NH Alert! The DoS Has Changed the P&R License Application Form!**UPDATE POST 406

[soloman02]

The NH Department of Safety has changed the Application form. They have added three new questions to the resident form. So far as of this post, the non-resident form is unaffected (revision date 08/13). However I expect that form to be updated as well.

The issue is that these changes were made at the whim of the Commissioner (Read: Hassan said do something). No changes in statute occurred this session that would require changes to the form. Police departments are starting to swap their forms over to this one.

Link to the new resident form: http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/nhsp/ssb/permitslicensing/documents/dssp85.pdf

Link to the Non-resident form: http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/nhsp/ssb/permitslicensing/documents/dssp260.pdf

Three new questions were added to the form:

"Has ANY state or federal agency or licensing authority ever CLAIMED that you are prohibited by law or regulation from possessing a firearm? "

"Are you prohibited by federal law or regulation from possessing a firearm?"

"Have you held a resident pistol/revolver license before?"

As you can see, there is a big problem with the first new question. The word "claimed."

So if any government agency claims you are prohibited, even if you are not convicted, does that mean you have to answer yes? How would a person know if an agency ever made that claim?

Also, here are links to the old applications that do not have these questions:

March 2011 Resident Application:
View attachment pistol_and_revolver_license_-_live_fill.pdf

August 2013 Non-Resident Application:
View attachment dssp260.pdf

 

[Bonesinium]

Thanks for the information. Yep, that question is ridiculous. Literally anybody can claim absolutely anything. It doesn't mean there is even a shred of merit to the claim. And they now require us answer a question they can potentially use to deny someone a license over a potentially false or even malicious claim? Wow.


And what the hell is the point of the question "Have you held a resident pistol/revolver license before"? When you renew, the top of the form has a spot where you put your license number and expiration date already. If you had one at one point but do no longer, why does that matter? It would appear to me that only being denied would matter. That question already exists. Good thing they have this redundant question. Now on renewals we get to answer 'Yes' and then explain that because they require explanations for all "Yes" answers. My only explanation is sure to come off highly sarcastic.

 

[knoxy]

Stupid questions, with stupid answers.

"Has ANY state or federal agency or licensing authority ever CLAIMED that you are prohibited by law or regulation from possessing a firearm? "

Yes. NY, MA, NJ, etc CLAIM per their laws and regulations that I am prohibited from possessing a firearm.

"Have you held a resident pistol/revolver license before?"

Yes. I held one once. It was somebody else's. It had their name on it.

 

[soloman02]

Stupid questions, with stupid answers.



Yes. NY, MA, NJ, etc CLAIM per their laws and regulations that I am prohibited from possessing a firearm.

Wow. I didn't think of it that way.

 

[mikem317]

"Has ANY state or federal agency or licensing authority ever CLAIMED that you are prohibited by law or regulation from possessing a firearm? "

Read it again. It says "has ANY state". Sure as hell can't possess a handgun in Australia. I guess we're all answering "Yes" to that question, right? What about DC? Depending on application, it's considered a state. It expressly prohibits almost everyone, except LE from possessing a firearm.

 

[noddaduma]

Emailed my state rep. I thought the P&R app was set in stone by state law and couldn't be changed without due process

 

[Bonesinium]

Emailed my state rep. I thought the P&R app was set in stone by state law and couldn't be changed without due process

Nope. It is left to the director of the state police, in fact.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XII/159/159-6.htm

The director of state police is hereby authorized and directed to prepare forms for the licenses required under this chapter and forms for the application for such licenses and to supply the same to officials of the cities and towns authorized to issue the licenses. No other forms shall be used by officials of cities and towns.

 

[noddaduma]

Well maybe it should be

 

[Bonesinium]

Maybe. Or maybe you would end up like ME, where it is, and the application is 18000 pages long with 3.6 million questions.

 

[dlarge]

What do we need to do to fix this?

 

[KMS]

So ...if you were a MA resident and were deemed unsuitable by your previous towns CoP and unable to get an LTC,then move to NH you have to answer yes?

Oh boy.

 

[knoxy]

So ...if you were a MA resident and were deemed unsuitable by your previous towns CoP and unable to get an LTC,then move to NH you have to answer yes?

Oh boy.

I think, as worded, EVERYONE, has to answer yes.

 

[Prepper]

I think someone is trying to force us to perjure ourselves. You have to answer no if you want an easy time being approved. Yet, that means we technically lied because of all the places that claim it is illegal for me.

 

[The5thDentist]

I think, as worded, EVERYONE, has to answer yes.

That's actually not a bad idea. Let 'em choke on paperwork. Supply a ream of case law with the app, detailing all the places around the world where you can't own a firearm.

The form will change real fast.

 

[soloman02]

Nope. It is left to the director of the state police, in fact.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XII/159/159-6.htm

Well maybe it should be

Maybe. Or maybe you would end up like ME, where it is, and the application is 18000 pages long with 3.6 million questions.

What do we need to do to fix this?

The administrative departments in NH are all allowed to write their own regulations and administrative rules based upon the statute.

However. A couple things to note.

All those changes have to be approved by the JLCAR, the Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules.
Website here: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rules/JLCAR/description_members.htm

The Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules (JLCAR) was established in 1983 by the state legislature to provide legislative oversight in the area of administrative rulemaking by the agencies of the executive branch. Legislative oversight by a special committee is a common but not universal feature of the administrative rulemaking process in other states too. The structure, powers, and duties of the JLCAR are set out in RSA 541-A:2 and RSA 541-A:13. See also Rules of the JLCAR.

The regular membership of the JLCAR is composed of 5 members of the State Senate and 5 members of the House of Representatives, with 5 alternates from each chamber to fill in for absent members. Every 2 years the Senate members are appointed by the President of the Senate, and the House members by the Speaker of the House. No more than 3 regular members, and 3 alternate members, from each chamber may be from the same party. A quorum for action by the JLCAR is 6 members.

The Chairmanship rotates every 2 years between the Senate and the House. Pursuant to RSA 541-A:2, I, the JLCAR Chairman and Vice-Chairman are elected by the JLCAR members themselves.

I believe almost all administrative rules are approved by this committee.

However, as was pointed out, the discretion is left explicitly to the director of the state police per RSA 159:6. I believe that this allows the Director to bypass the JLCAR process. I am still learning things about the state government and only discovered this committee existed when JR Hoell posted the alert about this change in a FB group. I asked Carol McGuire (a committee member) if this had been approved by them and she did not answer that question. Based upon Jr's postings, I have to assume that it was not approved by them (word would have gotten out by now and it would have been in the meeting minutes).

This appears to be the work of the director of the SP, and he may have been ordered to do this by the commissioner (who would have been told to "do something" by Hassan since the gun control bills didn't pass).

A way to "fix" this may be to give the legislature the final say in what goes onto the form by explicitly requiring changes to the form to be approved by this committee.

There is no "perfect fix" to this as long as we have a P&R license. Yes I am implying that the "perfect fix" is constitutional carry (but you guys knew that anyway).

 

[milktree]

Be careful. Australia can claim you have no right to own a gun *in Australia*, and NJ can claim you're prohibited from having a gun *in New Jersey*, but neither have ever made any claim about your right to have a gun in NH or VT.

 

[knoxy]

Be careful. Australia can claim you have no right to own a gun *in Australia*, and NJ can claim you're prohibited from having a gun *in New Jersey*, but neither have ever made any claim about your right to have a gun in NH or VT.

The question, as written, does not stipulate *in New Hampshire*.

It's a stupid question, made by small-minded idiots.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Maybe. Or maybe you would end up like ME, where it is, and the application is 18000 pages long with 3.6 million questions.

Yes, but the questions on the Maine form are oriented towards fairness - you are not asked to disclose accusations not resulting in convictions unless the charges are open, and only are asked to disclose minor offenses that rise to the level of a DQ. They even make the decision before they get your photo to avoid any chance of visual racism.

 

[milktree]

The question, as written, does not stipulate *in New Hampshire*.

It's a stupid question, made by small-minded idiots.

Right, and NJ has never claimed that you are prohibited by law or regulation from possessing a firearm, just that you can't do it in NJ.

NJ's laws don't have any bearing on NH.

so, unless you try to get a licence in NJ, they can't make that claim, since they can't claim anything about anybody outside NJ.


But you're absolutely right, it's a stupid question, made by small-minded idiots.

 

[soloman02]

Every body, All together now say, "THANK YOU NRA FOR ****ING UP OUR CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY BILL!"

This bullshit application would now be history, BUT NOOOO!

The good news is that 4 senators are facing primaries. Boutin, one of the ones who killed it in the senate, is one of those four. As is Stiles who also needs to go. I'm being told that Reagan is actually better than Pearl (Reagan had the 2nd best scores in the senate for the NHLA and AFP). I do not recall who the fourth senator to face a primary is off hand but I believe he is not a good one.

If you live in Hooksett, you need to vote for Jane Cormier over Boutin.

 

[Zappa]

On my last resident renewal in Mass, I had to answer "yes" to the question "Have you ever been denied a firearm permit in Mass or any other state?" because of something NH did to me.
Back around 2008, NH was denying non-resident permits to Mass residents that had any restrictions on their resident LTC's.
My Mass LTC showed a restriction of "Employment", which basically means they trust me while I'm working but not when I'm on my own time.
Anyway, NH sent back the application along with my check for $20.
Nice of them NOT to take my money for services non-rendered, unlike Mass, who would keep it and say FU.
About a year later, I heard that NH had reversed this policy and started issuing non-resident permits again to those who had restrictions in Mass. So I reapplied to NH and received the non-resident permit, but I still have to answer the question "yes" and give the full explanation.

 

[atilla]

On my last resident renewal in Mass, I had to answer "yes" to the question "Have you ever been denied a firearm permit in Mass or any other state?" because of something NH did to me.
Back around 2008, NH was denying non-resident permits to Mass residents that had any restrictions on their resident LTC's.
My Mass LTC showed a restriction of "Employment", which basically means they trust me while I'm working but not when I'm on my own time.
Anyway, NH sent back the application along with my check for $20.
Nice of them NOT to take my money for services non-rendered, unlike Mass, who would keep it and say FU.
About a year later, I heard that NH had reversed this policy and started issuing non-resident permits again to those who had restrictions in Mass. So I reapplied to NH and received the non-resident permit, but I still have to answer the question "yes" and give the full explanation.

was it an official denial though?

 

[milktree]

was it an official denial though?

The alternative is rejecting the application?

e.g.
"denial" means: "you can't have one because we think you're a bad person"
"rejection" means: "we're not going to process your application at all, because there's a problem with it" (similar to if it were incomplete)

 

[ChevyGuy91]

Is there anything that can be done to fix this? Short on Constitutional carry of course.

Unrelated, I saw a Debree for Rep sign on Rt9 in Dover, awesome.

 

[Mr Weebles]

Way back when, the CoP in Derry NH said he wouldn't issue me a P&R because I had two old (non-disqualifying) misdemeanors on my record. They have since been expunged, although I do have to put it on my P&R license renewals that I was denied.

So how do I answer the new question regarding an issuing authority "claiming" I was prohibited by law or regulation from possessing a firearm? Do I answer yes?

This is stupid. You're either prohibited or you're not.

 

[atilla]

Way back when, the CoP in Derry NH said he wouldn't issue me a P&R because I had two old (non-disqualifying) misdemeanors on my record. They have since been expunged, although I do have to put it on my P&R license renewals that I was denied.

So how do I answer the new question regarding an issuing authority "claiming" I was prohibited by law or regulation from possessing a firearm? Do I answer yes?

This is stupid. You're either prohibited or you're not.

i'm no lawyer, but expunged is expunged and gone. that coupled with that they were non-disqualifying anyway? you shouldn't have to answer yes at all because it sounds like that CLEO was just being a dick and didn't have a legal leg to stand on in the first place to deny you.

 

[DispositionMatrix]

Well that sucks. I'd like to hear what statistically-verifiable problem they were trying to solve with the change.

 

[mikem317]

Has anybody contacted the director of the state police for clarity?

 

[Mr Weebles]

Here's the real problem:

Has ANY state or federal agency or licensing authority ever CLAIMED that you are prohibited by law or regulation from possessing a firearm?

How the hell do I know? Perhaps someone, somewhere unbeknownst to me has claimed I'm prohibited. "Claimed" doesn't mean shit. I could claim atilla molests turtles but unless I have proof of said turtle molestation my claim doesn't mean a damned thing.

 

[soloman02]

Susen Olsen, political activist extraordinaire went to Concord yesterday to find out more about this BS change. Here is what she discovered:

No Pistols For You!

During this last legislative session, bills antithetical to civilian firearms ownership were all killed. Some died before they were even drafted, some only at the last possible opportunity, but dead nevertheless. Either way, what’s important is that the gun control crowd led by Governor Hassan lost every bid to restrict our rights. We thought we had won; well, at least for this session anyway.

Turns out, we thought wrong.

Turns out the NH Department of Safety - with no authority, no legislation, no administrative rulemaking process, no light of day or public input - has made a change to its Pistol / Revolver License Application that makes it virtually impossible for anyone to be granted a license.

On Pistol/Revolver Application Form DSSP85 (Rev 08/14), the Department of Safety added the following question to its application:

“Has any state or federal agency or licensing authority ever claimed that you are prohibited by law or regulation from possessing a firearm?”

Your only options are to answer “yes” or “no”.

Sounds innocent enough, right? But think for a moment – “…ANY state or federal agency or licensing authority…”

Could “any” state be Alaska? Or Florida?

Could “any” federal agency be the Office of Management and Budget? Or the National Archives?

Could any licensing authority be the Kansas Department of Motor Vehicles? What about the NH board of “Barbering, Cosmetology, and Esthetics”?

What about “claim”? How would you know? How COULD you know what someone or something “claimed” about you if you weren’t made aware of it? If you weren’t notified?

When I was engaged late last year and earlier this year in fighting HB 1589, one of the reference documents I used was the NH Pistol / Revolver License Application DSSP85 (Rev 3-11) downloaded directly from the Department of Safety website at 2:37 pm, on January 18, 2014. Guess what? That new question was not there…

Silly me, here I am thinking, gee, the Department of Safety must’ve submitted a revision and it gotten approved through the Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rulemaking (JLCAR) sometime between January and August 1st of this year. Having been exposed to the administrative rulemaking process that all OTHER agencies follow, I pulled up JLCAR’s website and, oh my, found there was no reference ANYWHERE to proposed OR adopted changes to the Pistol /Revolver License Application form in the department agendas, minutes or findings.

So yesterday mornng, I drove into Concord to pay a call on the folks at Administrative Rules and ask, “What gives?” “Where’s the paper trail? Under what legislative authority was this unbelievably horrible change made?”

Unfortunately, JLCAR’s computer system was down but Scott Eaton, the nice man who runs Administrative Rules, was kind enough to sit down with me to try and solve the mystery.

Despite that lack of computer access, we were surprised to find there are NO rule administrative rules for Resident Pistol /Revolver Licenses; only rules for Non-Resident Pistol /Revolver Licenses. Oddly enough, the Non-Resident application, revised in August of 2013 under JLCAR’s Administrative Rulemaking, does NOT contain the question:

“Has any state or federal agency or licensing authority ever claimed that you are prohibited by law or regulation from possessing a firearm?”

After a pleasant discussion, Scott recommended that, in light of the fact they had no computer access, I head over to the Department of Safety to ask “What gives” once more and see if I could get the answer directly from the horse’s mouth.

Sure enough, Commissioner Earle Sweeney sat down with me and, after a while, said he could understand my fear that no one could possibly answer the “new” question and that he would personally look into how this change to the application came about. He was headed into a staff meeting but took my phone number and email address, telling me I’d hear from him this week.

I thanked him and headed back to JLCAR to let Scott Eaton know what I’d learned. Unfortunately, Scott was tied up but I got to sit down with Michael Morrell who pointed out that two years ago, RSA 541-a was changed to place ALL department and agency forms under rulemaking authority. Specifically, the very definition of “forms” was changed and now:

"…means a document that establishes a requirement for persons outside the agency to provide information to an agency and the format in which such information must be submitted.”

Even more contrary to the manner in which the Department of Safety appears to have changed the form, in 2011, RSA 541-a had been changed to provide for a specific process for the:

“Adoption of Forms. – An agency may adopt a form as defined in RSA 541-A:1, VII-a by incorporating the actual form by reference or by setting forth the requirements of the form in rules adopted according to the procedures in this chapter. “

Let me repeat that last phrase: “…according to the procedures in this chapter.” Hmm.

I thanked Mr. Morrell and told him I would study those provisions of RSA 541-a when I got home. And just out of curiosity, I stopped by my local police department on the way and asked for a Pistol / Revolver License Application. The nice lady behind the bullet proof glass tore one off a big pad of them and handed it to me. HER version had the same offending question but HER revision was dated 07/14, a month before the (Rev 08/14) version currently posted on the Department of Safety website. How did that happen? How many revisions are out there? Just when was this change made? On whose authority? Inquiring minds want to know. So you can imagine how very much I am looking forward to hearing from Commissioner Sweeney this week.

Perhaps the Department of Safety don’t need no stinkin’ rules or maybe it thinks it can just write its own. We shall see…

GONH and NHFC are now aware of this issue. Sweeney is on the PGNH board.