It saddens me to inform you that New Hampshire is no longer a shall-issue state. - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

MSD · 11-12-2004, 07:34 PM

Quote:

http://www.packing.org/news/article.jsp/9867/

This is probably the second saddest day for gun owners in this state, the first was March 13, 2004 when the first Silverstein decision was handed down by the NH Supreme court. I am still in shock. I provided the court with a clear record, and I can only say that those of you that have followed this case will be shocked.

This case says that Peter Burling can sit in a courtroom where his wife, Jean Burling presides, the NRA and GONH members of the audience in the courtroom can be personally attacked, and nothing will be done.

This decision says that Chief Jeff Musheno and other chiefs like him have total discretion in licensing, NH is no longer a shall issue state.

Chiefs can regularly wait over ONE YEAR to issue license to individual with top secret military clearance, and no judge will sanction them.

When a person brings them to trial they can refuse to answer how many times they have violated the law by not granting or denying a license in 14 days, and they will not be made to answer.

The chiefs can demand that applicants prove THEY are not Person X (who by the way was well over 6', applicant was 5'8").

The chiefs can go to the applicant's children's school and obtain confidential information and enter it into evidence, and no sanction will be allowed against the chief for violation of privacy, attorneys can issue subpoenas for phone records, and judges will refuse to enforce them.

A client can have possessed resident motor vehicles registration for three years, a resident drivers license for three years, and if they work out of state, can be declared a nonresident by the chief of police, and the courts will not second guess him.

Most importantly, the court will not allow any inquiry to even the number of other applicants that have been denied. No matter what.

If this is not a case for SB 454 Vermont Style carry, I don't know what is. We may as well be living in NJ or other state for all the rights applicants will have in the future against a licensing entity (usually a chief of police) that chooses not to issue.

I may as well not waste my time bringing actions for violation of RSA 159, my time will be better used convincing the general court the Vermont style carry is needed.

Quote:

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE - SUPREME COURT

In Case No.2004-0085 & 2004-0224, Cary Si1verstein v Town of Alexandria, Chief of Police, the court on October 29, 2004, issued the following order:

Having considered the parties' briefs and the record submitted on appeal, the court partially affirms the decision of the trial court. See Supreme Court Rule 25(8). We hereby affirm all aspects of the trial court's decision except its decision with respect to attorney's fees. Oral argument will be scheduled on the court's 3JX docket with respect to whether the petitioner met his burden of proof for an award of attorney's fees under RSA 159:6-e and RSA 159:6-f.

In light of our decision to affirm the other aspects of the trial court's decision, we will not hear oral argument regarding any issue other than that related to the trial court's attorney's fee award. The parties shall confine their arguments to those related to this award.

Specifically, the parties shall not address the following issues raised in the petitioner's brief: (1) whether the trial court impermissibly presumed that the chief of police's decision was reasonable; (2) whether the trial court impermissibly found that the evidence supported the chief's determination that the petitioner was not a "suitable person"; (3) whether the trial court impermissibly limited the appellant's cross-examination of the chief of police; (4) whether the trial court impermissibly failed to find that the chief's prior statement that the petitioner was a suitable person and that of Selectman Pinaggio were binding; (5) whether the trial court impermissibly shifted the burden of proof to the petitioner; (6) whether the trial court erroneously failed to compel certain discover; (7) \\rhether the trial court applied the incorrect burden of proof; (8) whether the trial court erroneously found that the petitioner was not a resident; (9) whether the trial court incorrectly failed to apply the doctrine of municipal estoppel; and ( 10) whether the trial judge erroneously failed to recuse herself based upon the petitioner's allegation that the trial judge's husband is a "known anti-gun proponent."

This goes here instead of politics so that we can lament rather than debate. The gun issue is a dead horse in politics.

The basic overview of that last paragraph is that the plaintiff cannot try to argue that the trial court impermissibly (illegally or unconstitutionally) ruled in favor of the police chief who denied a permit, cannot argue that the corss-examination of the police chief was illegally cut short, cannot argue that it is relevant that the chief originally stated that the applicant for the permit was a suitable candidate for a permit, the plaintiff cannot argue that court procedures were handled improperly (mistrial, anyone?) and most of all, that the judge was obviously biased and still felt that she was able to render a decision impartially.

I'm disappointed that a state that proclaims "Live Free or Die" has chosen the latter for those who will be unable to defend themselves after this decision. Hopefully individual police chiefs will still uphold the rights of the residents of their communities.

ziadel · 11-12-2004, 09:33 PM

yupp, live free or die my ass

sounds like its time for them to revolt.

SecretMethod70 · 11-13-2004, 12:45 AM

well, there goes one of the selling points for the Free State Project

MrTuffPaws · 11-13-2004, 11:35 PM

Sounds like CA. Here it is up to the local sheriff to grant CCWs, and get this, personal protection is not a ligitimate reason for getting a CCW. You have to transport large sums of cash or be in a position where you might be threatened, (ie doctor, security, etc...)

Moonduck · 11-14-2004, 09:48 AM

Wow, more than a gun rights issue, I would think this is a serious abridgement of proper legal proceedings and various rights pertaining to fair trials. Wow.

To those TFP'ers living in NH, might I suggest a thought about moving to a state that better respects your rights? Damn.

MSD · 11-14-2004, 07:32 PM

Just under two months until I can start finding out if CT is still shall issue or if they've gone downhill.

basmoq · 11-15-2004, 07:32 AM

That truly sucketh

daswig · 11-18-2004, 12:00 PM

Ummm....dude....I read the actual published opinion at http://www.courts.state.nh.us/suprem...4/silve037.htm

I think she's freaking out over nothing. The cop had cause to not issue the permit, namely a sizeable criminal record of the applicant's that wasn't explained. "Shall issue" doesn't mean "must give criminals a permit".

As for the entire "they took too long" bit, the court said that was an issue for a different proceeding.

kerry512 · 11-18-2004, 12:00 PM

yes is does ....

Dostoevsky · 11-23-2004, 06:32 PM

What a bunch of garbage. I can't believe that New Hampshire is becoming a liberal shithole like the rest of the northeast. I lived there for 8 years. I will blame it on spillover from the people's republik of massachussetts.

The_Dunedan · 11-23-2004, 08:14 PM

Kerry:
"Shall Issue" simply means that the local Top Cop must give someone a permit IF they have no criminal record or potentially dangerous mental problems. It does NOT mean that anyone can get a permit.

MrTuffPaws · 11-23-2004, 08:47 PM

Quote:

"Shall Issue" simply means that the local Top Cop must give someone a permit IF they have no criminal record or potentially dangerous mental problems. It does NOT mean that anyone can get a permit.

Doesn't that make sense? If you have a history of mental illness, scratch. If you have a felony, scratch. If you have a restraining order against you, scratch. Do you really think that everyone should be allowed to have a gun?

Keep in mind that I personally feel that if you get busted with a felony and do your time, you should be able to own a gun, vote, etc until you prove again that you are not competent to own one.

MSD · 11-23-2004, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrTuffPaws

Doesn't that make sense? If you have a history of mental illness, scratch. If you have a felony, scratch. If you have a restraining order against you, scratch. Do you really think that everyone should be allowed to have a gun?

Keep in mind that I personally feel that if you get busted with a felony and do your time, you should be able to own a gun, vote, etc until you prove again that you are not competent to own one.

I don't see why anyone who has been out of prison for a fair amount of time and can be considered by a psychologist to have been reformed should be denied a permit. Then again, I don't see why anyone who has done their time shouldn't be allowed to vote, but a lot of people agree with the current law on that, so maybe I'm just crazy (/sarcasm)

11-12-2004, 09:33 PM	#2 (permalink)
ziadel Myrmidon Location: In the twilight and mist.	yupp, live free or die my ass sounds like its time for them to revolt. __________________ Ron Paul '08 Vote for Freedom Go ahead and google Dr. Ron Paul. You'll like what you read.

11-13-2004, 12:45 AM	#3 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	well, there goes one of the selling points for the Free State Project __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

11-15-2004, 07:32 AM	#7 (permalink)
basmoq It's a girly girl! Location: OH, USA	That truly sucketh __________________ "There's someone out there for everyone - even if you need a pickaxe, a compass, and night goggles to find them."

11-13-2004, 11:35 PM	#4 (permalink)
MrTuffPaws Addict Location: NorCal	Sounds like CA. Here it is up to the local sheriff to grant CCWs, and get this, personal protection is not a ligitimate reason for getting a CCW. You have to transport large sums of cash or be in a position where you might be threatened, (ie doctor, security, etc...)

11-14-2004, 09:48 AM	#5 (permalink)
Moonduck Junkie Location: SE USA	Wow, more than a gun rights issue, I would think this is a serious abridgement of proper legal proceedings and various rights pertaining to fair trials. Wow. To those TFP'ers living in NH, might I suggest a thought about moving to a state that better respects your rights? Damn.

11-14-2004, 07:32 PM	#6 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	Just under two months until I can start finding out if CT is still shall issue or if they've gone downhill.

11-18-2004, 12:00 PM	#8 (permalink)
daswig Banned Location: BFE	Ummm....dude....I read the actual published opinion at http://www.courts.state.nh.us/suprem...4/silve037.htm I think she's freaking out over nothing. The cop had cause to not issue the permit, namely a sizeable criminal record of the applicant's that wasn't explained. "Shall issue" doesn't mean "must give criminals a permit". As for the entire "they took too long" bit, the court said that was an issue for a different proceeding.

11-18-2004, 12:00 PM	#9 (permalink)
kerry512 Upright	yes is does ....

11-23-2004, 06:32 PM	#10 (permalink)
Dostoevsky Psycho Location: Macon, GA	What a bunch of garbage. I can't believe that New Hampshire is becoming a liberal shithole like the rest of the northeast. I lived there for 8 years. I will blame it on spillover from the people's republik of massachussetts.

11-23-2004, 08:14 PM	#11 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	Kerry: "Shall Issue" simply means that the local Top Cop must give someone a permit IF they have no criminal record or potentially dangerous mental problems. It does NOT mean that anyone can get a permit.