these shitbags IMO.

I don't disagree. What I am suggesting, is that NH does allow denials and revocations based on more than per-se disqualifiers, completing my earlier assertion that in effect, NH is a may-issue state that is near shall issue in practice.

The RSA is vague about the reasons for denial, I'll give you that, but you are basically just playing on words here. Unless you have reason for denial (and I think that all of the above examples are reasonable denials) you will (shall) be issued a permit. Play the words however you'd like.

I also mentioned a member here from Maine who was (as told by him) being denied solely due to his age which I think is not a reasonable denial. If somebody has no criminal (or psychiatric background but you cannot check that for all intents and pruposes) then they absolutely should issue a permit. I also don't like to hear stories about non resident applications taking more than the 14 days allowed by the law.

I for one though don't mind the system as is and will gladly put up with the hassle of every 4 years renewing it so that these examples we've provided that get denied continue to be denied. All in all I think we have it pretty good here when it comes to our gun laws.

ETA: I also don't think the nonresident permit should cost $100, you cannot tell me that it cost them that much (even $50) to cover the expenses of issuing permits. And to correct typos cause I can't type fast no good

Exactly.

Ok so now how will we have reciprocity in other states with no permit in hand?

You can still get a permit for reciprocity issues. You just won't need one within the state.

But will those states still give us reciprocity after our permit system changes? We will essentially have no permit system if this passes as in permits will not be required, just optional. My guess is if we change our system we may lose reciprocity with a few states, possibly all that give us it now. Does anybody give Vermont reciprocity? They don't have permits.

VT does not require a permit and it does not offer a permit.  NH will offer a Permit to anyone wanting one for reciprocity, or for ID for firearms private sales. If this passes, they will still have permits available for those reasons ––- the only thing that will change is it will not be "required" to have a permit to carry concealed.

I understand all of that but we will be altering the way our permit system works. The states that we have reciprocity agreements with might not like the new system if this passes. They agreed to the reciprocity under xxx conditions, like a contract. If we suddenly change things on our end that could change that agreement thus ending the reciprocity.

You are really thinking this through correctly

I think you guys are way over thinking this––––––––––-
The requirements for the permit will not change, IF you choose to get a permit.

What will change is that you will not need the permit to carry in NH.

And I think some people are under thinking this. Any time you change a law, procedure, contract or anything like that you often affect other areas that you didn't intend to.

The law will be changed if this passes which may affect reciprocity. Can you guarantee that it won't? Because I can't.

Another thing that will change by this is that all of the douchebags that have been (properly, IMO) denied a permit will now have free reign to carry as they please. Would you want any of these aforementioned cases carrying around your family? I sure as he'll don't and if it takes the minor inconvenience of renewing my permit and "asking" the state to exercise my 2nd amendment rights (which I can still do without a permit anyway) to stop people like that from carrying that's fine by me.

YMMV

Replies in Red

I'll admit that I'm a bit torn about this law. Part of me says yes.

Then there are the stories about shit bags being denied. I was under the impression that our "shall issue" law dictated that anyone who is allowed by law to possess a handgun could get a permit.
On the application they as about felonies, misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence, drugs use, adjudicated a mental defective, and have you been denied a license to carry. It seems like they are going by federal standards for gun ownership.

There was a case here where some guy with 3 convictions for misdemeanor assault IIRC filed a lawsuit to get his permit. I don't know how it was resolved, but evidently he wasn't a prohibited person.

Seems to me that this policy has worked well for the most part in VT, AK, and now AZ.  Sure, there may be some tweeks that could be made to better enforce and improve existing laws regarding prohibited persons but they should have been prohibited in the first place!  (criminals will obtain firearms regardless of the law, etc) It rubs me wrong that we should have to have a permit to excercise a constitutionally protected right.

I feel that any douche bag that had been denied will still carry concealed whether or not he has a piece of paper allowing them to do so.
Actually in my uncles case it did work as he sold his handgun once he found out that he wasn't going to get a permit. Either way by denying a permit he wasn't allowed to carry a loaded pistol in a car which is where he got into a lot of his troubles.

Your uncle is an exception and sounds like he gives a $#!t...if he was denied the permit, should he have even had the Gun?

Just as disallowing carry permits in many states does not stop bad guys from getting guns.
No, but it can be used as a tool to help make sure they aren't able to get them as in requiring a valid permit for a private sale (which you see more and more in ads on the EE and other sites for private sale), which is one of the benefits to our current system. Sure, if this law passes I can just insist on an FFL transfer which only adds to the cost for any of us that are responsible gun owners and would insist on some form of background check. Most FFL's charge $20+ for a transfer so add that to any firearms purchase/sale (if you care about who you sell to).

And this is a problem?..if YOU(and I do to)care I would require it go through an FFL.

How many people use their right to reciprocity here?
I have used it while on trips to Florida. There are 4 states along the I-95 corridor.

Again if that is where you travel and NEED the reciprocity proof then you can still go get your paperwork, why should everyone need to do it if they do not use it?

Only state I know and used locally is Vt.
We don't have reciprocity with Vt., they just don't have a CCW law.
Correct...I knew I liked that rule we are trying to pass here...

it is not convenient to me personally with any other states in the US that offer it. If Mass. / Maine offered it then I would agree otherwise it matters not either way to me.
Hell maybe we can be a roll model for other states to live up to their obligation of following the Constitution!
I didn't realize we lived in such an oppressive state and my rights were so violated As it is I think we ARE a role model for other states. We're consistantly rated one of the best quality of living, low tax, low cost of living and laxed gun law states in the country.

Where did I say we are an oppressive state? I gave credit to this great state and it's laws by insinuating we "Pay attention to the Constitution and by doing this new bill makes it more so!

I think you just want to complain about something that in the end is nothing more then a Positive whatever way YOU choose to look at it.....Have a good one!

Well said.

It makes no sense to say it's good to deny certain people (who are not otherwise prohibited), because, hey, they can open carry, ergo, they're not being denied they're rights. Apparently, as soon as the gun goes IWB that "shitbag's" evil nature will come through. Openly carrying, though, he'll be a model citizen. This smacks of anti reasoning. That's one step away from saying gun rights are "may issue."

As far as reciprocity, we have a small tide of states going to Constitutional carry, but we should stop the tide because it might cause some inconvenience? How does that help gun rights?

Here we go again.....

The biggest arguement people seem to have for this proposal is that it stops the inconvenience of them having to apply for a permit, which is a restriction of their 2nd amendment rights. I would agree that this is a minor inconvenience but I don't see it as a restriction where our state is a "shall issue" state. Has any member here not been allowed to easily obtain a permit? The proccess is stupidly easy (at least in my town) and quick, takes all of about 10 minutes and $10 every 4 years. Yup, it's dumb you have to give references, who's going to give references that are going to say "fuck no, don't let him have a gun" That's like asking for references on a resume.  

My point is that our current system has stopped people that shouldn't be allowed to carry IMO from getting a permit to do so. Yes, they can still open carry or CCW if the weapon is unloaded but that's per the current law, I never said it made sense. I would say that if a person is not eligable to obtain a permit they shouldn't be allowed to have any weapons, but that's not what our current law states.

I'm actually not anti gun at all, in fact I think every law abiding citizen should be allowed to own whatever they want.
Let me repeat that,  I think every law abiding citizen should be allowed to own whatever they want.

The question now becomes how do you stop the criminals and mental cases of the world from having access to the same weapons? or do you say "fuck it" and let them carry whatever they want too under the blanket of the 2nd ammendment? After all we don't want to violate any criminals rights now do we? Pretty much all of the restrictions on firearms are for Felons but there are many ways that violent criminals get out of Felonies or convictions for violent acts, plea bargaining being the main one.

I'll say what I have repeatedly said in this thread. I would glady deal with the "inconvenience" of our current system if it kept just 1 "shitbag" that shouldn't be carrying a weapon and doing harm to any other citizen in this state. Is the system "ideal"? What system is, but we don't live in an ideal world do we.

There are also a couple of advantages to our current system such as reciprocity and using a permit in leu of an FFL transfer but whatever, I'm just an anti gunner I guess.

No one's calling you an anti.  We're just having some spirited debate and on some issues we disagree.  That's about as American as it gets, right?  Remember this?

Every time I buy a hand gun, the dealer puts a call in for a background check. That is where I feel you should be allowed/denied the right to carry. If you can legally purchase it , you should be able to conceal carry it if you wish. The extra step at the local town level is great for reciprocity, but other then that a waste of time. Hell do a more thorough check at the local level and I would be happier to be honest.
I think the local check of references is like what you said " Giving references that will give you a bad reference will not be likely".

This is great news for the state if it passes.

While I like the idea of selling to a NH permit holder during a private sale, I can always cover my ass in other ways.  Whether I know the buyer or not, I get signed and dated bills of sale with serial numbers and copies of drivers licenses.

Thats all well and good if the gun is being bought from a dealer. Not all guns are bought from dealers. I know several people who can not buy a firearm legally from a dealer. Does that mean they can not carry one just because they can not buy it? With our current system, any prohibited person that can not buy a gun would most likely get turned down for a carry permit as well. That being said, if we have a system where no permits are needed, how would law enforcement know if the person is prohibited? If no permit is needed, then the police will not be able to ask if they see someone carrying?  As of now, many scumbag punks and lowlifes who can't get a permit do not carry because they fear the reprocussions. With that fear gone, many more will carry. Some do anyway, but I feel this will just help the shitbags more than the honest Joe Citizen. I have no problem with the current system. If you got legal/mental issues and can't buy a gun then you should'nt be allowed to carry one either.
What is the state law pertaining to the person carrying also having to own the gun? Is there one? Is the 21 yr old age still in effect? Can some shitbag 18yr old gangbanger "borrow" and carry concealed?

Guys, the bottom line now is no different than what we've all been saying for years.  People who don't obey the law will obtain and carry guns if they want to regardless of what the government says.  I just don't see how you can see this any other way.

Im with Preemptive Strike on this one.  The permit system did not really bother me (short of the fact that it is a tax, and paying most taxes really frosts my balls).  That being said, the new system dosnt really bother me either.  All things considered it was kinda a small issue when the state has much larger ones that it should be dealing with.  It reminds me of the big to do over making a law to allow guys who feel like gals to use whatever public bathroom they want.

To those that are worried that perps will be able to "carry legally" and more will do so w/o permits if NH follows VT and AK, I invite you to pay a visit to Boston (Murderpan in particular) or Brockton on any day of the week. Shitbirds carry with impunity, even thou it is a "1 year minimum, mandatory" jail sentence for doing so w/o a permit. The law is NOT enforced against any shitbirds, only a handful of good folks have done jail time since this law passed back in the 1970s.



Criminals are criminals and don't worry about penalties. Murder, rape and armed robbery are all more serious crimes with longer penalties than carrying w/o a permit in any state and that doesn't dissuade them from doing their crimes, does it??



As for LEOs not being able to determine good guys from bad guys w/o the ability to stop, ask for a permit and then run a background check . . . do you really believe that? I've had a permit and ccw'd for >30 years, even "banged guns" with an on-duty LEO and NOBODY at any time has ever asked to see my permit (other than a transaction buying/selling guns/ammo). Perps act in a fashion that makes them "stand out" . . . ask anyone who has ever been a LEO . . . I can't easily explain it, but the training and "street time" that a LEO goes thru gives any decent LEO a sixth sense about such things. If someone is acting suspicious, they certainly can do a "field inquiry" and run a background to see if the person is a shitbird who deserves extra scrutiny.

The new law will not "embolden" criminals to star carrying.  Criminals will carry guns regardless of the laws if they deem it necessary.

Concerns over the police not being able to tell if a person is "prohibited" or not is blown way out of proportion.  Remember, carrying a gun isn't illegal under the new law.  But carrying a gun in the commission of a crime still is!  The police will not be able to stop people from illegally concealing weapons regardless of laws.  But this new law will allow law abiding citizens greater freedom to exercise their rights.