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

[WatchCityCPA]

So now we have Cohen, of PGNH bashing Susan Olsen (who like I said earlier is a very good activist).



http://pgnh.org/oh_my_god_a_state_g...of_our_gun_rights_note_two_exclamation_points

Since the time I started writing this and got a break from work to finish this, the article has been pulled down.

The low down is that Sam Cohen wrote this attack piece without consulting the rest of PGNH.

It seems like, because Cohen and Sweeney are friends, that Cohen believed Sweeney when he said nothing is wrong. Note, in the attack piece, Cohen never once mentions the other two questions nor addresses how this change was made illegally.

Something smells fishy at the DoS. I never heard back from Sweeney on the other issues that PD's are pulling with regard to licensing (extra forms, photocopies of ID, etc) and as far as I know that is still occurring (in fact I just found out about another town requiring a photocopy of your ID).

At this point I am of the opinion that Sweeney (a PGNH Senior Advisor) has turned and is no longer an ally.

Just Sweeney? I want nothing to do with PGNH after their support of SB244 - if you have not seen the PGNH testimony on SB244, please find the video and do so.

As I said before, at that session PGNH acted as Nappen's business development group - they supported SB244, which would have created more work for firearm lawyers while hurting innocent people in the process.

See post 18 in the thread below for my immediate reaction to that testimony:

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/235685-NH-call-these-senators-before-Tues-Jan-14

And post 28 in the thread above for Nappen's testimony.

More background:

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...alth-Study-Committee-Senate-Votes-on-March-27

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...s-Anyone-Know-Who-This-Article-is-Refering-To

 

[RadiCS]

Not sure how I miss this but I emailed my reps.

Contact info:
Commissioner’s Office: 603-223-3889
Assistant Commissioner’s Office: 603-223-3888
Administrative Supervisor: 603-223-3888

 

[WatchCityCPA]

I'm not saying the situation is good, I'm just saying it's not as horrifically bad as some people like to make it out to be. One jetliner falls out of the sky, and certain subsets of the community love to run around screaming the sky is falling.

I think this is much ado about nothing, but there is no harm in questioning the appearance of this verbiage or getting people to demand that it be cleaned up. A good question is "Why is this being added to the form?" I don't really think it serves any purpose other than another place someone can **** up the application by not understanding the question. It smells of obstructionism- even if the box applies to no one, making the application more intimidating can deter people from even applying.


Cohen's retardo response to all this does speak volumes though- to the level of dysfunction between the pro gun groups in NH. It's readily apparent to me that too many cooks in the kitchen is ****ing things up and is not helping anything.


-Mike

Hmm... some people seem to think that unelected bureaucrats trying to effectively change the laws using improper regulations and violating existing laws and regulations in the process is no big deal.

Shocked at the people who express that opinion. We have a legislature for a reason... and the legislature was not asked for approval as the current procedures require to. Dirty politics are being used to hurt us all, and people think it's no big deal.

Of course it is a big deal - it opens the door for future abuses, and sets important precedents that will be used to further erode the legislature's control over the executive.

Congratulations on doing your small part in enabling this outrageous abuse.

 

[browncoat]

Hmm... some people seem to think that unelected bureaucrats trying to effectively change the laws using improper regulations and violating existing laws and regulations in the process is no big deal.

Shocked at the people who express that opinion. We have a legislature for a reason... and the legislature was not asked for approval as the current procedures require to. Dirty politics are being used to hurt us all, and people think it's no big deal.

Of course it is a big deal - it opens the door for future abuses, and sets important precedents that will be used to further erode the legislature's control over the executive.

Congratulations on doing your small part in enabling this outrageous abuse.

Yup, it is pretty sad that a gun rights organization came out with such a terrible statement. The "not very infringed" type of argument should only be coming from antis IMHO

 

[soloman02]

Here is the opinion of a former NH senator associated with PGNH on this form change (BTW, he does not agree with how Sam Cohen handled this, which is why the post has been removed, frankly, Cohen doing that is a "fireable" worth offense IMHO. We will see if Cohen stays with PGNH, I have been told the current president is on the "warpath" as a result of this):

The form is meant to stop out of staters from getting a license. I had to get a Mass State Police report because my first 10 or 12 years were in Mass or I couldn't get a CCL. The state troopers were happy to say as a juvenile I had not been convicted if any crimes preclude my right to carry. Imagine with this new question how may letters you will need......

Question posed: "what do you mean? I was here only a couple of months and got my pistol license. I didn't have to get anything from MA to show my Chief"

At one time long ago they would only give ccl to people who lived here and born here. It was a long time ago I was in my 20's. I was so proud to present them with a letter saying as a 10 year old I had no adult record. I can see the current form changes on both the resident and non resident as an attempt to go back to that system. You cant say no to the question. So they ask you to present letters from any agency or state you may have dealt with to show you are ok. How many will be so disheartened with the process they just say forget it

there is a current case where Evan Nappen has sued over the non resident form. That form was also changed without proper process. This change is just another example of the departments current behavior

As you can see, this is a direct attack on the licensing process.

 

[Mark from MA]

Actually there is Much ado about something. The law in New Hampshire requires a review and approval process for these forms. To our knowledge at this time that process has not been followed. By staying on top these people following the law it lets them know that we are not going allow this kind of behavior.

+1

I believe any change in verbage of any gun law should be watched carefully and questioned to the fullest extent. No matter how trivial it seems. Words in law have meaning, and sliding little changes in is the way to take the slow boat to becoming a shithole like MA. If people bitch, they know people are paying attention. Obama ass kissers are infiltrated in every corner of the country and the word is out to stop gun ownership by any means possible.

 

[noxin]

I hate to ask this, but for someone applying for a P&R in NH, what's the correct response to this question?

I am not a felon nor have I ever been denied a LTC, in fact, I have several that have been issued to me.

 

[Mr Weebles]

Since the time I started writing this and got a break from work to finish this, the article has been pulled down.

A new version is up as of 7:00 PM.

 

[Bonesinium]

A new version is up as of 7:00 PM.

The new post is what he should have posted in the first place. I don't even know why he posted the originally.

 

[Mr Weebles]

The new post is what he should have posted in the first place. I don't even know why he posted the originally.

Because he's a dick.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Because he's a dick.

While him being a dick isn't in question (based on last nights "snafu" and him being a proponent of SB244 among other reasons), I have a feeling that this is the proverbial "tip of the iceberg" in regards to "back alley" deals and corruption that has seeped in NH politics.
As Soloman pointed out earlier in this thread, the current NH administration and some in the legislative branch have taken into their own hands to "do something" and will bend and/or break rules and regulations to further any agenda they see fit.
Remember, they tried breaking the rules on the RE tax to cement that bills passing. Thankfully, they were caught.

 

[drgrant]

Hmm... some people seem to think that unelected bureaucrats trying to effectively change the laws using improper regulations and violating existing laws and regulations in the process is no big deal.

I don't see anyone changing the law, I see bureaucrats mucking with a form. It still doesn't effectively change who is and isn't allowed to get a license. It does introduce obstructionist crap, however, which may or may not interfere with someones ability to obtain a license... and that is, obviously, a problem, particularly the first question. The other two are really just redundant/pointless. (A Fed PP isn't eligible for a P/R license anyways, so its a trick question, and god only knows why they are asking if someone had a resident P/R).

Shocked at the people who express that opinion. We have a legislature for a reason... and the legislature was not asked for approval as the current procedures require to. Dirty politics are being used to hurt us all, and people think it's no big deal.

Unless the penalty for violating the procedure is a disabling felony (or some other "resume generating event" like a mandatory 90 day suspension from duty, without pay) it's pretty much toothless. Someone might want to change that. Rules without serious penalties work great at a ballgame but they're pretty stupid/pointless in government. Unless tyrants feel pain, or fear repercussions, they will not stop what they're doing.

Of course it is a big deal - it opens the door for future abuses, and sets important precedents that will be used to further erode the legislature's control over the executive.

All I gotta say about that is- if the legislature spelled out the application IN THE LAW this wouldn't be happening. (or it would fail on the first court challenge where someone opted out of answering or filling out the illegal portions of the form). The entire contents of the application could be wedged into a small paragraph in RSA 159. Instead we have a situation where they've given latitude to some administrative entity to **** with the application as they please. Eventual abuse is practically a given, even in NH. All it takes is one bad person.

Congratulations on doing your small part in enabling this outrageous abuse.

Yeah I enabled the people responsible to act like douchebags, whatever you say... that's a hoot.


-Mike

 

[WatchCityCPA]

I don't see anyone changing the law, I see bureaucrats mucking with a form. It still doesn't effectively change who is and isn't allowed to get a license. ...

First part - the law is effectively changed if the bureaucracy is allowed to interpret it differently. You are hiding behind an irrelevant distinction to avoid admitting you are wrong.


On the bold part: of course it does - it is an illegaly added perjury trap that can be used to deny a license to an otherwise qualified person for "lying" on the form, or to create even more requirements that will discourage people from going through with the process.

Unless the penalty for violating the procedure is a disabling felony (or some other "resume generating event" like a mandatory 90 day suspension from duty, without pay) it's pretty much toothless. Someone might want to change that. Rules without serious penalties work great at a ballgame but they're pretty stupid/pointless in government. Unless tyrants feel pain, or fear repercussions, they will not stop what they're doing.

No need for a felony - fire the people who cannot be bothered to respect the law. Since it's unlikely Maggie disapproves of this particular breaking of the law, no action will be taken against them, so we have one more reason to change the head of the executive branch - failing to control its underlings.

All I gotta say about that is- if the legislature spelled out the application IN THE LAW this wouldn't be happening. (or it would fail on the first court challenge where someone opted out of answering or filling out the illegal portions of the form). The entire contents of the application could be wedged into a small paragraph in RSA 159. Instead we have a situation where they've given latitude to some administrative entity to **** with the application as they please. Eventual abuse is practically a given, even in NH. All it takes is one bad person.

Yes, the legislature could have spelled the law better - this does not make it OK (or no big deal) when evil people try to abuse that failing, breaking the law in the process.


The bold part is bullshit - it takes way more than one bad person to abuse the law... the fix needs to be in a bunch of places before it works. Stopping it early, before it reaches the critical mass needed to work is critical, despite ignorant people who claim this opening move is no big deal.

Yeah I enabled the people responsible to act like douchebags, whatever you say... that's a hoot.
-Mike

I know you think you did not... but you are actively helping them break the rule of law by insisting this is no big deal. It's a free country, so feel free to continue. Just don't expect much respect from the NES members after digging in your heels instead of having the guts to admit that you made a mistake.


I have no interest in hijacking this thread any further, so I will stop posting on this particular topic until we can continue this discussion in person at the first opportunity, whether it's an NES event or you happen to be around Londonderry or Pelham. Feel free to PM me if you are around - would love to talk to you about this or anything else that is relevant.

 

[drgrant]

First part - the law is effectively changed if the bureaucracy is allowed to interpret it differently. You are hiding behind an irrelevant distinction to avoid admitting you are wrong.

It's not actually a "law change" if it doesn't withstand a legal challenge. (and these changes likely won't, particularly the first question). The question itself strains credulity and fails a "reasonable person" test. It's pretty obvious to me that question is there more to deter application (by confusing people who over think such things) than it is as an actual statutory trap of some sort.

On the bold part: of course it does - it is an illegaly added perjury trap that can be used to deny a license to an otherwise qualified person for "lying" on the form, or to create even more requirements that will discourage people from going through with the process.

Does NH even have such a thing for a P/R application? I know MA does. Remember the verbiage on the application itself "to the best of one's ability" or somesuch. It does not sound as absolute as the MA perjury trap. Obviously the obstructionism issue is still a big problem. Honestly that concerns me more than any perjury trap (real or imaginary, I think mostly imaginary) here does. Most people who actually bother to apply will not have a problem. It's the ones that get intimidated by shitty questions that concern me. Most of us can see through the bullshit; but joe average on the other hand may be intimidated by such questions, even though they obviously don't apply to him. The longer the app is it has a potential "chilling effect" of reducing the number of applicants.

No need for a felony - fire the people who cannot be bothered to respect the law. Since it's unlikely Maggie disapproves of this particular breaking of the law, no action will be taken against them, so we have one more reason to change the head of the executive branch - failing to control its underlings.

There's always a need for a Felony. Nobody in power will have the ****ing balls to actually fire someone, so the law must be brought against them. God knows THEY use enough of the ****ing things against us. **** them for a change. They should be held liable for violating the rights of the people. It means you can get a court (Judciary) (a better chance than asking another politician to do it) to actually hold someone accountable, and there's no question about what the law says and how serious it is. There's no stupid **** deciding that she's not going to play politics and not punish someone, or anything like that. The court will punish them instead.

Yes, the legislature could have spelled the law better - this does not make it OK (or no big deal) when evil people try to abuse that failing, breaking the law in the process.

It does make it their fault, though. They allowed this to happen by not constraining the state or its actors. Poorly written laws with no "end caps" on them, lead to these kinds of problems, particularly concerning civil rights.

The bold part is bullshit - it takes way more than one bad person to abuse the law... the fix needs to be in a bunch of places before it works. Stopping it early, before it reaches the critical mass needed to work is critical, despite ignorant people who claim this opening move is no big deal.

History has shown time and time again "it only takes one" in a lot of cases. In this case it happens to be whoever is the person with the authority to publish those documents.

I have no interest in hijacking this thread any further, so I will stop posting on this particular topic until we can continue this discussion in person at the first opportunity, whether it's an NES event or you happen to be around Londonderry or Pelham. Feel free to PM me if you are around - would love to talk to you about this or anything else that is relevant.

I think you misconstrued my statement- II think it's much ado about nothing because I honestly don't believe it's going to get anywhere. It isn't going to be long before this gets crushed, through some means or another. It's going to die either from you guys or other people making noise about it, or worse case (or maybe Best?) someone taking the state to court over it based off a feeble denial. This isn't much different than the same brand/type of administrative faggotry that NH pulls every third year where they get wishy washy about whether or not they're going to reject nonres PR license apps based on whether or not someone has a restricted MA LTC. (of course if the legislature wants to actually deal with this properly, they could pretty much kill all these issues in one shot by codifying some stuff in RSA 159, make it immutable and be done with it. ) If the legislature puts the state in a cage (or better yet, deregulates the carry and possession of handguns by non-felons at least) then the whole issue becomes moot, of course.

I'm done with this thread/topic regardless, other than being a spectator on what happens down the road. I think it will be resolved one way or another, the only question mark is the "how".

-Mike

 

[design]

Landrigan

Monday, August 11, 2014

Gun lobby fired up over new licensing query

The gun owners lobby is hopping mad at the state Department of Safety after issuing effective Aug. 1 a new form for those applying for the right to own a pistol or a revolver.

Their beef: The permit asks applicants the following, yes or no, question:

“Has any state or federal agency or licensing authority ever claimed that you are prohibited by law or regulation from possessing a firearm?”

State Rep. J.R. Hoell, R-Dunbarton, said the question is vague, open to interpretation and can’t even be accurately answered.

“How do you know if there ever was a question about your right to possess that you never knew existed? It’s like asking someone if anyone ever accused you of kicking your dog?” Hoell said.

“What if you had a neighbor who didn’t like you complain he saw you kicking the dog? You never did, nothing ever came of it, but somehow your application is now prejudiced because of some baseless, faceless accusation. It makes no sense and could have a chilling effect on people.”

Hoell said there’s no evidence the Joint Legislative Administrative Rules Committee ever approved any rule for a resident permit/revolver license; only a form for non-resident requests.

Assistant Safety Commissioner Earle Sweeney agreed to look into the matter and see how this change to the application came about.

“We’ve since learned this is the second iteration of this form which went from bad to worse from a Second Amendment point of view,” Hoell said.

Translation: At the very least, look for the gun lobby to aggressively pursue “corrective” legislation in the 2015 that makes the Department of Safety get rules if not full legislative approval for any such changes in the future.

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news...76/gun-lobby-fired-up-over-new-licensing.html

 

[exo]

applying for the right to own a pistol or a revolver.

That's not what the NH P&R does... sigh.

 

[WatchCityCPA]

That's not what the NH P&R does... sigh.

+1 - Good catch. Email to the editor sent asking for an immediate correction.

 

[Mr Weebles]

My FOIA request was received by the DoS on Friday, August 8.

The clock is ticking ...

 

[Kevin_NH]

No need to overthink this when filling out the NH P&R paperwork, just say no.

I am up for renewal soon, and intend to answer "No" to this question, ignoring all the hand-wringing in this forum about a trick question. To the best of my knowledge and belief, I have never been personally notified of a specific objection by a state or federal agency or licensing authority claiming that I am prohibited by law or regulation from possessing a firearm.

I hate to ask this, but for someone applying for a P&R in NH, what's the correct response to this question? I am not a felon nor have I ever been denied a LTC, in fact, I have several that have been issued to me.

IMHO, the correct response for you is "No".

 

[soloman02]

I am up for renewal soon, and intend to answer "No" to this question, ignoring all the hand-wringing in this forum about a trick question. To the best of my knowledge and belief, I have never been personally notified of a specific objection by a state or federal agency or licensing authority claiming that I am prohibited by law or regulation from possessing a firearm.


IMHO, the correct response for you is "No".

You do have to answer yes to the last question though. And then explain why on the back.

 

[soloman02]

From the New Hampshire Firearms Coalition:

As I write this letter, your rights are under direct attack. Without notice, and without prior solicitation of comments from the public, a bureaucrat in Concord has exceeded his statutory authority, and added new requirements to the New Hampshire pistol/revolver (concealed carry) licensing process.

In the past, we have warned you about legislative proposals that give too much discretionary power to bureaucrats because they are unaccountable to the electorate. It’s why we’ve fought so hard for things like “shall issue” licensing, and it’s why we ask you to attend committee hearings in Concord, to provide legislators with the perspective of the law-abiding gun owner.

But we live in troubling times, where lawlessness and disregard for established procedures have become the rule. You see, cynical politicians – taking their lead from President Obama and the Chicago-style tactics he’s applied in Washington – have decided that “with a phone and a pen”, and without legislative authority, they can instead just make up the rules as they go along. It disgusts me to report that this brand of lawlessness has now reached all the way to Concord.

Last week, three new questions mysteriously appeared on the NH Pistol & Revolver License application form – two of which are irrelevant to the statute, and invite rogue police chiefs to deny permits for flimsy, insubstantial reasons.

Did the TSA ever mistake you for someone on one of the terrorism watch lists? Were you ever denied a pistol license in California or New York because the police chief didn’t think you “needed” to carry a gun? Did you forget to write down the details of a Massachusetts pistol license you had back in the 80s? If so, with these changes to the application form, a New Hampshire police department could deny your application – even though none of these disqualifies you from receiving a license under the law.

And it gets worse, the previous application contained this on the back:

"Applicants not prohibited under federal or NH law from possession of a firearm shall be deemed suitable persons and the license shall be issued unless the applicant is so prohibited from possessing a firearm. The burden is on the licensing entity to prove by clear and convincing proof that the applicant is so prohibited from possessing a firearm."

Removing this clear explanation from the form puts the applicant in the dark, and opens the door for rogue anti-gun police chiefs to unfairly deny applications in contravention of the law.

We have to draw a line, and we have to do it now. The lawlessness must stop. We have to send a message to the bureaucrats in Concord, that we will not abide this attempt at enacting their own gun control agenda – least of all, without notice, public comment, or statutory authority!

We need you to call the Commissioner of the New Hampshire Department of Safety, John J. Barthelmes and demand the prior pistol and revolver license application – the one that has helped make New Hampshire one of the safest places in the country and the world – be immediately reinstated.

603-223-3889 or email by clicking here

Also call your Executive Councilor, and express your frustration and dismay that the Commissioner would undertake to make such sweeping changes without advance notice and without first seeking public comment.

Finally, call (603)271-2121 and email Governor Maggie Hassan, the Department of Safety is accountable to the executive branch of state government. Please be polite and firm but insist that the previous form be reinstated.

In Liberty,
Jonathan R Evans
Jonathan R. Evans, Esq.
President - NHFC

 

[jdgill]

From the New Hampshire Firearms Coalition:

Auto-response from Cindy Barlow when I emailed her on this subject yesterday .

"I will be out of the office for an undetermined amount of time, beginning Monday, August 11. If you need assistance please contact Nancy Cassidy at 223-3889. Thank you, Cindy Barlow"

Convenient absence I would say.

 

[soloman02]

Auto-response from Cindy Barlow when I emailed her on this subject yesterday .

"I will be out of the office for an undetermined amount of time, beginning Monday, August 11. If you need assistance please contact Nancy Cassidy at 223-3889. Thank you, Cindy Barlow"

Convenient absence I would say.

Yes it is convenient, but I found the commissioners email

Have at it. But remember, please be polite. Your point will be far more effective. I will post my email to him shortly as I am still in the drafting stage.

Here it is: [email protected]

 

[soloman02]

And now for my email. Note, if you have ever had a restraining order levied against you, then you do have to answer yes to the question "Has any state or federal agency or licensing authority ever claimed that you are prohibited by law or regulation from possessing a firearm?" Because the court did at one time claim you were prohibited. The fact that your rights were restored after the RO expired or was lifted is not addressed by the question.

Dear Commissioner John J. Barthelmes,

I am writing to express my great displeasure with the department and yourself, regarding the recent changes to the resident pistol and revolver license application. The following questions,

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

Are incredibly vague and seem designed to be purposely confusing. For example, there are cases whereby former Massachusetts residents have been prohibited according to Massachusetts laws/regulations from possessing a firearm but are not prohibited federally. Thus even though this person can pass a federal background check, they would have to answer yes to the first question and possibly be denied.
In another example, a person who has a temporary restraining order levied against them (and in Massachusetts this is now exceedingly easy) is prohibited from possessing a firearm. Restraining orders are exceedingly common in divorce cases (and usually based of false accusations). The way the first question is worded does not allow for the fact that the restraining order was only temporary in duration because a government agency (the police/court) did at one time claim said person was prohibited. They would have to answer yes to this question.

Further, if the individuals in the above scenarios answered no, they would likely be committing perjury.

Finally on the last new question,

"Have you held a resident pistol/revolver license before?"

This is an utterly inane question. Why? Because the form already has two places whereby the applicant informs the licensing authority that they have held a license previously.

I can only conclude that these three questions were added in order to further trip up applicants or to dissuade potential applicants from exercising their right to bear arms under the federal and New Hampshire constitutions. Constitutions that you swore to uphold upon taking the office of commissioner.

Lastly, this change to the form was done illegally. RSA 541-a states that changes to all forms must be presented to and approved by the Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules. If someone above you ordered these changes made, I express my displeasure that "following orders" was seen as more important than following the law. I will always stand up for any public servant, appointed or otherwise who is willing to publicly stand up and follow the law in the face of a contrary order.

As a citizen of New Hampshire I demand that the Department of Safety and yourself, as commissioner, follow the law and not only revert to the previous (and legal) resident pistol revolver application, but that the police departments across the state also be informed of this reversion to the previous legal form.

Thank you for attending to this matter.

Sincerely,

 

[Prepper]

Well done email, Soloman.

Since I moved out of MA and thus invalidated my resident LTC, I imagine I'd have to answer Yes to that question.

 

[mikem317]

Man, more email to send...

 

[soloman02]

Another interesting tidbit from Susan Olsen:

Musta been a mad dash for Non-Resident Pistol / Revolver Licenses!

"...the Department just didn't have enough time to try to seek some legislation..." - Marta Modigliani, Esq. for the Department of Safety.

A small tidbit from the April 19 2013 JLCAR hearings on changes to the NON-resident pistol / revolver license application.

Funny thing, though, there appears to be absolutely NO history of rule-making on RESIDENT pistol/revolver licenses. And despite his assurances, I've not heard anything from the Deputy Commissioner of Safety.

Oddly, the DoS feels the need to submit changes to the non-resident form to the JLCAR (except late last year WRT to non-residents with restrictions on their home state license) but has never felt the need to submit changes for the resident form to JLCAR.

Just because "its always been done that way" doesn't mean it should continue to be "done that way."

 

[DispositionMatrix]

And now for my email. Note, if you have ever had a restraining order levied against you, then you do have to answer yes to the question "Has any state or federal agency or licensing authority ever claimed that you are prohibited by law or regulation from possessing a firearm?" Because the court did at one time claim you were prohibited. The fact that your rights were restored after the RO expired or was lifted is not addressed by the question.

What is the goal of writing the commissioner?

 

[soloman02]

What is the goal of writing the commissioner?

To make him understand that he is in fact being watched. Even if the AG is whistling Dixie and not paying attention, we, the citizens are watching and paying attention.

It also makes it know that people are willing to take the time to call or write and gives the impression that the legislature may be compelled to act against him in some way.

Public opinion in NH still has an effect on the NH government bureaucracy (unlike DC in most cases). However, the bureaucracy will continue with its shenanigans unless that public opinion is made known to them.

 

[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.

Got a call today, I got accepted, no problems. I have to go by tomorrow morning to pick it up and pay my $10