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

On a related note, I dropped off my renewal application today. The secretary (I assume that is who she was) asked if I had a license so she could "make a copy". I politely told her she could not copy it, but I could show it to her. She was fine with that. I don't have an issue with her verifying that, as all the information is already on the application. But they don't need a copy, because the information is on the application! Nor can they require a copy, which fortunately, she didn't try and say she did.
 
Bonesinium said:
Several towns websites refer to them incorrectly as permits, my town being one. I understand the issue of the licence vs. permit debate. But here is the black law definition of license.

License: A permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or a tort.

http://thelawdictionary.org/letter/l/page/40/

So yes, words do have meanings. The meaning of the word license still relies on permission. Both permit and license are often used interchangeably.

Here is how it is defined on another site.

"The permission granted by competent authority to exercise a certain privilege that, without such authorization, would constitute an illegal act, a Trespass or a tort.

A license is different from a permit. The terms license and permit are often used interchangeably, but generally, a permit describes a more temporary form of permission."


A license is different from a permit. The terms license and permit are often used interchangeably, but generally, a permit describes a more temporary form of permission.

No matter how you cut it, it is still a violation of your rights guaranteed by the US and NH Constitution. No matter how you cut it, you still need permission. So whether it is called a permit or a license is largely a semantical argument. The legal term, in NH, is indeed a license.

The point being, if someone incorrectly calls it a permit, it does not change the fact that without one, you cannot legally carry a loaded handgun either concealed upon your person or in a vehicle.

By contrast, here are two words that are often used interchangeably where the argument between the two is not simply semantics. Lawful vs. legal.
Click to expand...

+1, insightful and informative.

Also irrelevant.

Words have meaning... and that meaning is whatever the people who hear them give them.

To lay people, a permit is required in order to perform the activity... a license is merely an excuse for the government to get paid a few bucks. Permits are generally considered discretionary, licenses generally are not.

Legally accurate or not, those are the meanings that people apply to those words.

I stand by my position that anybody who refers to a NH Pistol and Revolver License as a permit needs to be corrected immediately, whether based on the actual text of the law or on the common understanding of what those words mean.
 
I agree, people should be corrected when they inaccurately call it a permit. I correct people on that too.

To lay people, a permit is required in order to perform the activity... a license is merely an excuse for the government to get paid a few bucks. Permits are generally considered discretionary, licenses generally are not.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you are coming up with what people think these words mean.


Words have meaning... and that meaning is whatever the people who hear them give them.


Legally accurate or not, those are the meanings that people apply to those words.
Click to expand...

If this is your position, they you are actually arguing that words do NOT have meaning. In fact, this is a very dangerous position and one that was being argued against in the video soloman had posted. This is the very position that courts have used to justify infringements. This is the very position that allows very clear legislation to be interpreted at the discretion of the executive, because it allows the executive to define the words in it to fit their agenda. I do not think this is what you were originally intending, but it is what you have just done.

No, the ACTUAL definition of the word is what is important, and specifically NOT whatever meaning people choose.
 
Bonesinium said:
I agree, people should be corrected when they inaccurately call it a permit. I correct people on that too.



I'm not sure where you are coming up with what people think these words mean.




If this is your position, they you are actually arguing that words do NOT have meaning. In fact, this is a very dangerous position and one that was being argued against in the video soloman had posted. This is the very position that courts have used to justify infringements. This is the very position that allows very clear legislation to be interpreted at the discretion of the executive, because it allows the executive to define the words in it to fit their agenda. I do not think this is what you were originally intending, but it is what you have just done.

No, the ACTUAL definition of the word is what is important, and specifically NOT whatever meaning people choose.
Click to expand...

To go along with this, just look at the Federal 2nd amendment. "A well regulated militia." Back when the constitution was written, the word regulated when used in the context of a militia meant a properly trained and armed militia. Whereas in 2014, the anti's seek to use the commonly accepted definition of regulated in everyday speech: to control something through law or administrative rule.
 
WatchCityCPA said:
+1, insightful and informative.

Also irrelevant.

Words have meaning... and that meaning is whatever the people who hear them give them.
Click to expand...
With plenty of respect, you've got it backwards.

It's completely fricken irrelevant just like correcting people who say "clip".

If you want to talk about what people hear, this is what they think when we correct people on "clip" or "permit vs license":

They think we're "stupid nitpicking ****ing arseholes who are talking about irrelevant things while we're talking about gun violence".
 
mikem317 said:
We still need a licensing scheme for reciprocity reasons. So I think the agenda items should be 1. Statutorily define suitability - and while we're add it, let's also define the components of the physical application too via RSA, and 2. Constitutional Carry for all "suitable" individuals.
Click to expand...

What tangled web we weave if we try to define suitability. Constitutional Carry. And Shall issue for those who want reciprocity.
 
PennyPincher said:
What tangled web we weave if we try to define suitability. Constitutional Carry. And Shall issue for those who want reciprocity.
Click to expand...

You are not getting CC as long as Hassan is governor. That is a fact. If Walt does not win, defining "suitability" is the best we will be able to do.
 
Quiet said:
With plenty of respect, you've got it backwards.

It's completely fricken irrelevant just like correcting people who say "clip".

If you want to talk about what people hear, this is what they think when we correct people on "clip" or "permit vs license":

They think we're "stupid nitpicking ****ing arseholes who are talking about irrelevant things while we're talking about gun violence".
Click to expand...

The gun-grabbers aren't jawboning about the "license versus permit" debate. That's largely done within the pro-rights community. When somebody says "clip" when they mean "magazine" or "permit" when they mean to say "license" makes them sound rather unsophisticated, ignorant or a combination of the two when they're referring to a MA License to Carry or a NH Pistol/Revolver License. Or an AR-15 magazine when they're looking at an M1 Garand clip.

The word license suggests some sort of permanency as opposed to permit. Plus that's the black letter of the law in New Hampshire and Massachusetts - Maine, Connecticut and Rhode Island indeed call it "permit".

Think of it this way - we don't say you need a marriage permit. It's a marriage license. [smile]

PennyPincher said:
What tangled web we weave if we try to define suitability. Constitutional Carry. And Shall issue for those who want reciprocity.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I think we're still a few good years away from complete US reciprocity. Lots of gun-grabbing states will drag their heals or just thumb their noses at new federal law establishing 50-state reciprocity. Plus it's a revenue stream that would be gone instantly and the states would be moaning about it - yes, I know it's tantamount to a "poll tax" which is completely unconstitutional but just thinking about this from a practicality standpoint.

In the interim, we need a basic, straightforward application so new and returning applicants can complete the application for interstate reciprocity purposes.
 
mikem317 said:
Veto override. There are many pro-gun Democrats in the General Court.
Click to expand...

We need 16 republican senators and Stiles and Boutin aren't exactly "friendly" to gun rights anymore. Further, none of the current projections suggest we will get 16. 15 is what is being bandied about. When the redistricting happened in 2011/2012, it solidified the senate districts. Basically, it made districts more solid dem or republican and reduced the number of "swing" districts. As it stands it is setup to have a slim republican majority in dem years (2012).
 
I got the CD with the FOIA documents on them. Lots of blacked out attorney-client stuff, and many of the pages are repeated. The letter from Modigliano also stated there are an additional 40 pages but they're all atty/client stuff or drafts so they're not required to release them.

This whole thing seems to have started with a memo from Earl Sweeney at the DoS to Sgt. Haggerty with the NHSP. Sweeney had received an email from the Hooksett CoP regarding the Doyon v. Hooksett ruling and he brought it to Earl's attention. Then the ball got rolling and the changes started happening.

There's a lot to go through and I may have another FOIA or two to send out elsewhere. I will say this, though: Sam Cohen and Sweeney are pals, and Sweeney seems to take a dim view of us "gun nuts." Here's a little sample:

VS5BGMp.png


By the way, Sam Cohen refers to us as "paranoids" in one email to Sweeney (and all the emails between them CC Nappen as well).

I'm swamped with work right now but I'll go through these more thoroughly later and try to make sense of them chronologically and map out who was involved along the way.
 
I wonder what statistics were used to gather the information for the derogatory remarks? If these guys really wanted to increase safety why not offer free safety classes for new gun owners. Seriously doubt there is a whole lot of 2am target practive going on and even if there were, it would be covered under disturbing the peace.

Second paragraph is spot on though - very polarized topic
 
Mr Weebles said:
I got the CD with the FOIA documents on them. Lots of blacked out attorney-client stuff, and many of the pages are repeated. The letter from Modigliano also stated there are an additional 40 pages but they're all atty/client stuff or drafts so they're not required to release them.

This whole thing seems to have started with a memo from Earl Sweeney at the DoS to Sgt. Haggerty with the NHSP. Sweeney had received an email from the Hooksett CoP regarding the Doyon v. Hooksett ruling and he brought it to Earl's attention. Then the ball got rolling and the changes started happening.

There's a lot to go through and I may have another FOIA or two to send out elsewhere. I will say this, though: Sam Cohen and Sweeney are pals, and Sweeney seems to take a dim view of us "gun nuts." Here's a little sample:

VS5BGMp.png


By the way, Sam Cohen refers to us as "paranoids" in one email to Sweeney (and all the emails between them CC Nappen as well).

I'm swamped with work right now but I'll go through these more thoroughly later and try to make sense of them chronologically and map out who was involved along the way.
Click to expand...
Awesome stuff. It's almost like they don't expect the hairy eyed paranoid people to ever read the stuff they write at work. I guess that's because he's not paranoid enough.
 
No, but starting an upload takes less time than replying to my dumb posts :).

If you'd rather go through it no problem. You did the work to get the data.
 
Mr Weebles said:
I got the CD with the FOIA documents on them. Lots of blacked out attorney-client stuff, and many of the pages are repeated. The letter from Modigliano also stated there are an additional 40 pages but they're all atty/client stuff or drafts so they're not required to release them.

This whole thing seems to have started with a memo from Earl Sweeney at the DoS to Sgt. Haggerty with the NHSP. Sweeney had received an email from the Hooksett CoP regarding the Doyon v. Hooksett ruling and he brought it to Earl's attention. Then the ball got rolling and the changes started happening.

There's a lot to go through and I may have another FOIA or two to send out elsewhere. I will say this, though: Sam Cohen and Sweeney are pals, and Sweeney seems to take a dim view of us "gun nuts." Here's a little sample:

VS5BGMp.png


By the way, Sam Cohen refers to us as "paranoids" in one email to Sweeney (and all the emails between them CC Nappen as well).

I'm swamped with work right now but I'll go through these more thoroughly later and try to make sense of them chronologically and map out who was involved along the way.
Click to expand...

Wow. Thanks for getting all of this. What's the saying about paranoia? It's not paranoid if someone is really out to get you :)
 
Well not so much funny ha ha...it is quite sad actually.

Edit. I think you meant his post not the content from the foia request.



Thanks for doing this weebles.
 
Listen up everyone.

All of this crap will get uploaded eventually and you'll all be able to look through it as much as you want.

But two things: One, I woke up with a brutal sinus headache today and can't spend all day staring at the PDFs, and two, I've got a work conference in Las Vegas starting Sunday and going through next Thursday and I need to get ready for it. Those two things aren't helping my disposition and if you can't wait or you think it's "sad" go right ahead and file a ****ing FOIA your own self. Knock yourselves out.

I didn't do this for any kind of accolades or to get info I can keep to myself, I did it to find out why the ****ing changes were made to the ****ing forms SO WE CAN MAYBE KEEP THIS SHIT FROM HAPPENING IN THE FUTURE.
 
Mr Weebles said:
Listen up everyone.

All of this crap will get uploaded eventually and you'll all be able to look through it as much as you want.

But two things: One, I woke up with a brutal sinus headache today and can't spend all day staring at the PDFs, and two, I've got a work conference in Las Vegas starting Sunday and going through next Thursday and I need to get ready for it. Those two things aren't helping my disposition and if you can't wait or you think it's "sad" go right ahead and file a ****ing FOIA your own self. Knock yourselves out.

I didn't do this for any kind of accolades or to get info I can keep to myself, I did it to find out why the ****ing changes were made to the ****ing forms SO WE CAN MAYBE KEEP THIS SHIT FROM HAPPENING IN THE FUTURE.
Click to expand...

That sucks. Hope you feel better. I don't think anyone here is trying to rush you but I can only speak for myself. There is probably some worry though because it takes time to digest this much info and we have an election fast approaching so this kind of info might possibly be able to be used to rally gun owners to show up to the polls in larger numbers.

Anyway, get it out to us when you are able to. We can wait.
 
Good job Mr. Weebles. Excellent.

Who said the "I wonder what would happen..." paragraph posted above? Is that Earl Sweeney? Or the Hooksett CLEO? Sorry, just wasn't clear to me.

Can't wait to see what's under this rug!

- - - Updated - - -

By the way: I'm off tomorrow (Friday). I can make myself available if you need help uploading the content. PM sent.
 
Sam Cohen, the Pro-Gun New Hampshire Executive V.P. and Chief Executive Officer called NH gun owners "paranoids" in an email to Earl Sweeney?

If that's true, that's some serious stuff you got right there.

Make copies of that CD, upload them, and put them in 5 different lock boxes throughout the state (and one in VT, just in case!)
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

What are the stages of the LTC application?
2
Replies
34
Views
521
VetteGirlMA
VetteGirlMA
Cant post an add in the Classiifieds, what gives?
Replies
13
Views
577
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
703
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
809
Garys
Garys
Back
Top Bottom