Hampton, NH PD Bullsh*t Pistol License

***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.

Glad it worked out.
 
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.
You didn't read the page linked to then. It is clearly for a pistol permit application. There is no getting around it by saying the form is for something else. It is being run with strategy, you aren't aware of what is going on off the forum, hence why I and another here are going (tonight) to be talking to Rep. Hoell for a legislative solution and to Nappen (and PGNH) for a court based one.

As to evidence, the page below look like pretty damning evidence to me... But failing that, there are other ways to get evidence such as recording (with all proper consent) a PD refusing to accept a license application without a photo. These methods of getting evidence will be discussed with an attorney.

attachment.php
 
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."
.

Spoken just like someone from MA who doesn't know shit about New Hampshire law. Does the fact that the instructions say pistol permit instructions, and further down say Hampton resident mean nothing to you?

Posted while pissed off and before reading Solomon's reply!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
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.

Apparently you're not up to speed on the entire thread because there is evidence and you're clearly in the dark as to how specific NH law is on this subject despite people here pointing it out to you over and over again.
 
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.

It has been stopped. This is typical of how it works in CT where you have recourse like NH. They push and push, then when they know you aren't going to back down, they back down SPECIFICALLY so you don't get a chance to make any case law.

They lose on one, but retain the ability to bully another hundred before another one like you comes around.

Too bad.
 
It has been stopped. This is typical of how it works in CT where you have recourse like NH. They push and push, then when they know you aren't going to back down, they back down SPECIFICALLY so you don't get a chance to make any case law. They lose on one, but retain the ability to bully another hundred before another one like you comes around. Too bad.

Stay tuned.
 
I swear people only hear (or read) what they want to hear. I DONT SUPPORT BENDING OVER AND TAKING IT! I had 2 points: 1st most if not all guns laws are absurd and 2nd watch out for cops who retaliate. That's it!

Its not so much the concept of what you read, but the sentiment and rationale conveyed...People read what you wrote, but they also read what you "didn't" write, too
 
Honestly, I wish that a simple campaign of letters and chats with those in charge could solve it all without anyone else getting screwed with or anyone having to go to court. I know that court is where law is argued, but it would be a lot easier if Hampton PD could just go "Oops, our bad. We will fix this right away!"
Unfortunately, something tells me that's an overly-optimistic wish...

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk
 
Honestly, I wish that a simple campaign of letters and chats with those in charge could solve it all without anyone else getting screwed with or anyone having to go to court. I know that court is where law is argued, but it would be a lot easier if Hampton PD could just go "Oops, our bad. We will fix this right away!"
Unfortunately, something tells me that's an overly-optimistic wish...

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

Don't worry. Thehoyt and I have an avenue that will hopefully work (for the next year at least) and does what you (and everyone else) asks. Sometimes going above the chief's head is required. It remains to be seen if that will work. If not, we will be gathering monies and searching high and low for plaintiffs.

I will update this and my thread when we get news on the above avenue.
 
Last edited:
***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.
So essentially, that references, DL, and vehicle registration are voluntary--they just don't let you know it.

Score another one for knowledgeable citizens standing up for themselves.
 
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.

It really does come down to stuff as simple as phrasing the question.

For example, the difference between a demand and a request can be what triggers Miranda to apply. For example, here in the People's Kommonwealth, there is a statute that says you must present an LTC upon the "demand" of police officer. There's case law (out of Pittsfield or Springfield, I can't remember) that says it is okay for police to demand to see a license "Show me your LTC" from a person who is in police custody for the purposes of Miranda, but asking "Do you have an LTC?" is interrogation, and Miranda would need to be given first.
 
So essentially, that references, DL, and vehicle registration are voluntary--they just don't let you know it.

Score another one for knowledgeable citizens standing up for themselves.

They aren't voluntary, they are illegal to ask for. Only what is in the state form is allowed, and reference phone numbers, vehicle registration, and a copy of the drivers license aren't on the form and therefore, illegal.

Sent from my barely functioning EVO running a horribly unstable beta of CM 10.3
 
You didn't read the page linked to then. It is clearly for a pistol permit application. There is no getting around it by saying the form is for something else. It is being run with strategy, you aren't aware of what is going on off the forum, hence why I and another here are going (tonight) to be talking to Rep. Hoell for a legislative solution and to Nappen (and PGNH) for a court based one.

As to evidence, the page below look like pretty damning evidence to me... But failing that, there are other ways to get evidence such as recording (with all proper consent) a PD refusing to accept a license application without a photo. These methods of getting evidence will be discussed with an attorney.

attachment.php

Yes I missed that, sorry. I must have skipped some of the posts some how, thought I read them all. You are correct that is pretty damning. I would love to see someone win a lawsuit against any PD that tries to make their own rules. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Seem it is more widespread than just Hampton.
 
It has been stopped. This is typical of how it works in CT where you have recourse like NH. They push and push, then when they know you aren't going to back down, they back down SPECIFICALLY so you don't get a chance to make any case law.

They lose on one, but retain the ability to bully another hundred before another one like you comes around.

Too bad.

This isn't about case law, there is already precedent in NH where people have beat up the PDs over this and won, in court. This is about getting the policy changed at a wholesale level so they stop falling back to the "act like dicks, unless we receieve pushback from applicant" stupid human trick circus. [laugh] The only two ways to do this are to be really annoying or punish them in court if it ever gets that far.

-Mike
 
JFC, I live in Massachusetts and I don't have to do that shit.

There are craploads of PDs in MA that require either phone numbers to contact the references or require the reference letters be notarized. Fitchburg has done this for the longest time, and Leominster requires the same but I don't think they actually contact the references, but they require the letters be in a certain format and a bunch of other BS. If one thing is not in line with their guidelines they get pissy with you.

-Mike
 
This isn't about case law, there is already precedent in NH where people have beat up the PDs over this and won, in court. This is about getting the policy changed at a wholesale level so they stop falling back to the "act like dicks, unless we receieve pushback from applicant" stupid human trick circus. [laugh] The only two ways to do this are to be really annoying or punish them in court if it ever gets that far.

-Mike

I and thehoyt have discovered an avenue that will hopefully work for the time being, at least until we can figure out how to secure a "war chest" of funds to make sure no one has to worry financially about a lawsuit against the town/Chief.

I have found that if you remove the possibility of financial burden, potential plaintiffs become much more willing to fight for their rights.
 
I and thehoyt have discovered an avenue that will hopefully work for the time being, at least until we can figure out how to secure a "war chest" of funds to make sure no one has to worry financially about a lawsuit against the town/Chief.

I have found that if you remove the possibility of financial burden, potential plaintiffs become much more willing to fight for their rights.

The problem I see is the PD can (potentially) continue to "have its cake and eat it too"- eg, it can choose to continue to oppress those who don't bother to push back. It might continue to push the unlawful requirements unless a specific applicant calls them out on it. Unless I'm missing something, and there is an avenue to get a court (or other authority) to punish them based on their directly observable violation of NH's preemption. I guess it all depends on how douchey they want to get.

-Mike
 
The problem I see is the PD can (potentially) continue to "have its cake and eat it too"- eg, it can choose to continue to oppress those who don't bother to push back. It might continue to push the unlawful requirements unless a specific applicant calls them out on it. Unless I'm missing something, and there is an avenue to get a court (or other authority) to punish them based on their directly observable violation of NH's preemption. I guess it all depends on how douchey they want to get.

-Mike

The avenue in question is someone who is revered by all CoP's in the state since he is a former CoP and is currently old as dirt. Which means he will be retiring soon and therefore his words, while they hold weight, might be short lived since his term expires in 2015. This avenue (if it works) is more of a stopgap measure.

The problem with the court avenue is that it seems like you have to actually be directly hurt by the actions of the PD in order to sue. Meaning, they have to deny you for not providing the "extra" documentation. Which means even though Hampton is in fact breaking the law, no one can sue them because they were not personally affected by it. Which is really ****ing retarded. Unless an attorney says otherwise or RSA 159:6 section f amended, no one here can do anything about it via the courts until a CoP actually denies, in writing, someone for not providing a photocopy and that person sues.

I am of the belief that the CoPs breaking the law here will most certainly only deny those who don't include the photocopy and provide an occupation that makes little money since they believe that they will have no financial ability to risk losing a lawsuit. The "war chest" solves that problem.

However, these CoP's are not dumb, they know the law as they are certified on the law by the Department of Safety. As such, they will turn away those who don't have the photocopy in person but will likely process any mailed application with just the state form.
 
There are craploads of PDs in MA that require either phone numbers to contact the references or require the reference letters be notarized. Fitchburg has done this for the longest time, and Leominster requires the same but I don't think they actually contact the references, but they require the letters be in a certain format and a bunch of other BS. If one thing is not in line with their guidelines they get pissy with you.

-Mike

True, though my point stands that I'm amazed my licensing procedures in my town are more straightforward than a town in NH.
 
Don't mind me, just a Taxachusetts resident poking his head in to say that you NH guys are doing it right. Good luck and don't back off!
 
True, though my point stands that I'm amazed my licensing procedures in my town are more straightforward than a town in NH.

So an appointment before you can apply along with a training certificate and fingerprints are "more straight forward?" Sorry, I don't buy it.
 
Back
Top Bottom