• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

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

pastera said:
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
Click to expand...

I think that ship sailed a long time ago. Not that it's not a bad idea - shouldn't be mandated - but the language in that email is absolutely unacceptable of somebody duty-bound to serve the people of New Hampshire.

I would imagine this whole thing does a few things: Namely Sweeney's resignation from PGNH and DoS Commissar, perhaps the collapse of PGNH, and rekindles Rep. Hoell's hope of passing Constitutional Carry in NH.
 
mikem317 said:
Who said the "I wonder what would happen..." paragraph posted above? Is that Earl Sweeney?
Click to expand...

Yeah, Sweeney.

If anyone has the time and inclination, try to find some info on attorney/client privilege for public attorneys.

Specifically:

1. Who is the "Client" in that relationship? Since the attorney is paid by the state and doing state business, is the client the citizens of the state or the state itself? Any case law, etc. would be helpful.

2. Is any and all communication considered privileged, or only communication offering legal advice. For example, if an email is sent from a state attorney saying "That guy is a pain in the ass," is that privileged?
 
Man, you got some dirt on Earl Sweeney and Sam Cohen. I can't wait to see what happens next.

What are you trying to validate with the attorney/client privilege regarding public attorneys? To see if what they redacted was supposed to be redacted?
 
Unfortunately the answer to question 1 is that the public officials are the client. Rule 502 defines a client. As
A "client" is a person, public officer, or corporation, association, or other organization or entity, either public or private, who is rendered professional legal services by a lawyer, or who consults a lawyer with a view to obtaining professional legal services from him.
Click to expand...

It would be very useful for all of as, as "individuals who are members of the state" to have access to this information, that isn't the case under our current evidentiary rules.
 
nhpoke said:
Unfortunately the answer to question 1 is that the public officials are the client. Rule 502 defines a client. As


It would be very useful for all of as, as "individuals who are members of the state" to have access to this information, that isn't the case under our current evidentiary rules.
Click to expand...

I'm gonna go out on a limb here [rolleyes] and say that Sweeney wasn't "receiving professional legal services" and wasn't "consulting a lawyer with a view to obtaining professional legal services" from Nappen.
 
Great point. If there was no "contract for representation" then the fact that Nappen is an attorney means nothing. Privileged information only applies between an attorney and their client (or a bunch of either' representatives). It can, however, also apply to opposing Council.

- - - Updated - - -

Information on whether or not there is a "contract" to represent is not privileged.
 
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...
Anyone who complains needs a punch to the throat.
 
nhpoke said:
Unfortunately the answer to question 1 is that the public officials are the client. Rule 502 defines a client. As


It would be very useful for all of as, as "individuals who are members of the state" to have access to this information, that isn't the case under our current evidentiary rules.
Click to expand...

Thank you. That's helpful.

soloman02 said:
I'm gonna go out on a limb here [rolleyes] and say that Sweeney wasn't "receiving professional legal services" and wasn't "consulting a lawyer with a view to obtaining professional legal services" from Nappen.
Click to expand...

It wasn't Nappen I was referring to, it was all the blacked-out emails from Modigliani.
 
I'll have to go back and look but EVERYTHING is blacked out including the names of the recipients.

Anyway, I don't think Nappen was CC'd on her emails.
 
Mr Weebles said:
I'll have to go back and look but EVERYTHING is blacked out including the names of the recipients.

Anyway, I don't think Nappen was CC'd on her emails.
Click to expand...
In general the fact that a communication took place is not privileged information. One could make a strong argument that the names should not be redacted. The content can be, but because the names could reveal the fact that people who were not covered by confidentiality could be included makes it information that isn't protected... I think I just talked in circles. Maybe it makes sense.
 
Do we know if she's internal Council or hired Council? It makes a significant difference to your question 2.


For hired Council almost anything (that isn't specifically excluded) is protected.
For internal Council it has to be clearly legal advice, rather than other "internal communications" as standard internal communication aren't covered by privilege.
 
> Editorial: Clearer, not broader, gun law is needed
>
> http://www.concordmonitor.com/opinion/13798270-95/editorial-clearer-not-broader-gun-law-is-needed
>
> Friday, October 3, 2014
> (Published in print: Friday, October 3, 2014)

The recent dispute over questions and wording on the state’s gun license application may seem like an obscure bit of bureaucratic wrangling. But upon a closer reading, it’s difficult to avoid feeling sorry for police departments across the state put into a difficult position by an unclear state law.

And it’s difficult to avoid feeling dismay at the absolutism of activists who seem to feel the government should have no say whatsoever in regulating who carries concealed weapons.

The argument began over the state asking extra questions on the state’s gun license form. In a recent revision, three were added: Had the resident had a license before? Had they been told they couldn’t possess a firearm by a state or federal agency? Was the resident barred by federal law from owning a gun?

Gun rights advocates were not happy. The questions went too far, they claimed, and the state swiftly backtracked. The form was revised again and reissued.

But that wasn’t the end of things. Advocates raised questions about language on the back of the form, claiming that simply printing the text of the New Hampshire law on firearms permits wasn’t enough – that the state needed to make clear that simply owning a gun was sufficient for a license. They took issue with other parts of the application too, such as a section asking for references.

What’s the end game here? Ask Dunbarton Rep. JR Hoell, who told the Monitor that he wanted to pass a “constitutional carry” bill that would remove the state from the equation entirely. If a person could buy a gun, he or she could carry it, no questions asked.

This absolutism is dismaying. Given the recent spate of mass shootings, not to mention the toll of accidental deaths from firearms, common-sense restrictions on owning and carrying guns just make sense.

It’s important to note that this isn’t a constitutional question. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the right of states to impose certain limits on Second Amendment rights. Just as the right to free speech does not allow someone to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater, so the right to bear arms doesn’t allow someone to carry any weapon wherever he or she likes, in whatever manner he or she likes.

Hoell is right in one respect. Lawmakers should take up this matter in the new legislative session. But they should not try broaden the availability of concealed weapons. Instead, they should fix the state’s toothless firearms statute, which asks local officials to decide whether someone is a “suitable person to be licensed.” That language should be defined and clarified.

No one is going to take away guns or deny permits to law-abiding citizens, most certainly not in New Hampshire. A simple form and basic screening process are not brazen infringements of liberty. Indeed, they serve to preserve and protect the freedom and safety of everyone.
 
No one is going to take away guns or deny permits to law-abiding citizens, most certainly not in New Hampshire. A simple form and basic screening process are not brazen infringements of liberty. Indeed, they serve to preserve and protect the freedom and safety of everyone.
Click to expand...

spoken like a true state-fellator.
 
Just as the right to free speech does not allow someone to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater
Click to expand...

Here's a tip for anyone reading crap like that article form the Concord Monitor: If the author busts out the "fire in a crowded theater" line AND screws it up like they did, their opinion is a steaming pile of horseshit.
 
Mr Weebles said:
Here's a tip for anyone reading crap like that article form the Concord Monitor: If the author busts out the "fire in a crowded theater" line AND screws it up like they did, their opinion is a steaming pile of horseshit.
Click to expand...
It is amazing how much traction that defunct, invalid poor analogy gets.

Free speech does indeed allow someone to yell fire in a crowded movie theater, it does not summarily protect them from liability for their actions though.

IF "Gun Control" meant penalties and liability for negligent or malicious action bringing harm to others we would not object because such penalties are already available.

Show the same deference to this right as any other, there is no valid argument to do otherwise. Innocent until proven guilty.
 
Mr Weebles said:
Indeed. And it's also amazing that most people don't know it originated in Schenck v. United States, a particularly bad decision by SCOTUS.
Click to expand...
Not accidentally, most of SCOTUS' worst decisions are celebrated by Gun-Control and rights tramplers generally (aka: Progressives, aka: statists, aka: fascists)

They are hoping no one goes back and puts their claim of authority back into the context of the original travesty of justice that such bad decisions represent.

If they did, their association with the greatest atrocities in this country and around the world in the past 2 centuries would become immediately obvious.
 
Here's info from Hopkinton: the individual who posted this to Facebook received the latest form, and three of these blatantly unauthorized forms.

10704187_528726753938828_7038044527866709530_n.jpg
 

Similar threads

Cant post an add in the Classiifieds, what gives?
Replies
13
Views
506
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
614
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
752
Garys
Garys
Vinny has jumped the shark
Replies
0
Views
266
Amputee Marksman
Amputee Marksman
Back
Top Bottom