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

[mikem317]

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.

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." - Barry Goldwater

Did the author suddenly forget that the NH P&R license is for the concealed carrying of guns? And not ownership? Yikes. Editor fail.

 

[soloman02]

Not even in Mass do you need to have references fill out a form like that.
It must be wonderful to create law by dictating to your secretary.

What is the person who received these forms going to do?

Yes. Very interested also.

You guys realize that the picture above is not in any way different from the letters sent out to the references you list when you submit an application right? Every PD sends out a letter like that, assuming said PD contacts references as quite a few departments don't bother to contact references (Lee and Barrington do not).

The only difference here is that Hopkinton PD is supremely lazy and wants the applicant to do the work on contacting the references for them.

 

[Brin747]

You guys realize that the picture above is not in any way different from the letters sent out to the references you list when you submit an application right? Every PD sends out a letter like that, assuming said PD contacts references as quite a few departments don't bother to contact references (Lee and Barrington do not).

The only difference here is that Hopkinton PD is supremely lazy and wants the applicant to do the work on contacting the references for them.

I have had my PRL for 7 years. WRT both my original application and my renewal, none of my references were contacted. This is Henniker, my property sits on the Hopkinton line.

 

[soloman02]

I have had my PRL for 7 years. WRT both my original application and my renewal, none of my references were contacted. This is Henniker, my property sits on the Hopkinton line.

Quite a few PD's don't bother to contact references.

 

[Quiet]

The need for references is the single most insulting and angering concept. Just the thought of needing my neighbor's permission is infuriating.

Even if someone agrees with the concept of suitability based may issue, the fact that a person is unknown to the police is evidence of suitability and should at a minimum be the default.

A person who just wants to go about his business and be left alone needs to take a Dale Carnegie course?

Even Skysoldier is entitled to a license. ;-)

 

[Mr Weebles]

That form from Hopkinton is reason numero uno why you should never bring your application to the police station.

Send the application certified mail, return receipt requested and start counting the days from when they receive it.

 

[ninemilshooter]

You guys realize that the picture above is not in any way different from the letters sent out to the references you list when you submit an application right? Every PD sends out a letter like that, assuming said PD contacts references as quite a few departments don't bother to contact references (Lee and Barrington do not).

The only difference here is that Hopkinton PD is supremely lazy and wants the applicant to do the work on contacting the references for them.

The Hudson police call and ask questions for references, but do not send out forms. From what I remember my references were not asked if I was a felon or ever committed to a mental institution.

I think the conversation was "How long have you known him? What does he do? Do you know of any reason he shouldn't be allowed to carry a weapon?" This seemed reasonable considering I gave their names as references and the police were checking that my references knew me.

Wasn't there talk before that references were NOT required on the official form?

 

[DispositionMatrix]

You guys realize that the picture above is not in any way different from the letters sent out to the references you list when you submit an application right? Every PD sends out a letter like that, assuming said PD contacts references as quite a few departments don't bother to contact references (Lee and Barrington do not).

The only difference here is that Hopkinton PD is supremely lazy and wants the applicant to do the work on contacting the references for them.

That means it's not the job of the applicant, and the forms should be ignored. Knowing my CoP could go off the rails again by the time I am ready to renew, I will be sending in the latest state form certified return receipt.

 

[Bonesinium]

I guess I'm lucky. I turned my renewal in, in person, and they called me back a day and a half later letting me know it was ready to be picked up. Too bad other towns suck. There is no reason the process should be any more difficult.

Maybe the person should turn in the illegal forms. Not filled out of course, but maybe in big letters written across them simply saying

159:6 License to Carry. – No other forms shall be used by officials of cities and towns.

 

[ninemilshooter]

Did you supply the phone numbers or did look them up themselves? As there is no place on the form for the references phone numbers.

I filled it out minus the phone numbers, and the cop behind the glass asked me for them. Being newly released from Mass, I didn't think anything of it ...

 

[soloman02]

That means it's not the job of the applicant, and the forms should be ignored. Knowing my CoP could go off the rails again by the time I am ready to renew, I will be sending in the latest state form certified return receipt.

Correct it is not the job of the applicant. The PD is being lazy. They should be taken to task for being lazy. The reference forms themselves though are not "illegal." See below.

I guess I'm lucky. I turned my renewal in, in person, and they called me back a day and a half later letting me know it was ready to be picked up. Too bad other towns suck. There is no reason the process should be any more difficult.

Maybe the person should turn in the illegal forms. Not filled out of course, but maybe in big letters written across them simply saying

159:6 License to Carry. – No other forms shall be used by officials of cities and towns.

They should also write underneath that: Get off your lazy butts and do your jobs.

 

[FrugalFannie]

I filled it out minus the phone numbers, and the cop behind the glass asked me for them. Being newly released from Mass, I didn't think anything of it ...

Goffstown asked for the phone numbers. I did not supply them. They stated phone numbers would "speed up" the process. I said "I just moved from Mass. My last renewal took 4 months. I think I can wait the 14 days you have to issue my P&R." and I walked out.

 

[jefftk]

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.

Oh, it makes sense. Just ask the NSA. It is just harmless meta-data!

 

[Caterpillar]

A lot to keep track of here. has the form been fixed? Or are some cities & towns still trying to use the "bad" form?

 

[nhpoke]

A lot to keep track of here. has the form been fixed? Or are some cities & towns still trying to use the "bad" form?

The "additional questions" have been removed.

The back of the form now contains portions of the RSA (159:6), rather than an "interpretation" of the RSA.

I guess it depends on how you defined "fixed".

 

[Mr Weebles]

Here are the links to the FOIA documents (PDFs):

Binder 1

Binder 2

Binder 3

If anyone notices anything interesting let me know. I'm more than willing to send additional FIOA requests.

 

[soloman02]

Here are the links to the FOIA documents (PDFs):

Binder 1

Binder 2

Binder 3

If anyone notices anything interesting let me know. I'm more than willing to send additional FIOA requests.

Full of win right here. Thanks for uploading these and (again) thanks for submitting the FOIA.

 

[jibbr71]

Did you supply the phone numbers or did look them up themselves? As there is no place on the form for the references phone numbers.

Just got some anecdotal evidence. My wife turned in her application 2 weeks ago yesterday. I, along with her parents were used as references. We each got a letter from the PD, which I prompty shredded. Yesterday, 14 days exactly after submitting the app, she got a call to come pick up the license. Guess references aren't very sought after here.

 

[FrugalFannie]

Just got some anecdotal evidence. My wife turned in her application 2 weeks ago yesterday. I, along with her parents were used as references. We each got a letter from the PD, which I prompty shredded. Yesterday, 14 days exactly after submitting the app, she got a call to come pick up the license. Guess references aren't very sought after here.

The PD can request info from the references but they cannot compel them to supply any info. Failure of a reference to respond is not evidence that one is 'unsuitable' for a P&R.

 

[jibbr71]

The PD can request info from the references but they cannot compel them to supply any info. Failure of a reference to respond is not evidence that one is 'unsuitable' for a P&R.

Right, but I understand there have been some towns that tried to hold up the process for lack of response from references. Rochester does not appear to be one of those. As a matter of fact, when the background check request from the Maine state police for my non-res there got hung up, the chief was very helpful in getting it straightened out.

 

[ninemilshooter]

Wow - thanks for that post. I'm only 1/2 way through the first PDF and it is clear to me that Sweeney and Cohen are "besties". It even looks to me that Cohen, because of his close ties with Sweeney had no problems with the changes because of the "best of your abilities clause on the signature line" until Johnathan Evans pointed that NH may have lost it's "shall issue" status (on the same day Johnathan sent an email asking for clarification, Cohen posts on PGNH a "concern").

And even more interesting, there is talk of only ONE new question in the email, but the form shows up with THREE.

The comments from Sweeney on the paranoid drunk gun fanatics are insulting to say the least.

Thank god I never gave any money to PGNH, and I am unlikely to ever in the future.

 

[ninemilshooter]

I found the wording of this email interesting. "Bringing this to fruition" ? From their perspective shouldn't this just have been a form update?

And it is too bad so much of this document is blacked out.

 

[ninemilshooter]

I'm just going to post the interesting snippets that I see.

 

[ninemilshooter]

 

[ninemilshooter]

Interestingly Sweeney says that he considered going through the rule making process, but figured that this change was "so minor" he didn't want to bother.

 

[terraformer]

People in NH pay this guy cohen to represent gun owner's interests???

BTW: That line that in the Haggerty email after DSSP85 looks really important to me. It provides a lot of context on the source of these changes. That it was completely redacted like that says they are trying to hide something. If you plan on challenging the redacting, I would put that line very high on the list.

ETA: If Haggerty is not a lawyer, I suspect that is eliminating language that is not otherwise covered by the exceptions to the PRA/FOIA request you made. I could be wrong, it's redacted of course, but that really looks like he is providing an opinion of the change and justification for such opinion.

 

[terraformer]

Note also the deliberative process exemption appears to only be available to elected officials (ETA: And communication to elected officials), but even if it is not, the deliberative process exemption is null and void once a decision has been made. All documents AFTER a decision has been made are not covered by the exemption. Haggerty's email is post deliberative.

 

[terraformer]

FYI but I am having a lot of trouble finding sane compendiums of the NH right to know law. I don't have time to do all of the research on the primary sources so what I said above is related to general principles. NH case law is dominated by cases dealing with whom is subject to the law, but light on cases dealing with the mechanics of implementing it. If I have time, I will try to dig in further but don't act solely on what I said above. You need someone competent in NH PRA law to proceed.

ETA: Here is a good compendium of laws, interpretations of the law and case law (including interpretations).

http://www.wadleighlaw.com/UploadedFiles/Files/Access to Public Records 5-15-12.pdf

That should give you a lot of heads up on the mechanics.

 

[ninemilshooter]

Note also the deliberative process exemption appears to only be available to elected officials, but even if it is not, the deliberative process exemption is null and void once a decision has been made. All documents AFTER a decision has been made are not covered by the exemption. Haggerty's email is post deliberative.

So if I understand you correctly the redaction should not have been done on these documents?

- - - Updated - - -

This is the drunk gun lovers email Mr Weebles initially pointed out.

 

[Buggin]

This a$$hole needs a reality beating. Cohen specifically.