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

[DispositionMatrix]

Has anybody contacted the director of the state police for clarity?

No way to win. The Director could procedurally change regulation spelled out in the law, but the Director's advice cannot be taken as legal advice.

 

[BTSDOG]

Has anybody contacted the director of the state police for clarity?

EVERYBODY should be calling the director for clarity. That way they might see how F***ed up the questions are......

 

[Prepper]

If I answer yes, do I have to list every claim? I can come up with some of them, but not all as I have no way to know the claims of every government department in the country, local county state and federal.

Perhaps we need a sticky where we have listed all that we know of. I can print those out and turn in a 100 page addendum with the application.

 

[JayMcB]

Way back when, the CoP in Derry NH said he wouldn't issue me a P&R because I had two old (non-disqualifying) misdemeanors on my record. They have since been expunged, although I do have to put it on my P&R license renewals that I was denied.

So how do I answer the new question regarding an issuing authority "claiming" I was prohibited by law or regulation from possessing a firearm? Do I answer yes?

This is stupid. You're either prohibited or you're not.

and they say 'suitability' for FID won't be an issue in MA, right? right? [sad2]

What about if you file a 4473 to buy a firearm and are given a Deny? I was. Subsequently, I filed an appeal, and they reversed themselves. But now I have to answer yes, because technically a licensing authority said I could not possess a firearm?

EVERYBODY should be calling the director for clarity. That way they might see how F***ed up the questions are......

Agreed. This is bullshit. I guess that whole Free State thing isn't as free as I'd hoped. Thanks democrats.

 

[mel0n]

Well I just applied with one of the new forms, I have never applied, or been denied in any way or even questioned about my ability to buy/own a gun or a liscense so I answered NO to all the new questions. This was before I even just came on here and found out it was a new form, I had never applied before so I was no aware anything had changed and didn't think about the questions too much. However after reading all this, I dont see how any answer, true or false, to that question could hold up in court, or get you denied. We shall see what happens with me in 14 days because my PD refuses to answer/update you until the end of the 14 days, and they still refer to it as a "permit" on their website.

 

[soloman02]

I'm trying to find the SP directors direct phone number and not having any luck.

Here are the emails for all State Senators. Pay attention to John Reagan as he is the chair of the committee that is supposed to approve any changes to any department forms (per RSA 541-a).

Emails for Senators:
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected]

To email all state reps: [email protected]

 

[knoxy]

Well I just applied with one of the new forms, I have never applied, or been denied in any way or even questioned about my ability to buy/own a gun or a liscense so I answered NO to all the new questions. This was before I even just came on here and found out it was a new form, I had never applied before so I was no aware anything had changed and didn't think about the questions too much. However after reading all this, I dont see how any answer, true or false, to that question could hold up in court, or get you denied. We shall see what happens with me in 14 days because my PD refuses to answer/update you until the end of the 14 days, and they still refer to it as a "permit" on their website.

Alot of people who are unaware of the issue, and believe they have nothing that would be disqualifying, are going to get caught up in this.

Hopefully this is just a tempest in a teapot, but I foresee lawsuits.

I've never gotten my P&R License. Now is probably a good time to see how my town operates on this. Here in Auburn, the COP doesn't deal with these, it's the selectman.

 

[ntomsw]

I think where I live now the selectmen deal with it as well. And the town I am moving to, I bet the selectmen deal with it there as well.

 

[soloman02]

From a thread on FB:

JLCAR can say no to a rule but the department can say thanks and do it any way. The JLCAR committee can then file legislation to stop the rule but we all know that takes time. Like this issue the legislature cannot or will not come back to file a bill and hold hearings and a vote so they have until probably February to worry.

Ask ALL candidates (senate, house, governor) what they will do to stop a department that breaks the law and makes a rule/form change without the legislatures consent. Feel free to link them to this granitegrok article since this is an issue that has not hit the papers yet.

http://granitegrok.com/blog/2014/08/dos-dont-need-stinkin-permission-apparently

Please post any responses you receive. I have a statement I am working on regarding this.

 

[knoxy]

So you have chief like Jaffery does, who rather than get caught being sued for denying licenses, Has the other persons named in the legislation handle it.

- - - Updated - - -



It they do, beware of your police dept.

It was odd, when I initially tried to drop off the P&R app along with my C&R notification, I got attitude from the nice lady occifer behind the window. First she wouldn't take the C&R notice until I pointed out that the law required I notify the COP. Then, when I handed her the P&R app, she just handed it back to me and stated "we don't take those" and offered no more information. Only after badgering her and not just leaving, did she direct me to the Town Hall. Seems like it bothered her to have to deal with armed citizens doing legal business.

 

[Prepper]

So you have chief like Jaffery does, who rather than get caught being sued for denying licenses, Has the other persons named in the legislation handle it.

- - - Updated - - -

It they do, beware of your police dept.

Can you elaborate on the specifics of Jaffrey? I thought the chief did it. At least, that is where the form is turned into (to the receptionist anyway). Has the town had issues before?

 

[Prepper]

It was odd, when I initially tried to drop off the P&R app along with my C&R notification, I got attitude from the nice lady occifer behind the window. First she wouldn't take the C&R notice until I pointed out that the law required I notify the COP. Then, when I handed her the P&R app, she just handed it back to me and stated "we don't take those" and offered no more information. Only after badgering her and not just leaving, did she direct me to the Town Hall. Seems like it bothered her to have to deal with armed citizens doing legal business.

I mailed in the C&R to the chief with a brief one page letter explaining the ATF requires I send a copy of this to you but no action is required on it. No one contacted me back about it, so I guess it worked. Not sure if we have same town but I didn't get any attitude from the receptionist. IIRC she took the P&R directly and I retrieved it two weeks later from her.

 

[milktree]

I mailed in the C&R to the chief with a brief one page letter explaining the ATF requires I send a copy of this to you but no action is required on it. No one contacted me back about it, so I guess it worked. Not sure if we have same town but I didn't get any attitude from the receptionist. IIRC she took the P&R directly and I retrieved it two weeks later from her.

I've just sent a copy of the C&R app. to the chief, no letter or anything. If they ignore it, not my problem. I don't feel the need to explain to them why they're getting it. They should know that.

 

[Prepper]

I believe ntomsw lives in Jaffery and has said that is the case. That is also where the cop that is against citizens defending themselves works. So you put those pieces of the puzzle together.

Well that sucks. I guess he doesn't have the conviction to violate state law by delaying or denying the application though.

 

[Prepper]

I've just sent a copy of the C&R app. to the chief, no letter or anything. If they ignore it, not my problem. I don't feel the need to explain to them why they're getting it. They should know that.

They should. But my main goal was to ward off a call from him asking WTF is this form I sent him for. I prefer to minimize my interactions with the police as much as possible.

 

[soloman02]

My public statement on FB:

The Department of Safety under the direction of Commissioner John J. Barthelmes has apparently seen fit to stop following RSA 541-a by changing a form without consulting the legislature.

All rules and forms must first be presented for approval or disapproval to the Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rulemaking as noted in RSA 541-a. The form change to the Application for a Pistol & Revolver License was never submitted to JLCAR for review.

No department commissioner is above the law. As a candidate for state representative I will seek to implement actual consequences such as immediate removal from office of any person who willingly and knowingly violates the separation of powers or the laws of this state.
Any person who works for the state of NH should know their actions have consequences and whether done for political or personal gain or to limit the powers of the legislature we will not turn a blind eye. Appointed or hired personnel working for the Executive Branch have no authority to violate the constitution, even if ordered by their superiors.

 

[OfficerObie59]

So ...if you were a MA resident and were deemed unsuitable by your previous towns CoP and unable to get an LTC,then move to NH you have to answer yes?

Oh boy.

I think, as worded, EVERYONE, has to answer yes.

I didn't read it that way. Suitability in MA isn't prohibition by a law or regulation--i.e., a statutory disqualifier. It's prohibition by a Chief's determination.

 

[exo]

I didn't read it that way. Suitability in MA isn't prohibition by a law or regulation--i.e., a statutory disqualifier. It's prohibition by a Chief's determination.

But the MA law gives the chief discretionary authority to issue a LTC. If he determines you are unsuitable, you don't get the LTC. By the fact of not having a LTC, you are prohibited from possessing a firearm.

"Has ANY state or federal agency or licensing authority ever CLAIMED that you are prohibited by law or regulation from possessing a firearm? "

 

[knoxy]

I didn't read it that way. Suitability in MA isn't prohibition by a law or regulation--i.e., a statutory disqualifier. It's prohibition by a Chief's determination.

Reasonable people might not read it that way, but I'm pretty sure, if I carry guns around in MA, MD, NY, or NJ, the way I do in NH, I would become a felon.

Given that it's a yes/no question, the only lawful way to answer is yes.

 

[Nick Fury]

IMO They are not trying to solve a problem but create one. Think about this, How many will not answer that question with a yes because they think that it does not apply to them or their circumstance? Then it is found out to be a false statement made under the pains and penalties of perjury. Like I said Prohibited Person status, now no guns.

This is it exactly. The same reasoning applies to the modified gun laws that Ma is either choking on or swallowing depending who is asked.

 

[OfficerObie59]

But the MA law gives the chief discretionary authority to issue a LTC. If he determines you are unsuitable, you don't get the LTC. By the fact of not having a LTC, you are prohibited from possessing a firearm.

Yes, but he's not making that determination based on what a law says--rather, only based upon his own determination. It's irreverent that such a power to deny comes from a statute. Prohibited by law = law says no. Suitability = Chief says no.

I see what you're getting at and while I think it's a plausible interpretation, when we talk about "prohibited by law or regulation from possessing a firearm", we're talking PP territory--as in "operation of law"--not pursuant to law.

Let me try putting this another way: Say my LTC gets revoked for suitability, but I had an FID card that (up until last week) was not revokable. What then?

Whatever the case, this potential confusion should be fodder for arguments of you NH folk.

 

[OfficerObie59]

Reasonable people might not read it that way, but I'm pretty sure, if I carry guns around in MA, MD, NY, or NJ, the way I do in NH, I would become a felon.

Given that it's a yes/no question, the only lawful way to answer is yes.

Except that posession and carrying are two different things.

 

[mikem317]

My public statement on FB:

So was RSA 541-a violated? Probably a good time to send an email to my senator (Reagan). He's very pro 2A.

 

[knoxy]

Except that posession and carrying are two different things.

Same difference in the point I was making. Your MA semantics mean nothing to me.

 

[browncoat]

My public statement on FB:

So is there a ombudsman or something in NH to take this up with?

 

[soloman02]

So is there a ombudsman or something in NH to take this up with?

At the moment, that would be the AG. However I am not aware of any statute that the AG could use to punish a department commissioner for violating this statute.

At current moment, the only "action" that can be taken for violating 541-a is as follows:

541-A:23 Remedies for Procedural Failures. –
I. The following shall prevent a rule from taking effect:
(a) Failure to file with the director of legislative services;
(b) Failure to file with the committee;
(c) Failure to respond to an objection of the committee as required by RSA 541-A:13, V; or
(d) Failure to receive approval of the committee for a proposed interim rule, as required by RSA 541-A:19, X.
II. The following shall not affect the validity of a rule:
(a) Inadvertent failure to make required assurances relating to an incorporation by reference;
(b) Failure to certify that all procedures required by this chapter have been satisfied;
(c) Failure to meet the style requirements of RSA 541-A:7; or
(d) Inadvertent failure to mail notice or copies of any rule.
III. For other violations of this chapter, the court may fashion appropriate relief.
IV. An action to contest the validity of a rule for noncompliance with any of the provisions of this chapter other than those listed in paragraph I shall be commenced within one year after the effective date of the rule. Such actions shall be brought in the Merrimack county superior court.

Meaning, you gotta pony up money for an attorney, assuming you have standing.

And if the department decides to enforce the rule anyway, then what?

Currently the only way to force the DoS to follow the law (submit the rule/form change to JLCAR for review) is through the courts (or Article 10 but that should be avoided).

While the AG (appointed by Hassan) did go after Hassan for the illegal campaign contribution from a union, he only did so after the NHGOP heavily went after Hassan and got the mainstream press involved.

I think it is also time to rethink how the AG is appointed. The AG needs to be non-partisan and not beholden to any governor. The AG needs to be separate from the partisan process of the governor and legislature. Over time, the AG position has become partisan, and will "look the other way" when the party they affiliate with is in power.

 

[Kevin_NH]

I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, all of my statements are true

IMO They are not trying to solve a problem but create one. Think about this, How many will not answer that question with a yes because they think that it does not apply to them or their circumstance? Then it is found out to be a false statement made under the pains and penalties of perjury. Like I said Prohibited Person status, now no guns.

The situation is not as dire as that, the form itself states

I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, all of my statements are true, correct, complete and made in good faith.

So no, not perjury.

 

[knoxy]

The situation is not as dire as that, the form itself states


So no, not perjury.

Perhaps not, but are you cool with pointless, poorly worded questions being added to gov't forms without oversight? Do you underestimate the dishonest, vindictive nature of political hacks?

We're best served by nipping this sh!t in the bud.

 

[browncoat]

At the moment, that would be the AG. However I am not aware of any statute that the AG could use to punish a department commissioner for violating this statute.

At current moment, the only "action" that can be taken for violating 541-a is as follows:




Meaning, you gotta pony up money for an attorney, assuming you have standing.

And if the department decides to enforce the rule anyway, then what?

Currently the only way to force the DoS to follow the law (submit the rule/form change to JLCAR for review) is through the courts (or Article 10 but that should be avoided).

While the AG (appointed by Hassan) did go after Hassan for the illegal campaign contribution from a union, he only did so after the NHGOP heavily went after Hassan and got the mainstream press involved.

I think it is also time to rethink how the AG is appointed. The AG needs to be non-partisan and not beholden to any governor. The AG needs to be separate from the partisan process of the governor and legislature. Over time, the AG position has become partisan, and will "look the other way" when the party they affiliate with is in power.

Would an organization like Pro-Gun NH have standing for a case like that?

 

[falcon123]

Yes. I held one once. It was somebody else's. It had their name on it.

Btw, I'd like it back.