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

[Quiet]

The reality is that legislatures can not respond quickly enough or well enough to write and update regulations. Regulations require too much detailed technical knowledge that neither the legislators nor their staffs can manage.

The base issue here, however, is not the regulator or the change in regulation. The base issue here is that NH law allows for discretion. The law needs to be changed and the place to do that is the legislature. That is where you should focus your energy.

There are some agencies that if they didn't have the authority to set regulations and had to have it done by legislation, many of our fish and wildlife species would be long gone or over populated, depending on the issue. I will agree that from my personal knowledge that the fish and game is very open to the use of public hearings and does so before implementing such regulations.

What we have here is an agency that failed to use the process that was required by law before changing the form.

Regulations should be required to come back before the legislature for approval. Screw the fish.

If the legislature is going to create all encompassing laws, they need to hire the staff necessary to work with the executive branch to at least fully review the regulations. Otherwise we get clusterscrews like deceptive trade practices laws used to stop consumers from buying things they want.

 

[M1911]

Regulations should be required to come back before the legislature for approval. Screw the fish.

So the legislature should have to vote on every change on every form?

If the legislature is going to create all encompassing laws, they need to hire the staff necessary to work with the executive branch to at least fully review the regulations.

Then the legislature would duplicate the subject matter experts on staff in the executive branch, thus massively increasing the size of government. Sure you want that?

 

[Quiet]

So you approve of the legislature making policy decisions dealing with biology that they have absolutely no knowledge of? WOW!! What state are you from again?

Where the frick do you think your magical executive branch gets that expertise, out of thin air? WTH?

I'm sorry, I'm from a state of mind that says the people's representatives make the laws, the rules. Move enough of the expertise out of the executive branch and into the legislative branch so that this usurpation of the people stops. Unless you actually like unelected bureaucrats changing forms and passing rules like ohhh, I dunno... "Has any federal or state agency ever claimed you have no right to fish?". What state are you from?

So the legislature should have to vote on every change on every form?



Then the legislature would duplicate the subject matter experts on staff in the executive branch, thus massively increasing the size of government. Sure you want that?

See above

 

[Bonesinium]

So you approve of the legislature making policy decisions dealing with biology that they have absolutely no knowledge of? WOW!! What state are you from again?

I'm not going to speak for Quiet, but having the people we elected to pass laws, pass laws, is exactly what should be done. If that means they use subject matter experts to write them, and then they themselves approve them, I don't see how that can be any worse then giving what often amounts to unfettered discretion to a bureaucrat on the issue.


That is not to mention, if the issues are dealing with things our legislators have "absolutely no knowledge of", either a)they need to get that knowledge, or b)this isn't likely an issue that requires them to create laws that everyone, including the rest of the population that in kind you would expect to have "absolutely no knowledge" of.


Either way, we elect and pay people to pass laws that apply to us. Bureaucrats being delegated power to create regulations that apply to their own agencies, not an issue. Bureaucrats having the power to create what amounts to laws that apply to the people, particularly on issues that as you say, we don't have knowledge of, that seems like just giving them the ability to do whatever they want. How would people no better? I mean, if they say it is for a good reason, that must be so...

But as M1911 correctly mentioned, this is another issue (as related to the thread topic). There are two bigger issues.

1. The issue of "a suitable person to be licensed".
2. The issue of requiring a license in the first place.

Both are issues that can be changed by our legislators.

 

[Bonesinium]

So the legislature should have to vote on every change on every form?

Yes, when that form is required by the legislature as the form required for a P&R license is. As an example, this is exactly the case in Maine for their conceal carry permit.

Then the legislature would duplicate the subject matter experts on staff in the executive branch, thus massively increasing the size of government. Sure you want that?

You are correct. That would be bad. I'm in favor of eliminating many of our current existing federal and state agencies/bureaucracies as it is. There are too many regulations already, many that serve little benefit besides generating revenue for the agency who made the regulation. Ripe with abuse.

 

[Quiet]

WOW just WOW!!!!

Try using big boy words...?

Oh wait, I see what you're saying now.


WOW!

 

[Quiet]

A little testy are we? So how is that legislature in MasShiTchusetts working out for you folks. They don't even honor a referendum that was passed by the people to reduce the income tax. They pass gun laws that you scream and yell that you do not want and now you are telling us in The State of New Hampshire how to fix our problems. Like I said WOW just WOW!!!

No, not testy at all. Just confused by your non-verbal grunts.

Just because every system ever devised is flawed and you can point to the failings of one example doesn't mean that another particular system isn't flawed.

The people of MA are getting what they want unfortunately for me. You are getting unelected douchebags writing regulations that are screwing you because the mob (popular) vote elected a douchebag executive.

I fail to see what is so "wow, just wow" about any of this discussion?

 

[Quiet]

We have one issue that is being addressed and this not a regulation, but failure to follow the process on altering a form. If you need to be spoon fed what WOW just WOW! means then I would have to say that you are truly a lost person.

Your process that requires changes to "executive functions" like creating a form in furtherance of regulations be returned to the legislature for approval? Is that what was violated?

 

[soloman02]

Regulations should be required to come back before the legislature for approval. Screw the fish.

If the legislature is going to create all encompassing laws, they need to hire the staff necessary to work with the executive branch to at least fully review the regulations. Otherwise we get clusterscrews like deceptive trade practices laws used to stop consumers from buying things they want.

So the legislature should have to vote on every change on every form?



Then the legislature would duplicate the subject matter experts on staff in the executive branch, thus massively increasing the size of government. Sure you want that?

Your process that requires changes to "executive functions" like creating a form in furtherance of regulations be returned to the legislature for approval? Is that what was violated?

Yes. We already have a legislative committee that is supposed to approve or deny all rule changes: JLCAR. The Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules. It is made up of 5 members from each body (with an equal number of alternates). So while the whole legislature does not approve rule changes, members from the legislature do.

This process was bypassed and according to the court has always been bypassed on the resident form.

 

[Quiet]

Yes. We already have a legislative committee that is supposed to approve or deny all rule changes: JLCAR. The Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules. It is made up of 5 members from each body (with an equal number of alternates). So while the whole legislature does not approve rule changes, members from the legislature do.

This process was bypassed and according to the court has always been bypassed on the resident form.

That's exactly what I thought we were talking about.

That's at least one approach of which I'd be in favor. No unelected bozo should be allowed to decide what fish is endangered or what gas is a pollutant or what person has 2A rights. Proposed rules have to come back to the legislature. I applaud NH for setting that up.

 

[Quiet]

It does not go through the whole legislature, just a committee. Big difference.

blah, blah, blah.

or as you say, "wow, just wow."

 

[snd1t]

That's exactly what I thought we were talking about.

That's at least one approach of which I'd be in favor. No unelected bozo should be allowed to decide what fish is endangered or what gas is a pollutant or what person has 2A rights. Proposed rules have to come back to the legislature. I applaud NH for setting that up.

Yes

JLCAR is better than unfettered ability to create rules but here's the problem with NOT forcing the entire legislature to vote on ALL Laws/Regs......you get executive agencies going rogue and ignoring the lawful process as they have done with the current form.

Who knows what other rules have been similarly put into effect without following JLCAR

Its time for the Leg to repeal ALL rule making auth and force all laws/rules to go to committee for citizens to comment on/etc just like any law and then go to vote in each house and if passed on to the Gov.

There is NOTHING that is soooooo urgent that it shouldn't follow this process.........if we continue to allow this then we deserve the tyranny it brings

 

[soloman02]

Oh FFS people. Can't we just get along?

Yes

JLCAR is better than unfettered ability to create rules but here's the problem with NOT forcing the entire legislature to vote on ALL Laws/Regs......you get executive agencies going rogue and ignoring the lawful process as they have done with the current form.

Who knows what other rules have been similarly put into effect without following JLCAR

Its time for the Leg to repeal ALL rule making auth and force all laws/rules to go to committee for citizens to comment on/etc just like any law and then go to vote in each house and if passed on to the Gov.

There is NOTHING that is soooooo urgent that it shouldn't follow this process.........if we continue to allow this then we deserve the tyranny it brings

You don't know what you are talking about. You want to fix what is not broken. I agree about fixing what is broken, You just want to throw everything into chaos.

Anyway, there is a solution that doesn't require a big change. The first is to make there be actual consequences for the department head that violates JLCAR rules. Consequences such as immediate removal from office (department heads are appointed and sworn positions, they take the same oath an elected official does), forfeiting of any state pension they earned as a result of their appointed position. If they already had a pension, any gains made while appointed are forfeit. I'd be open to having them forfeit the entire state pension. Also barring them from holding any public office again in NH, at any level. Breaking the public trust (by breaking the law) is a serious offense and deserves a serious punishment.

I'm sure we could think of other punishments (remember they can't violate the 8th amendment) but the above are a good start.

The second change would be to allow any citizen to present their case in superior court that said appointed department head has violated the law.

Oh and make it so that the excuse "I'm just following orders" is not valid, explicitly listed in statute. There is no excuse to knowingly and/or willingly violating statute or the constitution.

These changes would IMHO stop the department heads from overreaching, and it would (hopefully) give them the stones to tell the governor to "pound sand" when the governor wanted them to break the law.

I'm sure there are other things we can do along these lines, this is just something I quickly came up with.

 

[drgrant]

Oh FFS people. Can't we just get along?

This. Enough with the retardo-grade bickering folks.

-Mike

 

[snd1t]

You don't know what you are talking about. You want to fix what is not broken. I agree about fixing what is broken, You just want to throw everything into chaos.

The Chaos is the tyranny that out of control bureaucracy foists on us via rules that carry weight of law without following the constitutional process for PASSING a law.

Forcing all rules to follow the lawful/constitutionally proscribed process for passage will restore ORDER and protect the rights of Citizens

 

[snd1t]

Anyway, there is a solution that doesn't require a big change. The first is to make there be actual consequences for the department head that violates JLCAR rules. Consequences such as immediate removal from office (department heads are appointed and sworn positions, they take the same oath an elected official does), forfeiting of any state pension they earned as a result of their appointed position. If they already had a pension, any gains made while appointed are forfeit. I'd be open to having them forfeit the entire state pension. Also barring them from holding any public office again in NH, at any level. Breaking the public trust (by breaking the law) is a serious offense and deserves a serious punishment.

I'm sure we could think of other punishments (remember they can't violate the 8th amendment) but the above are a good start.

The second change would be to allow any citizen to present their case in superior court that said appointed department head has violated the law.

Oh and make it so that the excuse "I'm just following orders" is not valid, explicitly listed in statute. There is no excuse to knowingly and/or willingly violating statute or the constitution.

These changes would IMHO stop the department heads from overreaching, and it would (hopefully) give them the stones to tell the governor to "pound sand" when the governor wanted them to break the law.

I'm sure there are other things we can do along these lines, this is just something I quickly came up with.

Agreed that there need to be harsh penalties for stunts like what has happened with current form but the SIMPLEST solution is to strip agencies of all rule making auth and require all proposed rules to follow same process as bills

This will ensure that they follow same committee process that bills follow and provide opportunity for citizens to support/oppose and the gov to chime in with a veto

We have rules/regs coming out of our arses as it stands......the legislature should be REPEALING rules/cumbersome laws not instituting MORE

 

[exo]

Did anyone find out if the old form received legislative approval via JLCAR?

 

[soloman02]

Agreed that there need to be harsh penalties for stunts like what has happened with current form but the SIMPLEST solution is to strip agencies of all rule making auth and require all proposed rules to follow same process as bills

This will ensure that they follow same committee process that bills follow and provide opportunity for citizens to support/oppose and the gov to chime in with a veto

We have rules/regs coming out of our arses as it stands......the legislature should be REPEALING rules/cumbersome laws not instituting MORE

Should be repealing, yes. But you know as well as I do that the nature of the beast is to repeal some on occasion and pass lots more.

By requiring that all rule making occur via the whole legislature, you will force the legislature to be in session year round.

As you are well aware, when the legislature is actually in session more often, they can enact more bad laws. It will also increase calls for the legislators to be paid as if it were a full time job (AKA like in Mass where they get $60Kish a year). Something that will utterly destroy NH and will turn it into Mass much faster than the present course.

- - - Updated - - -

Did anyone find out if the old form received legislative approval via JLCAR?

According to the NHSC, it was never approved by JLCAR.

 

[snd1t]

By requiring that all rule making occur via the whole legislature, you will force the legislature to be in session year round.

No,

By requiring all rule making to follow the legislative process you force the legislature to stick to only the issues that are important.

NH does not have a professional legislature like other states do........legislators only have soooo much stomach for the bullschtein that goes on in Concord......this is why it is self limiting

 

[CrackPot]

You don't know what you are talking about. You want to fix what is not broken. I agree about fixing what is broken, You just want to throw everything into chaos.

GODA

Gun Owners Demand Action

Clearly not your typical libertarian gun owner...

 

[snd1t]

According to the NHSC, it was never approved by JLCAR.

Without a paper trail demonstrating that I wont hold my breath....NHSC has pulled a bunch of nuggets out of their arses in recent years and is just as much a rogue branch of gov as the DoS is in this case

 

[soloman02]

The DoS has updated the form again.

http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/nhsp/ssb/permitslicensing/documents/dssp85.pdf

They removed all the new questions. However, per the court order, the definition of suitable is no longer on the back.

Frankly, this is the best outcome until the legislature meets again, assuming we have enough control fix the law.

I am currently pessimistic on recapturing the governor and I see that enthusiasm is way down since the party elite "anointed" candidates won. That does not bode well for the general.

 

[Bonesinium]

The DoS has updated the form again.

http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/nhsp/ssb/permitslicensing/documents/dssp85.pdf

They removed all the new questions. However, per the court order, the definition of suitable is no longer on the back.

Frankly, this is the best outcome until the legislature meets again, assuming we have enough control fix the law.

I am currently pessimistic on recapturing the governor and I see that enthusiasm is way down since the party elite "anointed" candidates won. That does not bode well for the general.

Good. That is correctly the way it should have been.

 

[Duece]

This was something I posted to FB on 9/10, I emailed and made a few phone calls on this well and while a couple acknowledged my inquiry, he went out of his way to call me

Well, I just jot off the phone, Christopher Pappas from the Executive Council, he wanted to call and follow up on the changes to the NH P & R License that I have been told as of now, the 3 added questions removed and the only change to the form is the listing of the entire RSA as this was recommend by the Supreme Court of NH.....I must say I was pleasantly surprised to actually get a follow up phone call on the issue

 

[DispositionMatrix]

Too bad about the definition of "suitable." I am sure this fiasco will have the unintended consequence of putting the form on the legislature's radar for tampering.

 

[WatchCityCPA]

Too bad about the definition of "suitable." I am sure this fiasco will have the unintended consequence of putting the form on the legislature's radar for tampering.

Unintended by whom?

The SJC surely intended for that to happen.

The CoP's who want to get mpre of the MA authoritah surely intended this to happen.

So what is unintended about it?

This is what you get by agreeing to put the word "suitable" in the law. Now we need to clean that out before we start making a "gun rights by NH town" map. The executive and courts are shifting in the wrong direction - we need the next legislature to eliminate that word from the statute.

 

[strangenh]

Yep. We only got the "no other forms" language, reciprocity language, and 4-year license (was 2 years) in 1993; got the "all allowable purposes regardless of the purpose for which it was originally issued" language in 1994; got the 4 years changed from a maximum to a minimum in 1996 and added liability for bad faith license denials in '96, too.

In 1997, the house tried to fix the "suitable" term in the statute, in a manner similar to what the back of the form used to say.

The bill had started out as a bill trying to remove or reduce the liability of issuing authorities for bad faith license denials; then was amended in the house to instead define "suitable" (as "a person who is not prohibited by law from owning or possessing pistols or revolvers"), thus in theory reducing (via a bright-line definition) the likelihood of accidental liability for or frivolous suits against the issuing authority. It passed the house.

It was ITL'd in the senate.

Its senate record (including testimony transcript and letters sent by various associations) is a VERY interesting read:

http://gencourt.state.nh.us/SofS_Archives/1997/senate/HB386S.pdf

 

[soloman02]

Agreed on both points

But I also believe walt doesn't have a chance in hell of winning because he's kicked the base in the balls and no one is particularly excited about his squishy positions on key issues.

But we really dont need the corner office if we get solid majorities in Senate/House

In fact we would be better off without walt than with him......if he wins then the progressive establishment will be encoouraged to pull similar stunts in future

GOP establishment is going to have to face the reality that squishy progressive rino's dont win elections.....evah.......

Really hoping OBrien goes for speaker again.....under OBrien we turned nearly a billion dollar structural deficit into a positive

O'Brien also angered many people though. And while O'Brien didn't sponsor it, he does get the blame for the bill in 2012 to repeal gay marriage. A lot of independents were turned off by that bill and the Dems successfully used that bill during the election to scare people.

And yes, O'Brien is running for speaker again. As is Gene Chandler and Laurie Sanborn.

 

[snd1t]

O'Brien also angered many people though. And while O'Brien didn't sponsor it, he does get the blame for the bill in 2012 to repeal gay marriage. A lot of independents were turned off by that bill and the Dems successfully used that bill during the election to scare people.

And yes, O'Brien is running for speaker again. As is Gene Chandler and Laurie Sanborn.

Bill and the rest of the crew need to do a much better job at communicating and countering the liberal spin machine

The issue clearly isn't performance......its propaganda.....doesn't help that the UL didn't lift a finger to defend him

 

[noxin]

Dammit, the day after I submitted my app