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

Off topic, but the NH Senator responsible for killing constitutional carry is in a very heated primary battle (His opponent (Cormier) is good on firearms) and his prior history with a bottle is now bubbling up to the surface: (not safe for work)
http://granitegrok.com/blog/2014/08/part-2-nh-state-senator-dave-boutin

PS. The Democrats did not field a candidate so the entire battle is the primary.

-design
 
design said:
Off topic, but the NH Senator responsible for killing constitutional carry is in a very heated primary battle (His opponent (Cormier) is good on firearms) and his prior history with a bottle is now bubbling up to the surface: (not safe for work)
http://granitegrok.com/blog/2014/08/part-2-nh-state-senator-dave-boutin

PS. The Democrats did not field a candidate so the entire battle is the primary.

-design
Click to expand...

I have heard that the Dems are fielding a writein candidate so that there will be a dem on the ballot in November.

Also, I now have a thread on this incident. Please direct discussion there:

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...If-you-live-in-Hooksett-you-need-to-read-this
 
DoS received my FOIA request one week ago. No update as of today.

If I don't receive a response by Monday I'll send a follow-up letter demanding an answer.
 
It is time to turn up the heat. I suggest that we all start sending in 91-a requests.
-Design
 
jpk said:
I've had multiple conversations with Cohen on a variety of RKBA issues and the above is an understatement.

He's an entitled pompous ass who thinks the little people should sit down, shut up and do as PGNH tells them to do.

While there may be some good people at PGNH they have done and said some pretty anti 2A stuff in recent years and in light of Cohens recent statements on the recent form changes they are looking more and more like and ANTI RKBA group than a Pro one
Click to expand...

They are neither ANTI nor PRO RKBA.

Their top people are a bunch of self serving ex-legislators who pretend to care about RKBA to make a nice living. Look at their track record... look at their staff... look at their statements.

By the way, I am in no way criticizing the many good people that volunteer or contribute for PGNH - I am just suggesting that you take a good hard look at PGNH's actions and decide if they deserve that support.

It looks more and more like the choice of GONH to NOT allow legislators to serve on their board was wise....
 
WatchCityCPA said:
They are neither ANTI nor PRO RKBA.

Their top people are a bunch of self serving ex-legislators who pretend to care about RKBA to make a nice living. Look at their track record... look at their staff... look at their statements.

By the way, I am in no way criticizing the many good people that volunteer or contribute for PGNH - I am just suggesting that you take a good hard look at PGNH's actions and decide if they deserve that support.

It looks more and more like the choice of GONH to NOT allow legislators to serve on their board was wise....
Click to expand...

Not going to get into it

PGNH's support/dishonesty over SB244 clearly shows that they can be anti rkba when it serves them.

While I respect the hell out of a great many of their members, the organization as a whole has become a misguided trainwreck and under current leadership/guidance is likely to cause a great many problems for us next year........anyone that thinks SB244 isn't going to be resurrected by them is a brain cell short of a synapse.

PGNH is a who's who of current and former reps/sens

http://pgnh.org/pgnh_board_of_directors_council_of_advisors_and_corporate_staff


[h=2]Pro-Gun New Hampshire
Board of Directors[/h]​
[h=4]as of November 7, 2012[/h] The Honorable Bob Clegg, President — former NH State Senator and Senate Majority Leader, now a registered state lobbyist
Sam Cohen, Executive Vice President and CEO — NH spokesman, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms; former Director (2001-2006) and Legislative Liaison (2002-2006) of Gun Owners of New Hampshire (GO-NH)

Evan Nappen, General Counsel — nationally known gun-rights attorney with 26 years of experience as a successful criminal defense attorney specializing in gun law (the first 17 years in New Jersey, which has the worst gun laws in the country); member of the Board of Directors of the New Hampshire Wildlife Federation; former Vice President, Free State Project; former member of the NRA Concealed Carry Committee; author, New Hampshire Gun, Knife, and Weapon Law
The Honorable Ken Kreis, PGNH Sportsmen's Coordinator — former State Representative and member of the NH House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee; former President of the New Hampshire Wildlife Federation; co-founder, Bowhunters Wildlife Management Association of New Hampshire (http://www.bwmanh.org/)
The Honorable Elbert “Bick” Bicknell, Past President — former NH State Representative and member of the NH House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee, responsible for RSA 159:26 in 2003 (state preemption over towns and cities on gun regulation); former President of GO-NH, 2004-2006; first President of Pro-Gun New Hampshire, April 2006 to May 2010

[h=2][/h] [h=2]Pro-Gun New Hampshire
Council of Advisors[/h] [h=4]as of April 30, 2014[/h] Senior Advisor Ed Naile - PGNH Director, 2006-2010; Chairman, Coalition of New Hampshire Taxpayers
Senior Advisor Bob Pagano - PGNH Director, 2010 -2012; President, New Hampshire Firearms Dealers Association; active competitive shooter/organizer; active NRA and FNRA volunteer; former GO-NH Director.
Senior Advisor Earl Sweeney - Assistant Commissioner, NH Dept of Safety; former Director, NH Police Standards and Training Council
Senior Advisor Hon. David Welch - former State Representative and Chairman of the NH House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee; Revolutionary War historian and (armed) reenactor
---
Jeb Bradley - State Senator; former U.S. Congressman
Sharon Carson - State Senator
Sam Cataldo - State Senator; former GO-NH Membership Secretary
---
Gene Chandler - State Representative and House Minority Leader; former Speaker of the NH House
Dan Eaton - State Representative; former Chief of Police, Stoddard, NH
Jeff Goley - State Representative

John Hikel - State Representative
Carol McGuire - State Representative; New Hampshire Liberty Alliance 2010 Legislator of the Year
Bill O'Brien - State Representative; former Speaker of the New Hampshire House of Representatives
Andy Renzullo - State Representative
Jordan Ulery - State Representative; licensed private investigator
Moe Villeneuve - State Representative
Joel Winters - State Representative
---
Hon. Jason Bedrick - former State Representative; New Hampshire Liberty Alliance 2008 Legislator of the Year
Hon. Laurie Boyce - former State Representative

Hon. Howard C. "Crow" Dickinson - former State Representative, responsible for NH Constitution's Article 2A (Keep and Bear Arms), added in 1982
Hon. Nancy Elliott - former State Representative
Hon. John Gallus - former State Senator
Hon. Paul Ingbretson - former State Representative
Hon. Bob Letourneau - former State Senator
Hon. Bob Mead - former Chief of Staff of the NH Speaker of the House, Bill O'Brien; former State Representative; co-chair, House Republican Alliance
Hon. John Tholl - former State Representative; former Chief of Police, Dalton, NH; former SigArms representative; cowboy action shooter
Hon. Fran Wendelboe - former State Representative; former police officer; founder, The Reagan Network
---
Mike Briggs - Head of Competitive Shooting Programs at SIG SAUER Academy; owner of New England Tactical; former president of Pioneer Sportsmen, Inc.; gunwriter
Paul Donovan - Chief of Police, Salem, NH; President (2012), NH Association of Chiefs of Police; formerly with Colt
Mitch Rosen - Deputy Sheriff; nationally known owner of Mitch Rosen Extraordinary Gunleather
 
design said:
It is time to turn up the heat. I suggest that we all start sending in 91-a requests.
-Design
Click to expand...

I disagree and here's why:

My FOIA request is certainly not the only one they received but an avalanche of new requests isn't going to turn up anything new or exciting. You'll only get copies of what they're sending out to everyone else. IMO, the best way to handle this is to get a response to the initial requests and send follow-up FOIA requests to personnel/agencies found to be involved in the changes.

Oh, and I got my first response from the Department of Safety today. Here's what they sent:

August 15, 2014

Dear Mr. Weebles:

This letter is in response to your Right to Know request addressed to Commissioner Barthelmes for all government records "concerning or relating to the recent changes to the New Hampshire Pistol & Revolver License Resident Application and the addition of the following questions ... a) 'Has any state or federal agency or licensing authority ever claimed that you are prohibited by law or regulation from possessing a firearm? b) Are you prohibited by federal law or regulation from possessing a firearm? c) Have you held a resident pistol/revolver license before?'"

This office is in the process of researching your request and upon receipt of any government records, will conduct an analysis as to what information is properly subject to disclosure under the Right to Know Law. I expect it to take at least twenty (20) business days from the date of this letter to make this determination. Of course if I am able to complete it earlier, I will advise you accordingly.

Please contact my office if you have any questions regarding this matter.

Regards,

Marta Modigliani, Esq.
Legal Counsel
Office of the Commissioner

Cc: John J. Barthelmes, Commissioner
Click to expand...

So twenty business days will push this to mid-September. That's just the point when they determine was is subject to disclosure, and probably when they tell me it will cost $XX to make copies or whatever. Not sure how much beyond a hundred bucks I'm willing to pay for this though ... We'll see.
 
jpk said:
DoS is apparently getting slammed with calls on the unlawful permit form changes and they are very rattled

So rattled that the secretary is a babbling fool who is claiming that the NH Supreme Court FORCED the DoS to change the form but when asked for a decision to support that claim they were unable to produce one.

Furthermore Barthelmes has decided that Fri/Mon would be good days to take off work........
Click to expand...
Maybe my "Hans blix" email had an effect [laugh].
 
Mr Weebles said:
I disagree and here's why:

My FOIA request is certainly not the only one they received but an avalanche of new requests isn't going to turn up anything new or exciting. You'll only get copies of what they're sending out to everyone else. IMO, the best way to handle this is to get a response to the initial requests and send follow-up FOIA requests to personnel/agencies found to be involved in the changes.

Oh, and I got my first response from the Department of Safety today. Here's what they sent:



So twenty business days will push this to mid-September. That's just the point when they determine was is subject to disclosure, and probably when they tell me it will cost $XX to make copies or whatever. Not sure how much beyond a hundred bucks I'm willing to pay for this though ... We'll see.
Click to expand...
I thought they were required to give the info in five days? I'll have to reread the RSA.
 
soloman02 said:
I thought they were required to give the info in five days? I'll have to reread the RSA.
Click to expand...

No, they have three options:

1. Make the records available
2. Deny the request with a reason for the denial
3. Acknowledge the request and let the person know how long it will be before the request is granted or denied.
 
soloman02 said:
I thought they were required to give the info in five days? I'll have to reread the RSA.
Click to expand...

Nope, it doesn't.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/vi/91-a/91-a-mrg.htm

91-A:4:IV

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.
Click to expand...
 
Mr Weebles said:
I disagree and here's why:

My FOIA request is certainly not the only one they received but an avalanche of new requests isn't going to turn up anything new or exciting. You'll only get copies of what they're sending out to everyone else. IMO, the best way to handle this is to get a response to the initial requests and send follow-up FOIA requests to personnel/agencies found to be involved in the changes.

Oh, and I got my first response from the Department of Safety today. Here's what they sent:



So twenty business days will push this to mid-September. That's just the point when they determine was is subject to disclosure, and probably when they tell me it will cost $XX to make copies or whatever. Not sure how much beyond a hundred bucks I'm willing to pay for this though ... We'll see.
Click to expand...
You will not pay more than $100. If it costs more, the money will be raised. As long as you are willing to fight, there will be those who will do our best to ensure there is no financial burden for you.


Also, do you have a Facebook account?
 
I'm in to financially back Weebles! If you haven't checked it out yet, look at SquareCash, alternative to Paypal with no fees currently.
 
Mr Weebles said:
I disagree and here's why:

My FOIA request is certainly not the only one they received but an avalanche of new requests isn't going to turn up anything new or exciting. You'll only get copies of what they're sending out to everyone else. IMO, the best way to handle this is to get a response to the initial requests and send follow-up FOIA requests to personnel/agencies found to be involved in the changes.

Oh, and I got my first response from the Department of Safety today. Here's what they sent:



So twenty business days will push this to mid-September. That's just the point when they determine was is subject to disclosure, and probably when they tell me it will cost $XX to make copies or whatever. Not sure how much beyond a hundred bucks I'm willing to pay for this though ... We'll see.
Click to expand...

The DoS is breaking the law. There was a recent NHSC case that clarified the 91A law.

Unfortunetely, this order is being hidden (Maybe on purpose) so I cannot read the actual decision. However both the UL and Landrigan reported on this case:

The Supreme Court chose not to hear oral arguments on this matter but instead issued a brief written decision released Thursday.

In the order, the justices said any government agency’s decision to withhold public information must overcome a presumption.

“A public entity seeking to avoid disclosure under the Right-to-Know Law bears a heavy burden to shift the balance toward nondisclosure,” they wrote.

The liquor agency violated a key provision of the open records law by not responding to Law’s request to release information within five days or to give a detailed reason why some material would not be forthcoming.

“The time period for responding to a Right-to-Know request is absolute; delayed disclosure violates the statute,” they wrote.
Click to expand...

http://www.nh.com/news/1034116-151/nh-high-court-rules-liquor-agency-in.html

http://www.unionleader.com/article/20140415/NEWS/140419442

The case involved is an ongoing case. While the 91A violation was dealt with the rest of the case is still pending a SC hearing later this year.

Law Warehouse vs new hampshire Liquor commission

Based on this snippet:

"or to give a detailed reason why some material would not be forthcoming."

The reason above does not meet that courts definition of detailed reason.

In discussing this with someone else (who gave me the hints to find these news articles) he had this to say:

" I used it against DHHS and received the informaion in 24 hours so it scares them"

I'm not sure how you bring this up to them, but this is one way to "scare them" into complying immediately.
 
I'm working on a second letter to the DoS which will list the legitimate reasons information can be withheld under the Right To Know law and how none of them could possibly apply to the information I'm seeking.

I'll also object to 20 business days to review the information and ask for it to be released NLT five days from reciept of the next letter.

It will go in the mail Monday and they'll have it by Wednesday.
 
Mr Weebles said:
I'm working on a second letter to the DoS which will list the legitimate reasons information can be withheld under the Right To Know law and how none of them could possibly apply to the information I'm seeking.

I'll also object to 20 business days to review the information and ask for it to be released NLT five days from reciept of the next letter.

It will go in the mail Monday and they'll have it by Wednesday.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying not to do that, but I'm not sure that will do you any good. Telling them to comply with the law isn't going to change their decision to comply or not comply with the law. It might just make them not comply and say eph you, what are you going to do about it. Don't underestimate them and the reality they can often do whatever the hell they want without any accountability.

As for objecting to the 20 business days, that isn't necessarily any violation of the statute as written. Because your request, while specific to the subject, was fairly broad, and there could be a lot of potential information to find. I guess the question is, how much time is "reasonably necessary"? Also, that the letter didn't say it will be done in 20 days. It said " I expect it to take at least twenty (20) business days from the date of this letter to make this determination. Of course if I am able to complete it earlier, I will advise you accordingly." Note that RSA 91-A requires them to respond with "a statement of time". They HAD to give a time to comply with the law. Unless or until they deny your request, they have only been comply with the law as written.

Long winded rant mostly, but my main point is, it can be good to push, but don't push too hard, especially when there isn't any indication they aren't going to comply with the law.
 
Bonesinium said:
I'm not saying not to do that, but I'm not sure that will do you any good. Telling them to comply with the law isn't going to change their decision to comply or not comply with the law. It might just make them not comply and say eph you, what are you going to do about it. Don't underestimate them and the reality they can often do whatever the hell they want without any accountability.

As for objecting to the 20 business days, that isn't necessarily any violation of the statute as written. Because your request, while specific to the subject, was fairly broad, and there could be a lot of potential information to find. I guess the question is, how much time is "reasonably necessary"? Also, that the letter didn't say it will be done in 20 days. It said " I expect it to take at least twenty (20) business days from the date of this letter to make this determination. Of course if I am able to complete it earlier, I will advise you accordingly." Note that RSA 91-A requires them to respond with "a statement of time". They HAD to give a time to comply with the law. Unless or until they deny your request, they have only been comply with the law as written.

Long winded rant mostly, but my main point is, it can be good to push, but don't push too hard, especially when there isn't any indication they aren't going to comply with the law.
Click to expand...

Remember, the statute cannot be read in a vacuum. There is a recent court case (April 2014) that clarifies the statute. Finding it has been difficult. A former legislator and PGNH board member is looking into finding this order for Mr. Weebles to use. As I said above, there are news articles on it and he has already used reference of this case to get recent compliance out of an agency (DHHS) that initially refused to be forthcoming like the DoS is currently doing.

We cannot let up. If we need to get an attorney involved, then we will and I will fund-raise any money needed assuming said attorney doesn't take it on pro-bono. I have an attorney in mind who is pro-freedom and has taken on cases in the past pro-bono. But we must first do all we can without an attorney (because it is our right to know and is cheaper)
 
Bonesinium said:
I'm not saying not to do that, but I'm not sure that will do you any good. Telling them to comply with the law isn't going to change their decision to comply or not comply with the law. It might just make them not comply and say eph you, what are you going to do about it. Don't underestimate them and the reality they can often do whatever the hell they want without any accountability.

As for objecting to the 20 business days, that isn't necessarily any violation of the statute as written. Because your request, while specific to the subject, was fairly broad, and there could be a lot of potential information to find. I guess the question is, how much time is "reasonably necessary"? Also, that the letter didn't say it will be done in 20 days. It said " I expect it to take at least twenty (20) business days from the date of this letter to make this determination. Of course if I am able to complete it earlier, I will advise you accordingly." Note that RSA 91-A requires them to respond with "a statement of time". They HAD to give a time to comply with the law. Unless or until they deny your request, they have only been comply with the law as written.

Long winded rant mostly, but my main point is, it can be good to push, but don't push too hard, especially when there isn't any indication they aren't going to comply with the law.
Click to expand...

There are very specific exemptions to the NH Right To Know Law:

(1) records of grand and petit juries
(2) parole and pardon boards
(3) personal school records of pupils
(4) records pertaining to internal personnel practices
(5) confidential, commercial or financial information
(6) test questions, scoring keys, and other examination data used to administer a licensing examination, examination for employment, or academic examinations
(7) personnel, medical, welfare, library user, videotape sale or rental, and other files whose disclosure would constitute an invasion of privacy
(8) records pertaining to matters relating to the preparation for and the carrying out of all emergency functions, including training to carry out such functions that are directly intended to thwart terrorist activity.

The information I asked for relates to a change in a public document and none of the above listed exemptions could possibly apply. That's what I'm going to state in my letter and demand immediate disclosure.

If I don't do anything and just wait the 20 business days, it gives them the upper hand.

I may also expand my FOIA request to include all correspondence related to the request itself.

What they need to realize is that they have NO RIGHT to hide this info. It's public record and must be available for inspection.
 
I totally agree and applaud you for making these requests. I was only saying their response seems to be in compliance with 91-A so far.

I was actually going to suggest you request any emails discussing changes. With that said, I imagine any damning emails will be conveniently left out. If you are lucky, maybe they acknowledge existence of them but deny your request.
 
If this news article is to be believed, Sweeney made these changes. It's nice to see that he's willing to fall on the sword for the rest of the clan that changed the form.
Although, Sweeney doing this makes sense. I have a suspicion that Sweeney is retiring soon. He makes a nice scapegoat that can shield the rest of the people involved.
What's the over/under that when Sweeney retires/fired, that Robert Quinn is made assistant commissioner?
 
UnionLeader said:
The three new questions were meant to be "helpful" to those issuing licenses, (Assistant commissioner of safety, Earl] Sweeney said. But the one about what a federal agency may have "claimed," he said, is "a stupid question, really."

"That particular question is extremely poorly worded, and we need to get rid of it," he said.
. . .
Sweeney said the resident pistol license form had never gone through rulemaking before. He said he hopes the controversy over the new form can be resolved quickly, without having to wait to go through the rulemaking process.

"If we could get rid of the issues that they have and allay their concerns, I would just as soon change the form immediately," he said. "And then if we have to go through rulemaking, we could go through it at a later time."

Sweeney said he takes the blame for not looking more closely at the changes to the form and anticipating the concerns of gun owners.

"The bottom line is that we certainly had no intention to pull a fast one on people or take away anybody's right to have a license to carry," he said. "And we certainly, I think, should have looked at it more closely before we changed it."

Lesson learned

In the future, he said, "We certainly will get some wide input and give advance notice before we make another change like that."
Click to expand...
Sounds like Earl is feeling the pressure.
 
Keep up a the pressure, a little birdee told me that the language on the back of the form will not go back on the form. Apparently the NHDOS is an anti-gun as they seem....

The generic suitability language needs to go back on the form until the legislature makes a change: 2014_dssp-85_form_change_back_page.png
 

Similar threads

Cant post an add in the Classiifieds, what gives?
Replies
13
Views
551
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
670
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
779
Garys
Garys
Cranston PD range in the crosshairs.
Replies
21
Views
530
rogersmithiii
R
Back
Top Bottom