• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

'17 NH Constitutional Carry, SB12 is law & U can carry if U can own, including MA res

YES!

design said:
Every member who lives in MA, but who comes to visit NH should be all over supporting this bill.
1. It will save you the renewal fees
2. It will make one more state near MA that has adopted Constitutional Carry, meaning VT, ME and NH would have all passed CC and almost 1/2 of the states in New England would be free. Time to work on RI, MA, CT and NY.
Click to expand...

Anyone who can legally own a gun in any state can now carry concealed on person or in an auto in NH. Feb 24, 2027
P.S. Mass sucks! I grew up there and moved to NH right after getting out of the army because I wanted the freedom of being a vet.
 
Last edited:
kingfisher said:
Could you please explain why the NH Pistol / Revolver License does not meet the standard for exemption from the federal gun free school zone law?
Click to expand...

ScottS said:
It's not "clear" at all; that argument is based on a torturous parsing of the GFZA that has never been advanced by an actual law enforcement entity.

The list is long, but so far the NHSP, NHAG, a former US AG's office, etc. have all expressed the opposite opinion.
Click to expand...

ScottS said:
Whether or not the NH AG enforces the law, are you saying he doesn't know the law? Whose interpretation seem more credible, the NH AG (previous administration US AG office) or the Penny Dean/Sam Cohen crowd?

By the way, maybe you could provide just one actual law enforcement source that supports that interpretation before you use the term "clearly."
Click to expand...

Vince Lombardi said it best: when the Packers forgot the basics, he held a football up in the locker room at halftime and said, "Gentlemen, this is a football!"

Lombardi didn't care about stare decisis or talking head sports commentators, he cared about football.

So let's go back to basics here: this is the football: 18 USC 922 (q) (2) (B) says that the federal GFSZA "does not apply to the possession of a firearm—

...(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

NH RSA 159 allows people other than law enforcement to issue a license, and nothing in 159 requires anyone to verify anything; the issuing authority had (until passage of SB-12) sole discretion to determine whether or not someone was "suitable", which had no bearing on whether or not they were a prohibited person.

I use the Lombardi standard in both law and biblical exegesis: always go back to the root, instead of relying on commentaries.
 
KBCraig said:
Vince Lombardi said it best: when the Packers forgot the basics, he held a football up in the locker room at halftime and said, "Gentlemen, this is a football!"

Lombardi didn't care about stare decisis or talking head sports commentators, he cared about football.

So let's go back to basics here: this is the football: 18 USC 922 (q) (2) (B) says that the federal GFSZA "does not apply to the possession of a firearm—

...(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

NH RSA 159 allows people other than law enforcement to issue a license, and nothing in 159 requires anyone to verify anything; the issuing authority had (until passage of SB-12) sole discretion to determine whether or not someone was "suitable", which had no bearing on whether or not they were a prohibited person.

I use the Lombardi standard in both law and biblical exegesis: always go back to the root, instead of relying on commentaries.
Click to expand...

I guess the NH AG, SP. the FBI, and the US AG's office have never heard of Vince. Again, can you provide any law enforcement agent/agency that agrees with you? Because we now multiple state and federal law enforcement agents/agencies that disagree with you. These are Democrat-appointed LE personnel who would like nothing better than to restrict gun rights, and were rabidly trying to prevent guns being worn to school polling places. But they were unable to do so, and they went on the record to say the license meets the requirements spelled out in the GFZA. Why do you think that is? Are the LE agencies involved stupid? Have they never seen this law? Were they spending too much time studying U.S. v. Lopez and not enough time reading NES? This is like the AG's (US, not just NH)...job. They've clearly read the same law you have, and yet they believe the NH P&RL meets those requirements.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this, but consider who's already on the record as agreeing with me.
 
ScottS said:
I guess the NH AG, SP. the FBI, and the US AG's office have never heard of Vince. Again, can you provide any law enforcement agent/agency that agrees with you? Because we now multiple state and federal law enforcement agents/agencies that disagree with you.
Click to expand...
Flag on the play: appeal to authority.


We'll have to agree to disagree on this, but consider who's already on the record as agreeing with me.
Click to expand...
Or we can consider who isn't on the record as agreeing with you: any court of authority.
 
It seems pretty clear that the idea of a GFSZ within 1000' of a school is absurd and most folks wouldn't know that they crossed into the "danger zone". LE doesn't get to make the laws, they are oftentimes stuck with enforcing them.

"Black Letter of the Law", KBCraig is correct (and I agree with him BTW), however it is clear that the Feds have better fish to fry and this isn't one of them that they want to waste resources on. Therefore the likelihood of a NH Resident getting jammed up over this is infinitesimally small. Lots of dumb laws are on the books and LE ignores them intentionally.
 
KBCraig said:
Or we can consider who isn't on the record as agreeing with you: any court of authority.
Click to expand...

Lol... There's no case law on this problem though and there probably never will be, because it'd be trivial to show a jury how retarded that argument is. I don't even think theres a single town in NH that issues a P&R without the police being involved. Any US attorney would have to be mentally retarded to think they could win on that nuance.

I put a PR lic failing in this regard as being less likely than a non dealer/manyf getting proseuted for violating USC 922r. Which is- "go buy some powerball tix, your odds are way better. " [laugh]

-Mike
 
Len-2A Training said:
It seems pretty clear that the idea of a GFSZ within 1000' of a school is absurd and most folks wouldn't know that they crossed into the "danger zone". LE doesn't get to make the laws, they are oftentimes stuck with enforcing them.

"Black Letter of the Law", KBCraig is correct (and I agree with him BTW), however it is clear that the Feds have better fish to fry and this isn't one of them that they want to waste resources on. Therefore the likelihood of a NH Resident getting jammed up over this is infinitesimally small. Lots of dumb laws are on the books and LE ignores them intentionally.
Click to expand...

I normally agree with you, Len, but in this case it's not that they have bigger fish to fry, the Feds (Democratic-apponted Feds, at that) actually came out and said, "Sorry, can't do anything because that's the law." Not, "I don't have time for this trivial shit," but "Sorry, our hands are tied." They had a major hard-on about this, and yet concluded that the requirements of the GFZA are satisfied by a NH P&RL. If there was wiggle room to exclude licensed carriers at the polls, I'm sure they would have squinted their eyes and seen the law the way they wanted it to be.

So, no matter how many football analogies KBCraig likes to throw out (and, by the way, in a situation like this of course we look to cognizant authority [rolleyes]) when you stack it all up, it's still State and Federal LE/AG agencies say one thing, and a couple of folks on NES say another.

Come on. That's not even a debate.
 
drgrant said:
Lol... There's no case law on this problem though and there probably never will be, because it'd be trivial to show a jury how retarded that argument is. I don't even think theres a single town in NH that issues a P&R without the police being involved. Any US attorney would have to be mentally retarded to think they could win on that nuance.

I put a PR lic failing in this regard as being less likely than a non dealer/manyf getting proseuted for violating USC 922r. Which is- "go buy some powerball tix, your odds are way better. " [laugh]
Click to expand...

There are plenty of small towns in the North Country who do not have police departments and have their selectmen issue the P&R's. That doesn't mean they do not do background checks though. Even some towns with one horse departments have their selectmen handle the task.
 
KBCraig said:
Vince Lombardi said it best: when the Packers forgot the basics, he held a football up in the locker room at halftime and said, "Gentlemen, this is a football!"

Lombardi didn't care about stare decisis or talking head sports commentators, he cared about football.

So let's go back to basics here: this is the football: 18 USC 922 (q) (2) (B) says that the federal GFSZA "does not apply to the possession of a firearm—

...(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

NH RSA 159 allows people other than law enforcement to issue a license, and nothing in 159 requires anyone to verify anything; the issuing authority had (until passage of SB-12) sole discretion to determine whether or not someone was "suitable", which had no bearing on whether or not they were a prohibited person.

I use the Lombardi standard in both law and biblical exegesis: always go back to the root, instead of relying on commentaries.
Click to expand...

ScottS said:
I guess the NH AG, SP. the FBI, and the US AG's office have never heard of Vince. Again, can you provide any law enforcement agent/agency that agrees with you? Because we now multiple state and federal law enforcement agents/agencies that disagree with you. These are Democrat-appointed LE personnel who would like nothing better than to restrict gun rights, and were rabidly trying to prevent guns being worn to school polling places. But they were unable to do so, and they went on the record to say the license meets the requirements spelled out in the GFZA. Why do you think that is? Are the LE agencies involved stupid? Have they never seen this law? Were they spending too much time studying U.S. v. Lopez and not enough time reading NES? This is like the AG's (US, not just NH)...job. They've clearly read the same law you have, and yet they believe the NH P&RL meets those requirements.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this, but consider who's already on the record as agreeing with me.
Click to expand...

Len-2A Training said:
It seems pretty clear that the idea of a GFSZ within 1000' of a school is absurd and most folks wouldn't know that they crossed into the "danger zone". LE doesn't get to make the laws, they are oftentimes stuck with enforcing them.

"Black Letter of the Law", KBCraig is correct (and I agree with him BTW), however it is clear that the Feds have better fish to fry and this isn't one of them that they want to waste resources on. Therefore the likelihood of a NH Resident getting jammed up over this is infinitesimally small. Lots of dumb laws are on the books and LE ignores them intentionally.
Click to expand...

KBCraig and ScottS, you two are both correct. The black letter of the fed law does provide a way to go after any license holder in NH. However the feds have chosen not to actually go after anyone. We don't actually know the real reasons but I would suspect that behind closed doors they are afraid of a legal challenge going to SCOTUS (remember the GFSZ act has not been challenged since it was re-written) and thus will only use it as a "throw as much shit on the wall and see what sticks" if they happen to catch a "gangbanger" in NH carrying in a school zone while doing other things (like selling drugs, etc).

I don't know if you guys remember but way back in 2007 (IIRC), a black guy in NH stood across the street from the school where then candidate Obama (with SS protection) was speaking with an AR15 strapped to his back. He did have an NH PRL and was flanked by police. The feds did nothing because he was committing no crime other than technically violating the GFSZ act.
 
soloman02 said:
KBCraig and ScottS, you two are both correct. The black letter of the fed law does provide a way to go after any license holder in NH. However the feds have chosen not to actually go after anyone. We don't actually know the real reasons but I would suspect that behind closed doors they are afraid of a legal challenge going to SCOTUS (remember the GFSZ act has not been challenged since it was re-written) and thus will only use it as a "throw as much shit on the wall and see what sticks" if they happen to catch a "gangbanger" in NH carrying in a school zone while doing other things (like selling drugs, etc).
Click to expand...

Yeah, but a gangbanger probably isn't going to have a P/R license and can easily be prosecuted if they really wanted to do so.

Some random guy that got caught with a gun on school grounds with a P/R license... the case would fail the reasonable person test, particularly if the guys P/R license was actually approved by an LE authority (which is probably like 99% of the licenses issued in NH). Why does it matter whether or not the law forced that check or not, or is it simply more important that such check /approval had actually occurred?

This reminds me of that stupid federal law that blocks dealers from selling someone a rifle/shotgun that isn't legal in their home state even though the gun shop's state laws would not prohibit sale or possession in that state. That law is so ****ing retarded that it's probably unenforceable. I've never seen any case law on it. It appears to be, in reality, only a stick that BATFE uses against gun dealers to get them to keep their license.

USC 922R is the same deal, although that one has actually been enforced a couple of times, but only against an FFL/manufacturer that was building guns based off some chinese receiver. (if one reads the law the overtone is that it really only applies to people who are manufacturing firearms....)


-Mike
 
Last edited:
jpk said:
To all you Mass folks thinking about coming to NH to take advantage of our recently passed Con Carry bill while you're here..........could you please handle your firearms more responsibly and be more considerate to the natives than you are behind the wheel of your cars every weekend?
Click to expand...

Did an SUV with ski's on the roof flash a piece at you on 93?
 
(CNN) — While many Americans watch the Academy Awards on Sunday, governors of the United States will be reveling in a different kind of glamor -- in person, at the White House.

The first big social event of President Donald Trump's administration, the annual Governors Dinner, will take place Sunday evening...
Click to expand...

I wonder if our governor is there tonight. He deserves a party! [cheers]
 
soloman02 said:
I don't know if you guys remember but way back in 2007 (IIRC), a black guy in NH stood across the street from the school where then candidate Obama (with SS protection) was speaking with an AR15 strapped to his back. He did have an NH PRL and was flanked by police. The feds did nothing because he was committing no crime other than technically violating the GFSZ act.
Click to expand...

There was also a guy in, I think, Portsmouth, during the first ZerObama election (details here are fuzzy due to time and Can't Remember Shit disease) who was open carrying a handgun at a school where Obama was speaking, but got tagged when he went back to get in the truck because he had no P&RL...and the Feds said he would have been fine if he had a P&RL...or something close to that. I remember it was a significant statement at the time. Perhaps the collective memory can provide the details better.
 
ScottS said:
There was also a guy in, I think, Portsmouth, during the first ZerObama election (details here are fuzzy due to time and Can't Remember Shit disease) who was open carrying a handgun at a school where Obama was speaking, but got tagged when he went back to get in the truck because he had no P&RL...and the Feds said he would have been fine if he had a P&RL...or something close to that. I remember it was a significant statement at the time. Perhaps the collective memory can provide the details better.
Click to expand...

I met that dude, big time Free Stater. I think his name was Bill, or Will.

- - - Updated - - -

This dude.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
edmorseiii said:
I met that dude, big time Free Stater. I think his name was Bill, or Will.

- - - Updated - - -

This dude.

Click to expand...


I remember that guy; I really thought Chris Matthews' head was going to explode.

He's not the guy I'm thinking of, though. I seem to remember him being older, and for some reason I remember him carrying a .380 (why would I remember that?). Now it's going to bug me and I'm going to have to do some research...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
soloman02 said:
KBCraig and ScottS, you two are both correct. The black letter of the fed law does provide a way to go after any license holder in NH. However the feds have chosen not to actually go after anyone.
Click to expand...

The entire history of carry licensing has consisted of ensuring the majority, "Don't worry, we won't use this law against you (even though we could); we'll only use it against those people, the bad ones.

When Florida started the modern push to shall-issue licensing 25 years ago, followed by the rest of the Southern states, it was because enforcement had become equal opportunity: little old white grandmothers on their way to church were at risk of being charged with breaking the same laws on Sunday morning as black and hispanic men were on Saturday night.

That new reality was shocking, because, "We never intended those laws to be used against you, only them!"

And that's when the laws were changed.

As for current charges, yes: the feds only use the modified GFSZA as plea bait. They don't want to risk having it overturned, as the first one was.
 
42! said:
You got to love how they ignore that the laws have always been different MA/NH and a permit in one hasn't been good in the other. But now we need signs [rolleyes]
Click to expand...

I know. And EFFING JON ROSENTHAL. EFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NRA and The God Emperor do NOT want to "increase gun violence". Effing POS. FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


We know either you or one of your lackeys must read NES, so I'll say it again. FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
jpk said:
Nope

Just commenting on the "quality" driving we see every ****ing weekend from cars with plates with a white background and red letters/numbers
Click to expand...


Oh yeah, right. Like the sea of green and white plates on Routes 3,495,93 in rush hour
for all you free people coming to MA to make that great paycheck isn't worse? [smile]
 
NeverMiss said:
Oh yeah, right. Like the sea of green and white plates on Routes 3,495,93 in rush hour
for all you free people coming to MA to make that great paycheck isn't worse? [smile]
Click to expand...
I fully intend to keep my job in Mass when I escape north. Although I will work from home as often as possible.

sent from my chimney using smoke signals
 
namedpipes said:
I fully intend to keep my job in Mass when I escape north. Although I will work from home as often as possible.
Click to expand...

I'm hoping to land a new job with a company in NH so I don't need to go into that state nearly as often. Once I do that, I might average one trip a month into MA... I'll be much happier and less stressed once that happens...
 

Similar threads

Migrants can carry guns
Replies
23
Views
713
KBCraig
KBCraig
Missouri law being passed: If you home school, your home is now considered a school and you can't own guns
Replies
17
Views
618
Nhusa
N
Can you guys tell me what this is?
Replies
7
Views
463
LittleCalm
L
Carry in Post Office
2
Replies
49
Views
1K
LTCRN
LTCRN
MA Law: carrying a gun where animals may be present
2
Replies
56
Views
2K
MisterHappy
MisterHappy
Back
Top Bottom