Leaving aside the # of angels on the head of the pin, the issue the poll asks about ("Should Portsmouth police require references from concealed weapon permit applicants?") is NOT what the case was about. In fact it shows a total misunderstanding of the legal issue brought before the court, or perhaps an intentionally dense take on it.
The case was about the police holding an application past the legally-required 14 day decision point because they didn't manage to get ahold of the references (which were provided: "his three references didn't return police calls for verification").
So chalk up another bogus survey by a liberal paper regarding a gun issue. The case would have been a slam dunk win based on the law, which requires action in 14 days, but for the "gentleman" torpedoing his own case by putting forward self-incriminating evidence that was utterly unnecessary to win the case in the first place ("an attorney who represents himself has a fool for a client"). Still, once he weathers that storm, he might still manage to get the first issue argued. But rest assured the Portsmouth chief may well cite "illegal wiretapping" as a reason the "gentleman" is not "suitable" and start a fresh case.
What we need to do is focus on various chiefs' abuse of the 14-day limit, abuse of the vague discretion the word "suitable" in RSA 159:6 allegedly provides, and get back to a focus on making sure this state is shall-issue in form and practice (or con carry, but that was a train wreck last time around). That is probably going to require some fresh legislation that doesn't try to shoot the moon.