• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

NH: Constitution Carry for ATV's and Snowmobiles.

Roll call vote not posted yet. It will be interesting to see which republicans deserted the gun owners...

There appears to be a pattern to the votes...
 
matt2491 said:
Ooops. I might have been open carrying while riding the dirtbike up in NH all along.
Click to expand...

You can open carry, it just can't be loaded.....thanks to our fascist Fish & Game Department. They are despicable. They even have the authority for warrantless search and seizure. That is why during state police road blocks, they have a fish and game officer there who can search your vehicle without your consent.
 
Ellis Wyatt said:
You can open carry, it just can't be loaded.....thanks to our fascist Fish & Game Department. They are despicable. They even have the authority for warrantless search and seizure. That is why during state police road blocks, they have a fish and game officer there who can search your vehicle without your consent.
Click to expand...

Yeah, so about this.... Design, can we just get rid of F&G?
 
Ellis Wyatt said:
You can open carry, it just can't be loaded.....thanks to our fascist Fish & Game Department. They are despicable. They even have the authority for warrantless search and seizure. That is why during state police road blocks, they have a fish and game officer there who can search your vehicle without your consent.
Click to expand...


How exactly are they immune to the US constitution?
 
design said:
They are not! There was a bill to stop these 4th, 5th and 2nd amendment violations, but it did not pass. We start again next year.
Click to expand...

Ok, but that just adds more questions. If they illegally search you all evidence should be thrown out, yes? If so why would they bother in the first place? If they are abusing their authority and conducting illegal searches shouldn't there be a remedy in civil court? Why do you need a bill to make illegal police actions more illegaler?
 
firestorm said:
Ok, but that just adds more questions. If they illegally search you all evidence should be thrown out, yes? If so why would they bother in the first place? If they are abusing their authority and conducting illegal searches shouldn't there be a remedy in civil court? Why do you need a bill to make illegal police actions more illegaler?
Click to expand...
The person who is illegally searched has to challenge the evidence in court, generally requiring a) evidence be found, b) they be charged/indicted, c) the charges not be dropped because the prosecutor doubts the evidence will stand challenge, d) they not take a plea, and e) it make it to court and actually be challenged.

You know... like just happened with the ACLU of NH bringing suit of behalf of defendants in 16 cases of warrantless search (drug-sniffing dogs) at non-border "Customs" checkpoints (90mi from the border, so in that BS special "zone"): N.H. Judge Rules Against Dog-Sniffing, Warrantless Searches in Border Checkpoint Arrests - in that case, the "special access" the Woodstock PD got was from Customs & Border Patrol agents rather than a F&G search, but the principle - use of search & seizure power for a fishing expedition - is the same.

When some state officer busts someone based on an F&G officer's warrantless search, and all the above happens, I guess we'll see some cases. The ones where defense raises the issue, judge agrees, and then which don't have the state take it to appeal the ruling... simply don't make it to case law. So - I'd have to dig - defense attorneys could well be relying on some pretty old NH case law, meaning it already happened.
 
strangenh said:
The person who is illegally searched has to challenge the evidence in court, generally requiring a) evidence be found, b) they be charged/indicted, c) the charges not be dropped because the prosecutor doubts the evidence will stand challenge, d) they not take a plea, and e) it make it to court and actually be challenged.

You know... like just happened with the ACLU of NH bringing suit of behalf of defendants in 16 cases of warrantless search (drug-sniffing dogs) at non-border "Customs" checkpoints (90mi from the border, so in that BS special "zone"): N.H. Judge Rules Against Dog-Sniffing, Warrantless Searches in Border Checkpoint Arrests - in that case, the "special access" the Woodstock PD got was from Customs & Border Patrol agents rather than a F&G search, but the principle - use of search & seizure power for a fishing expedition - is the same.

When some state officer busts someone based on an F&G officer's warrantless search, and all the above happens, I guess we'll see some cases. The ones where defense raises the issue, judge agrees, and then which don't have the state take it to appeal the ruling... simply don't make it to case law. So - I'd have to dig - defense attorneys could well be relying on some pretty old NH case law, meaning it already happened.
Click to expand...

Point I'm making is that he seems to be relying on the fact that they can get away with it and a new law is needed, I'm confused as to why he believes that. Otherwise all the stuff you said is spot on, I would think that the best bet would be to refuse to allow a search, lock the keys inside if necessary and then sue for damages when they break something. Is there some remedy for going after a department/officer who oversteps? If so it would seem those complaints would pile up if they keep using F&G for these illegal searches.
 
firestorm said:
Point I'm making is that he seems to be relying on the fact that they can get away with it and a new law is needed, I'm confused as to why he believes that. Otherwise all the stuff you said is spot on, I would think that the best bet would be to refuse to allow a search, lock the keys inside if necessary and then sue for damages when they break something. Is there some remedy for going after a department/officer who oversteps? If so it would seem those complaints would pile up if they keep using F&G for these illegal searches.
Click to expand...

I'm all for that, but a likely outcome is they'll smash the windows, make up a bunch of absurd charges that will total several decades in jail if convinced, cost $100,000 to attempt to defend yourself, and the victim will just cave and plea bargain to avoid being locked away and losing everything. So... good luck seeing a court case about it.

I'm still trying to figure out what F&G has to do with someone driving down I93 at 70mph... it seems to me an unlikely place to be fishing or hunting, especially while the car is still moving. A similar deal for ATV or snowmobile... just because you're on one doesn't mean "hunting" therefore rights can be violated. I suppose if someone actually was hunting, someone could argue that F&G can override your rights because you agreed to it when getting a license/permit to do the activity (is that the argument? I don't actually know). But just being in the woods, with no actual evidence of hunting, is absurd.
 
Prepper said:
I'm all for that, but a likely outcome is they'll smash the windows, make up a bunch of absurd charges that will total several decades in jail if convinced, cost $100,000 to attempt to defend yourself, and the victim will just cave and plea bargain to avoid being locked away and losing everything. So... good luck seeing a court case about it.

I'm still trying to figure out what F&G has to do with someone driving down I93 at 70mph... it seems to me an unlikely place to be fishing or hunting, especially while the car is still moving. A similar deal for ATV or snowmobile... just because you're on one doesn't mean "hunting" therefore rights can be violated. I suppose if someone actually was hunting, someone could argue that F&G can override your rights because you agreed to it when getting a license/permit to do the activity (is that the argument? I don't actually know). But just being in the woods, with no actual evidence of hunting, is absurd.
Click to expand...


Yeah I still haven't seen anyone explain this supposed extra power F&G has, but it seems suspect at the very least.
 
So, tell me if I'm wrong, but in my reading of the law, carrying a loaded AR pistol on an OHRV while in possession of a P&R permit is allowed. Of course, you would probably have a hard time convincing the boneheads at F&G that it was a pistol and not a rifle. Anyone have any information or stories to the contrary?
 
Roll call votes posted:
BillStatus_BillRollCalls

Yea to Interim Study: (Bad vote)

Carson, Sharon Republican 14 Yea
Cavanaugh, Kevin Democrat 16 Yea
D'Allesandro, Lou Democrat 20 Yea
Feltes, Dan Democrat 15 Yea
Fuller Clark, Martha Democrat 21 Yea
Gannon, William Republican 23 Yea
Hennessey, Martha Democrat 05 Yea
Kahn, Jay Democrat 10 Yea
Lasky, Bette Democrat 13 Yea
Soucy, Donna Democrat 18 Yea
Watters, David Democrat 04 Yea
Woodburn, Jeff Democrat 01 Yea

Yea to Table (Bad vote)

Carson, Sharon Republican 14 Yea
Cavanaugh, Kevin Democrat 16 Yea
D'Allesandro, Lou Democrat 20 Yea
Feltes, Dan Democrat 15 Yea
Fuller Clark, Martha Democrat 21 Yea
Gannon, William Republican 23 Yea
Gray, James Republican 06 Yea
Hennessey, Martha Democrat 05 Yea
Kahn, Jay Democrat 10 Yea
Lasky, Bette Democrat 13 Yea
Reagan, John Republican 17 Yea
Soucy, Donna Democrat 18 Yea
Ward, Ruth Republican 08 Yea
Watters, David Democrat 04 Yea


So much for republicans always being good for the gun owners.
 
BulletCubed said:
So, tell me if I'm wrong, but in my reading of the law, carrying a loaded AR pistol on an OHRV while in possession of a P&R permit is allowed. Of course, you would probably have a hard time convincing the boneheads at F&G that it was a pistol and not a rifle. Anyone have any information or stories to the contrary?
Click to expand...
Could also be an SBR, but a "pistol" in NH law is "any firearm with a barrel less than 16 inches in length".
 
SB 500 was signed by Sununu on 06/25, takes effect this week (08/24/2018).

The bill may be imperfect, but a net positive to add to our brag sheet:
  • 2003 - HB415statewide firearms law preemption (§159:26)
  • 2004 - HB1309 Range protection amendment to §159-B
  • 2010 - HB1665 Knife law preemption added to §159:26
  • 2011 - HB291 passes without Gov. Lynch's signature. Fireworks laws relaxed, repealing §160-B:16-a
  • 2011 - SB88Expanded Castle Doctrine (Veto Override)
  • 2012 - HB1551Landowner Liability protection
  • 2013 - Court case NH v Dor (Definition of "loaded")
  • 2015 - As additional states expand their reciprocity acceptance, NH resident P&R covers 25 states
  • 2016 - Non-resident P&R administrative rules overturned
  • 2016 - HB500 Suppressor Hunting
  • 2017 - SB3 amends RSA 654:2 to clarify domicile, (a start towards vote fraud prevention)
  • 2017 - Governor Sununu signs SB12, establishing constitutional carry. P&R now optional, "suitability" is removed from the law.
  • 2018 - SB500 clarifies rules regarding loaded long arms on motor vehicle, adds recognition of airgun and crossbow hunting, and the definition of "Firearm" and "loaded".
 
Last edited:
Kevin_NH said:
SB 500 was signed by Sununu on 06/25, takes effect this week (08/24/2018).

The bill may be imperfect, but a net positive to add to our brag sheet:
  • 2003 - HB415 statewide firearms law preemption (§159:26)
  • 2004 - HB1309 Range protection amendment to §159-B
  • 2010 - HB1665 Knife law preemption added to §159:26
  • 2011 - HB291 passes without Gov. Lynch's signature. Fireworks laws relaxed, repealing §160-B:16-a
  • 2011 - SB88 Expanded Castle Doctrine (Veto Override)
  • 2012 - HB1551 Landowner Liability protection
  • 2013 - Court case NH v Dor (Definition of "loaded")
  • 2015 - As additional states expand their reciprocity acceptance, NH resident P&R covers 25 states
  • 2016 - Non-resident P&R administrative rules overturned
  • 2016 - HB500 Suppressor Hunting
  • 2017 - SB3 amends RSA 654:2 to clarify domicile, (a start towards vote fraud prevention)
  • 2017 - Governor Sununu signs SB12, establishing constitutional carry. P&R now optional, "suitability" is removed from the law.
  • 2018 - SB500 relaxes rules around loaded firearms on a tractor or (stopped) OHRV or snowmobile, adds recognition of airgun and crossbow hunting, simplifies definition of "Firearm".
Click to expand...

Actually, SB500 relaxed the rules around loaded firearms on all stationary motor vehicles, not just OHRV's and snowmobiles.
 
So as of later this week, RSA 207 will read like this:

1:XIV-a. “Loaded” shall mean a round or projectile in the chamber fully dischargeable by pulling the trigger.
...
7, II No person shall have or carry, in or on a motor vehicle, OHRV, snowmobile, or aircraft, when moving, a cocked crossbow, a loaded rifle or loaded shotgun, muzzleloader, or air rifle, except a person or a person's agent while in the act of protecting his or her interest in their livestock or crops...​

So no change for handguns, still no loaded long arms (or air rifles) on moving vehicles.
 
Yes. And that version of "loaded" is much more precisely defined, and is in line with the NH Supreme Court's holding on the matter.
 
 
Kevin_NH said:
With the P&R license, just need to make sure anything you're carrying with a round in the chamber has barrel length under 16" and you're cool with New Hampshire state law. Oh, and get your hunting license, just because you know you want one.
Click to expand...
I do but I don't have time to take the Hunter Safety Course. I heard something about Texas offering an online license.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • Poll
NH - Governor's race
Replies
0
Views
2
Kevin_NH
Kevin_NH
State Sen. Pushes Campus Carry for AZ College Students with Concealed Carry Permits
Replies
0
Views
52
Reptile
Reptile
Mall of NH shooting
2
Replies
50
Views
2K
hunt4riches
H
Carry in Post Office
2
Replies
58
Views
2K
StevieP
StevieP
Migrants can carry guns
Replies
23
Views
724
KBCraig
KBCraig
Back
Top Bottom