Hampton, NH PD Bullsh*t Pistol License

[Chet0729]

Here is the link:

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...stol-License?p=3645890&viewfull=1#post3645890



Read my letter to the chief linked above. The law is crystal clear. The mere act of providing a secondary form demanding a photocopy of the drivers license is illegal. The fact that they refused to accept the application without the photocopies is just a bonus.

The law is very clear, I understand that. He has to prove the law was broken. As of right now he has no proof of anything.
Its not what you know its what you can prove and my point was he has no proof of anything at this point. Find someone with proof and you have a case, if you cant you are wasting your time. He has nothing saying they refused his application, hell he can't even prove he submitted an application at this point.

 

[cyberlogicx]

The law is very clear, I understand that. He has to prove the law was broken. As of right now he has no proof of anything.
Its not what you know its what you can prove and my point was he has no proof of anything at this point. Find someone with proof and you have a case, if you cant you are wasting your time. He has nothing saying they refused his application, hell he can't even prove he submitted an application at this point.

Did you even bother reading ANYTHING I have written?

 

[Bonesinium]

Did you even bother reading ANYTHING I have written?

I think he has. His point is what you mostly have is a he said-she said scenario. This is why I was hoping you would record your encounters. This documents things, and helps you out. I mean, we all know what is going on. I don't think you are blowing smoke. But will a judge believe you? Can you prove they refused to accept an application for not proving information not required by law? If not, it will be tough to gain accountability and force compliance.

 

[mikem317]

The law is very clear, I understand that. He has to prove the law was broken. As of right now he has no proof of anything.
Its not what you know its what you can prove and my point was he has no proof of anything at this point. Find someone with proof and you have a case, if you cant you are wasting your time. He has nothing saying they refused his application, hell he can't even prove he submitted an application at this point.

Yes and no. The applicant was handed the "extra document" describing what they need. He also scanned it and uploaded it to this thread. It proves that HPD is willing to break the law. INAL, but I would wait until the 14 day window closes. If HPD is sitting on this, waiting for phone numbers, blood samples, photo IDs, library cards, etc. then let them, IMHO. Once the 14-day window expires and there's been no issuance or denial, then the law was breached.

If part of their denial says the application was "incomplete - we need X" and "X" is not prescribed in RSA, then I would contact Nappen or Dean and file suit. Both of them have had success putting town tyrants in their place.

 

[KH56010]

I think he has. His point is what you mostly have is a he said-she said scenario. This is why I was hoping you would record your encounters. This documents things, and helps you out. I mean, we all know what is going on. I don't think you are blowing smoke. But will a judge believe you? Can you prove they refused to accept an application for not proving information not required by law? If not, it will be tough to gain accountability and force compliance.

He has them on recorded line acknowledging that the application has been received. So, at minimum they must issue or deny. If not, he can sue them and will win.

 

[xtry51]

Personally, I would write your rep back, say you complied with the law in your submission and will await your approval or denial on Jan 15th the statutory deadline. Tell the rep if you hear nothing the next meeting the CoP is going to have will be with your lawyer and a judge.

Nothing good comes from a meeting, tell the rep your not pandering to people who violate the law.

 

[Hiltonizer]

Personally, I would write your rep back, say you complied with the law in your submission and will await your approval or denial on Jan 15th the statutory deadline. Tell the rep if you hear nothing the next meeting the CoP is going to have will be with your lawyer and a judge.

Nothing good comes from a meeting, tell the rep your not pandering to people who violate the law.

That is, unfortunately, my senate rep too... she's a useless statist RINO who needs to be ousted. Had she been worthy of her office, she'd simply have told the chief to cut the shit.

 

[xtry51]

That is, unfortunately, my senate rep too... she's a useless statist RINO who needs to be ousted. Had she been worthy of her office, she'd simply have told the chief to cut the shit.

Name the rep in the suit as a co-conspirator. Who cares if the case on her gets thrown out. It'll at least jar her out of her little Rhino isolated bubble for a few hours

 

[cyberlogicx]

That is, unfortunately, my senate rep too... she's a useless statist RINO who needs to be ousted. Had she been worthy of her office, she'd simply have told the chief to cut the shit.

All part of the reason I'm running for the seat, next time elections happen.

 

[Bonesinium]

He has them on recorded line acknowledging that the application has been received. So, at minimum they must issue or deny. If not, he can sue them and will win.

Unless he has submitted a public records request for that recording, he doesn't have anything. The PD might have the recording, but that is far from the same thing as him having it. I agree, if they refuse to do anything with the application, he certainly still should purse the issue, and certainly may win. But claiming he has proof of their actions and that he will win is failing to acknowledge the reality he doesn't have any proof and that anything can happen when you enter legal land even when you do.

 

[Hiltonizer]

All part of the reason I'm running for the seat, next time elections happen.

Your website and shit is on me.

 

[06LemansC6]

Your shit is on me.

Not sure this is the wording I would have used.

 

[Hiltonizer]

Not sure this is the wording I would have used.

You got a dog in this fight too IIRC

Or do you have Prescott still? He's OK, responded to me on some 2A emails in the past before he redistricting.

 

[06LemansC6]

You got a dog in this fight too IIRC

Or do you have Prescott still? He's OK, responded to me on some 2A emails in the past before he redistricting.

Prescott is our Senator. I've also had interaction with him via. email.

 

[Chet0729]

Yes and no. The applicant was handed the "extra document" describing what they need. He also scanned it and uploaded it to this thread. It proves that HPD is willing to break the law. INAL, but I would wait until the 14 day window closes. If HPD is sitting on this, waiting for phone numbers, blood samples, photo IDs, library cards, etc. then let them, IMHO. Once the 14-day window expires and there's been no issuance or denial, then the law was breached.

If part of their denial says the application was "incomplete - we need X" and "X" is not prescribed in RSA, then I would contact Nappen or Dean and file suit. Both of them have had success putting town tyrants in their place.

I dont think he received a denial. According to what he said they refused to accept his application. There is absolutely no proof of that. If they sent him a denial based on him not filling out the paper in question, that would be a different story. Same as if he had something on tape of the PD telling him he had to fill out the other form. He has nothing of substance. Just hear say. When he goes back they will tell him it was a misunderstanding and he is all set.

 

[jefftk]

Even better: by default they do not retain your photo or SSN; you must opt-in to let them keep that info.

How do you opt-in or opt-out, whichever is currently the default? Is there checkbox on the application when you go to the RMV, or do you have to personally request that?

 

[soloman02]

All part of the reason I'm running for the seat, next time elections happen.

I dont think he received a denial. According to what he said they refused to accept his application. There is absolutely no proof of that. If they sent him a denial based on him not filling out the paper in question, that would be a different story. Same as if he had something on tape of the PD telling him he had to fill out the other form. He has nothing of substance. Just hear say. When he goes back they will tell him it was a misunderstanding and he is all set.

What don't you understand? Merely having a second page demanding a photocopy of a drivers license is illegal. The fact that they won't accept the application is secondary.

 

[Bonesinium]

How do you opt-in or opt-out, whichever is currently the default? Is there checkbox on the application when you go to the RMV, or do you have to personally request that?

Yes, a checkbox on the application is correct. The nice lady at the DMV asked me if I was sure I didn't want them to keep my photo on file, because I won't be able to renew online. Considering how quick and easy the DMV is (weird right!), why would I want to keep it on file?

Seriously though, the DMV has always been super easy, and the employees very polite. Whatever they are doing in other states, I have no idea...

 

[ochmude]

What don't you understand? Merely having a second page demanding a photocopy of a drivers license is illegal. The fact that they won't accept the application is secondary.

As I read the RSA, I'm not 100% certain of that. If a PD "demands" a photo with an application, but you have proof (such as cell phone video) of you dropping off the application to them, that "demand" doesn't turn into an actual requirement until 14 days later when you go to pickup your license and they don't give it do you. If they "demand" the photo, but realize that you're not going to just bend over and submit, so they issue the license anyway, it could easily be argued that the "demand" was merely a request, not a requirement, and it was not used as a basis to grant, deny, or renew the license. Just playing devil's advocate here. And I'm not viewing this from a MA perspective. We've got Constitutional Carry here so this is all BS to me.

 

[Bonesinium]

As I read the RSA, I'm not 100% certain of that. If a PD "demands" a photo with an application, but you have proof (such as cell phone video) of you dropping off the application to them, that "demand" doesn't turn into an actual requirement until 14 days later when you go to pickup your license and they don't give it do you. If they "demand" the photo, but realize that you're not going to just bend over and submit, so they issue the license anyway, it could easily be argued that the "demand" was merely a request, not a requirement, and it was not used as a basis to grant, deny, or renew the license. Just playing devil's advocate here. And I'm not viewing this from a MA perspective. We've got Constitutional Carry here so this is all BS to me.

I agree. I suspect that is what will happen, as this is often the game police like to play. Coerce people into things by demanding things illegally, then claiming it was a request.

 

[KBCraig]

How do you opt-in or opt-out, whichever is currently the default? Is there checkbox on the application when you go to the RMV, or do you have to personally request that?

Yes, a checkbox on the application is correct. The nice lady at the DMV asked me if I was sure I didn't want them to keep my photo on file, because I won't be able to renew online. Considering how quick and easy the DMV is (weird right!), why would I want to keep it on file?

Exactly. The DL application form includes an item that you must check and sign before they can keep your info; otherwise, they can't.

And the nice lady at the DMV also asked me the same, for the same reason. She had no problem with my choice, just wanted to make sure I knew the implications.

 

[soloman02]

As I read the RSA, I'm not 100% certain of that. If a PD "demands" a photo with an application, but you have proof (such as cell phone video) of you dropping off the application to them, that "demand" doesn't turn into an actual requirement until 14 days later when you go to pickup your license and they don't give it do you. If they "demand" the photo, but realize that you're not going to just bend over and submit, so they issue the license anyway, it could easily be argued that the "demand" was merely a request, not a requirement, and it was not used as a basis to grant, deny, or renew the license. Just playing devil's advocate here. And I'm not viewing this from a MA perspective. We've got Constitutional Carry here so this is all BS to me.

I agree. I suspect that is what will happen, as this is often the game police like to play. Coerce people into things by demanding things illegally, then claiming it was a request.

Except that I've seen a case (I think it was a 4A case) where "Police coerce people into things by demanding things illegally, then claiming it was a request" was struck down. So while I haven't seen one directly apply to licensing, the legal construct the police are doing here is still illegal.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Houston, we have a problem!

Another NES member suggested I "return" an P&R application to see if Newmarket would pull the same BS. While an extra form wasn't handed to me when I picked up the application, when I tried to bring it back, they tried to get a copy of my DL.
So, my previous post of Newmarket not requiring a copy of a DL was wrong. I will be following up with PGNH in regards to this problem and the email I sent to them.

 

[dcmdon]

Houston, we have a problem!

Another NES member suggested I "return" an P&R application to see if Newmarket would pull the same BS. While an extra form wasn't handed to me when I picked up the application, when I tried to bring it back, they tried to get a copy of my DL.
So, my previous post of Newmarket not requiring a copy of a DL was wrong. I will be following up with PGNH in regards to this problem and the email I sent to them.

Why not mail it in Certified and see what happens?

I'm a big fan of sending in this kind of thing in so they don't have the opportunity to refuse to accept. Your receipt of deivery starts the clock rolling. This has been successfully used in difficult CT towns and cities for years.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Why not mail it in Certified and see what happens? I'm a big fan of sending in this kind of thing in so they don't have the opportunity to refuse to accept. Your receipt of deivery starts the clock rolling. This has been successfully used in difficult CT towns and cities for years.

This was a test to see if the police are adhering to RSA 159:6. I already have my P&R license.

 

[cyberlogicx]

***UPDATE 01/03/2014***

Steph just got a call from Hampton PD. They are doing her application, despite her not filling in any phone numbers or "local" references. The only question that the detective had for her was that she filled in the date of application in the wrong place.

This almost sounds reasonable and acceptable. She returned the call and was on the phone for a total of 17 seconds to confirm that it was the date of application.

 

[soloman02]

***UPDATE 01/03/2014***

Steph just got a call from Hampton PD. They are doing her application, despite her not filling in any phone numbers or "local" references. The only question that the detective had for her was that she filled in the date of application in the wrong place.

This almost sounds reasonable and acceptable. She returned the call and was on the phone for a total of 17 seconds to confirm that it was the date of application.

I'm not gonna lie, I was partially dismayed at this because I was partially hoping they would deny it so we could get some case law and stop this crap for good (and at the very least, allow us the send cease and desist letters since we would have case law to back it up).

Still good for her. Looks like we will need to wait for another potential plaintiff.

Also, the reason I think we need a lawsuit is because Earl Sweeney, the Assistant commissioner of safety is likely gonna retire in 2015 when his term is up. He is old as dirt and has been pro gun from day one. That means Hassan gets to select a new person and they will not be 2A friendly and will stonewall us at every attempt whereas Sweeney has been able to fix things when bad changes are made or when departments go too far. Sweeney is going to be contacted about this and the other towns so no need to contact him yourself. He is on the PGNH advisers and PGNH is aware of this issue.

 

[cyberlogicx]

I'm not gonna lie, I was partially dismayed at this because I was partially hoping they would deny it so we could get some case law and stop this crap for good (and at the very least, allow us the send cease and desist letters since we would have case law to back it up).

Still good for her. Looks like we will need to wait for another potential plaintiff.

Also, the reason I think we need a lawsuit is because Earl Sweeney, the Assistant commissioner of safety is likely gonna retire in 2015 when his term is up. He is old as dirt and has been pro gun from day one. That means Hassan gets to select a new person and they will not be 2A friendly and will stonewall us at every attempt whereas Sweeney has been able to fix things when bad changes are made or when departments go too far. Sweeney is going to be contacted about this and the other towns so no need to contact him yourself. He is on the PGNH advisers and PGNH is aware of this issue.

I was, too, but I'm still not letting this go away. I need to find other people who have been f*cked over by HPD.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Good news! However, the snowball is rolling and it isn't being stopped. This needs to be nipped in the bud now, not later for the above mentioned reasons.

 

[Chet0729]

What don't you understand? Merely having a second page demanding a photocopy of a drivers license is illegal. The fact that they won't accept the application is secondary.

You have no proof. What part of that don't you understand. "Oh that form was not for the pistol permit it was for something else and the officer made a mistake, sorry, her is your P & R."
If this whole operation was run with some strategy instead of emotion you probably could have easily had some ammunition (no pun intended).
Don't get me wrong, I would love to see any PD that tries to make up their own rules pay the price no matter what state they are in. I envy how few rules the NH people ave to deal with. If you are going to take anyone to court you need evidence.