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

PGNH and Mr. Cohen posted about this on Friday.

NH Dept. of Safety has revised the resident pistol/revolver carry license application form
[Posted Friday, September 12, 2014, at 1:45 p.m.]

By Sam Cohen, Pro-Gun New Hampshire Executive V.P./CEO
NH state law RSA 159:6, “License to Carry,” instructs the director of the state police to prepare and distribute application forms for pistol/revolver licenses (to carry concealed).* Given the controversy over the version of the resident application form released last month (see http://pgnh.org/problems_and_misunderstanding_about_the_new_concealed_carry_application_form ), the New Hampshire Department of Safety (DOS) has revised it, and posted it on the state police website today, 9/12/14.* See http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/nhsp/ssb/permitslicensing/documents/dssp85.pdf .

All three of the new (in August) questions were deleted, including the most controversial one — roughly, “has any government entity ever claimed that you were prohibited from possessing firearms?” (but how would you know?). *

In formatting and appearance, the revised form (September 2014) looks substantially the same as the August 2014 form did (differently laid out than the earlier versions).

The back of the form will still include only the relevant parts of state law, as the August 2014 version did, and not the material from the older form (March 2011), because the Department of Safety did not have the legal authority to put that material on the form and give directions to the local issuing authorities, especially since those directions were misleading in light of the Doyon v. Hooksett case (see Note, below).

With the new (September 2014) form on the DOS website, all the police chiefs are being told to start using the new form (downloaded from the website until their hard copy supplies have been delivered).

One part of the controversy over the August 2014 form was the question of why the DOS didn’t follow (and hasn’t ever followed) the procedures in RSA chapter 541-A, on Administrative Rules for resident license application forms: that is, why they didn’t go through the legislative review of JLCAR (Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules), public hearings, etc.* The answer is that while RSA 21-P:14,II requires the DOS, under subsection (f), to “develop and adopt rules, under RSA 541-A” for NON-resident carry licenses, it does not mention RESIDENT licenses, even though RSA 159:6 (“License to Carry”) directs the director of state police to “prepare” license application forms for both resident and non-resident carry licenses (and deliver them to the licensing authorities).* In other words, state law doesn’t require the resident license application forms to go through legislative and public review, although there are now requests for future legislation to make that happen.***

----------

Note: A major item on the reverse side of the resident license application form used from March 2011 until last month (August 2014) said that (roughly) if you were not prohibited by law from possessing a firearm, you would be considered a “suitable person” to have a concealed carry license.* (The issuing statute, RSA 159:6, stated that licenses would be issued if the applicant were a “suitable person,” but that phrase was never defined.)* The recent NH Supreme Court ruling in the case of Doyon v. Hooksett, however, clarified that that statement was not only “extra-legal” (beyond what the law allowed) but in fact, wrong — and that the license issuing authorities (normally, police chiefs) had discretion in their decisions.* For a reasonable short summary of this point, see http://www.nhmunicipal.org/CourtUpdates/View/408 (and ignore the improper term “pistol permit”).
Click to expand...

http://www.pgnh.org/nh_dept_of_safe...istol_revolver_carry_license_application_form

I wouldn't use the term "controversy" to describe the systematic destruction of New Hampshire's "shall issue in practice" doctrine.

Contrast the above statement with the nhfc email about this: http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...bout-recent-court-cases-and-change-to-license
 
soloman02 said:
PGNH and Mr. Cohen posted about this on Friday.



http://www.pgnh.org/nh_dept_of_safe...istol_revolver_carry_license_application_form

I wouldn't use the term "controversy" to describe the systematic destruction of New Hampshire's "shall issue in practice" doctrine.

Contrast the above statement with the nhfc email about this: http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...bout-recent-court-cases-and-change-to-license
Click to expand...

PGNH... the gift that keeps on giving. So their take is "move along, nothing to see here - just good government people doing their jobs". No surprise, given the initial reaction of Sam Cohen (which he promptly deleted from the website less than a day later.)
 
Latest update from the NH DoS:

Good Evening Mr. Weebles:

This email follows my telephone voice message to you from earlier today. As I indicated over the telephone, I have identified numerous records responsive to your request. An approximate number of pages of records I have identified is 156 pages. As such, I am also advising you I will need an additional 5 business days to conduct the analysis as to what information is properly subject to disclosure under the Right to Know Law. If I am able to complete the task earlier, I will try to contact you again by telephone, and if unsuccessful, by email.

Lastly, you had requested to be informed if the cost may exceed $100.00. The Department charges $1.00 a page for production cost. However, when the time comes that the analysis is complete, in lieu of receiving all of the documents, I would be happy to schedule a mutually agreeable time for you to inspect the requested records here at the Department.

If you have any questions concerning my voice mail from earlier today, or this email, please feel free to contact me at (603) XXX-XXXX.

Regards,


Marta Modigliani, Esq.
Legal Counsel
Office of the Commissioner
Click to expand...

Looks like I'll be seeing something soon.
 
cekim said:
$1/page is rape, that number typically ranges form 0.05 to .25. Do, they have the statutory authority to assign an arbitrary value to that?
Click to expand...

Well...not exactly. They can charge on cost. I agree, I doubt it cost them $1.00 a page.

Maybe another public records request should be made about how they came up with that figure.

91-A:4 Minutes and Records Available for Public Inspection. –
IV. Each public body or agency shall, upon request for any governmental record reasonably described, make available for inspection and copying any such governmental record within its files when such records are immediately available for such release. If a public body or agency is unable to make a governmental record available for immediate inspection and copying, it shall, within 5 business days of request, make such record available, deny the request in writing with reasons, or furnish written acknowledgment of the receipt of the request and a statement of the time reasonably necessary to determine whether the request shall be granted or denied. If a computer, photocopying machine, or other device maintained for use by a public body or agency is used by the public body or agency to copy the governmental record requested, the person requesting the copy may be charged the actual cost of providing the copy, which cost may be collected by the public body or agency. Nothing in this section shall exempt any person from paying fees otherwise established by law for obtaining copies of governmental records or documents, but if such fee is established for the copy, no additional costs or fees shall be charged.
Click to expand...
 
Bonesinium said:
Well...not exactly. They can charge on cost. I agree, I doubt it cost them $1.00 a page.

Maybe another public records request should be made about how they came up with that figure.
Click to expand...

$1.00 per page with labor factored in might not be as outrageous as it seems. I did a little digging, and the town of Weare successfully defended $0.50 per page and some towns have defended even higher charges.
 
WatchCityCPA said:
PGNH... the gift that keeps on giving. So their take is "move along, nothing to see here - just good government people doing their jobs". No surprise, given the initial reaction of Sam Cohen (which he promptly deleted from the website less than a day later.)
Click to expand...

The president of PGNH kept his word when he said he was "on the warpath." Yes it may have taken longer than some may have liked but actions have been taken.

As of yesterday, Sam Cohen is no longer with PGNH.

BTW, since the slot is open someone from NES should apply to ensure PGNH lives up to it's name.

[Posted Monday, September 15, 2014, at 9:00 p.m.]

By Sam Cohen, (former) Pro-Gun New Hampshire Executive V.P. and Chief Executive Officer

It’s been a long eight-and-a-half years since I was the legislative liaison for Gun Owners of New Hampshire when GO-NH president, State Representative Elbert “Bick” Bicknell, asked me to help him start a new gun-rights organization to lobby the New Hampshire legislature “from the inside” in early 2006, recruiting pro-gun legislators and others respected by the legislature to form our leadership. I’m proud of the organization, and glad to have contributed to it. In the beginning, I proposed the name Pro-Gun New Hampshire, designed the logo, and drafted the bylaws. Since then, I’ve written everything on the website except those articles bylined by others (and have served as copy editor for those), and have answered all PGNH telephone calls and email messages from the “contact us” form on the website. I’ve also staffed our membership recruiting table at gun shows and other events, and am proud to have met so many Second Amendment supporters in the process. Until a few years ago, I also testified for the organization before legislative committees, until medical problems made it difficult to get around. It still amazes me to have befriended such outstanding people as Bick, Dave Welch, Earl Sweeney, Paul Mirski, and Evan Nappen, to have had breakfast with Ron Paul and dinner with Alan Gottlieb, and to have been on a first-name basis with Governor Craig Benson. Now, at age 70, I’m looking forward to retiring to my favorite recliner at home with my wonderful wife Annie (that’s her in the picture), our three Jack Russell terriers, and a few well-chosen pistols and revolvers. I’m encouraged to see so many good people helping to maintain and improve liberty in New Hampshire.
Click to expand...

http://pgnh.org/pro_gun_new_hampshire_co_founder_and_ceo_retires
 
Mr Weebles said:
$1.00 per page with labor factored in might not be as outrageous as it seems. I did a little digging, and the town of Weare successfully defended $0.50 per page and some towns have defended even higher charges.
Click to expand...

Labor should NOT be factored in. Their time is being paid for already. The cost is the expense of the physical copy itself.
 
ninemilshooter said:
so PDF's should be free.
Click to expand...

Is there any physical cost involved in converting documents to PDF's? If not, then yes.

Marta Modigliani said:
However, when the time comes that the analysis is complete, in lieu of receiving all of the documents, I would be happy to schedule a mutually agreeable time for you to inspect the requested records here at the Department.
Click to expand...

They did offer for him to personally inspect the documents free of charge. Unless they try to pull some illegal BS when he gets there, he can photograph the documents himself.

91-A:4 Minutes and Records Available for Public Inspection. –

I. Every citizen during the regular or business hours of all public bodies or agencies, and on the regular business premises of such public bodies or agencies, has the right to inspect all governmental records in the possession, custody, or control of such public bodies or agencies, including minutes of meetings of the public bodies, and to copy and make memoranda or abstracts of the records or minutes so inspected, except as otherwise prohibited by statute or RSA 91-A:5. In this section, "to copy'' means the reproduction of original records by whatever method, including but not limited to photography, photostatic copy, printing, or electronic or tape recording.
Click to expand...

I do take issue with her saying "mutually agreeable time", unless that really means "anytime during regular business hours".
 
Mr Weebles said:
$1.00 per page with labor factored in might not be as outrageous as it seems. I did a little digging, and the town of Weare successfully defended $0.50 per page and some towns have defended even higher charges.
Click to expand...

I realize that NH doesn't (generally) operate anything like MA, but in MA most cities/towns/courts charge $1/page for any copies that they make for you and it has been that rate for a number of years. When I've needed docs copied at courthouses, most have a self-service copier where you can manually (one page at a time) make copies for $0.25 or $0.50/page. The high speed copiers that the clerks use actually cost them less/page but they are charging you for their time, no doubt about it (even though they are on the clock anyway).
 
Since I have taxation without representation in NH, all I can do is yell, scream and support those who do have representation.

My yelling and screaming is to say that this proves that NH should go constitutional carry now. They have breached the trust of the people in governance and ceded any authority, moral or constitutional to speak on this issue.
 
cekim said:
Since I have taxation without representation in NH, all I can do is yell, scream and support those who do have representation.

My yelling and screaming is to say that this proves that NH should go constitutional carry now. They have breached the trust of the people in governance and ceded any authority, moral or constitutional to speak on this issue.
Click to expand...

cekim for gov.
 
cekim said:
Since I have taxation without representation in NH, all I can do is yell, scream and support those who do have representation.

My yelling and screaming is to say that this proves that NH should go constitutional carry now. They have breached the trust of the people in governance and ceded any authority, moral or constitutional to speak on this issue.
Click to expand...

So as not to derail this thread, please go here for my response to this post: http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...sults-Thread?p=4120416&viewfull=1#post4120416
 
Whatever we want, they will want someone who's been visibly active in the effort.

Design should apply. Nappen would have a fit if they accept.
 
Last edited:
I just got a call from the Attorney Modigliani at the Department of Safety.

She says there are 153 pages, some of which is blacked out. I will be getting these on CD for $25 so no worry about costs. I did ask her to indicate via notation why some of it was blacked out and she said it was for 3 reasons:

1. Attorney/Client Privilege
2. Documents in draft form
3. Personal email addresses/phone numbers

I'll fire a check out by Wednesday and hopefully I'll have all of the docs within a week or so.
 
Mr Weebles said:
I just got a call from the Attorney Modigliani at the Department of Safety.

She says there are 153 pages, some of which is blacked out. I will be getting these on CD for $25 so no worry about costs. I did ask her to indicate via notation why some of it was blacked out and she said it was for 3 reasons:

1. Attorney/Client Privilege
2. Documents in draft form
3. Personal email addresses/phone numbers

I'll fire a check out by Wednesday and hopefully I'll have all of the docs within a week or so.
Click to expand...

outstanding. thank you for doing this, dude.
 
JWPaolilliJr said:
Read this line, read a couple of times if you need to. What this arsehole chief really believes in is more restrictions, Well **** HIM!!!


"it makes the state’s permitting process weak, Crate said. “For you to get a license to drive a car, you have to go through a few more steps. You don’t have to go through those steps to carry a concealed weapon.”"
Click to expand...

Looks like the Enfield, NH police chief is an anti...
 

Similar threads

Cant post an add in the Classiifieds, what gives?
Replies
13
Views
552
Mesatchornug
Mesatchornug
Smart gun will put fingerprint, facial recognition technology to work: Biofire has called it the 'first and only biometric firearm on the market'
2
Replies
42
Views
675
JuergenG
JuergenG
Man shot in the head in NYC subway during rush hour; person of interest in custody - UPDATE POST 16
2
Replies
49
Views
1K
Reptile
Reptile
Amber Alert Chicopee
2
Replies
42
Views
782
Garys
Garys
Cranston PD range in the crosshairs.
Replies
21
Views
530
rogersmithiii
R
Back
Top Bottom