NH Court: Ammunition must be in gun for weapon to be loaded

Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
12,148
Likes
3,063
Location
SC
Feedback: 8 / 0 / 0
CONCORD, N.H. —The New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled that ammunition must be in a weapon and not just near it for a gun to be loaded under state law.

The court's unanimous ruling means the Class A misdemeanor charge against Oriol Dor, 31, of Manchester, will be thrown out.

During a search of Dor's vehicle in May 2012, police found a semi-automatic pistol and a loaded magazine in his glove compartment.

Prosecutors argued that the law that defines a loaded pistol should be construed broadly to include the proximity of ammunition to the weapon in the interest of public safety.

Court: Ammunition must be in gun for weapon to be loaded | Local News - WMUR Home

Well now we know what is defined: Loaded magazine must be inserted into the gun for it to be considered loaded, regardless of a round in the chamber.

At least until someone is arrested for that and brings it to the NH supreme court.

ETA: Actual text of ruling: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2013/2013057dor.pdf
 
Last edited:
Here is the exact clarification. There is no longer any wiggle room or vagueness:

The conclusion of the opinion:

"Accordingly, we hold that in order for a pistol or revolver to be considered “loaded” within the meaning of RSA 159:4, the pistol or revolver must contain a cartridge in the chamber or must contain a magazine, cylinder, or clip inserted in or otherwise adjoined to the firearm such that the firearm can be discharged through normal operation. Of course, if the legislature disagrees with our interpretation of RSA 159:4, it is free, subject to constitutional limitations, to amend the statute. See N.H. Indep. Pharmacy Assoc. v. N.H. Ins. Dep’t, 164 N.H. 480, 484 (2012).

Remanded.
DALIANIS, C.J., and HICKS, CONBOY and BASSETT, JJ., concurred."

And here they discuss the Loaded rifles statute:

We note that RSA 207:7, II (2011) could be read to provide some support for the State’s position. The statute is located under the “General Provisions as to Fish and Game” chapter, and states, in pertinent part: “No person shall have or carry, in or on a motor vehicle, OHRV, snowmobile, or aircraft, whether moving or stationary, a cocked crossbow, a loaded rifle or loaded shotgun, or a rifle or shotgun with a cartridge in a magazine or clip attached to the gun.” RSA 207:7, II (emphasis added).1 Because RSA 207:7, II includes the phrase “attached to the gun,” the absence of such language in RSA 159:4 arguably supports the inference that the legislature intended RSA 159:4 to have a broader application than RSA 207:7, II. See In re Guardianship of Williams, 159 N.H. 318, 323 (2009) (“[W]here the legislature uses different language in related statutes, we assume that the legislature intended something different.” (emphasis omitted)). That statute, however, also supports a contrary inference. The inclusion of the last clause in RSA 207:7, II arguably shows that the legislature assumed a rifle or shotgun with a cartridge in a magazine or clip attached to the gun (rather than in the chamber) would not qualify as a “loaded” rifle or shotgun (otherwise there would have been no need to include that clause). Given that the legislature did not regard a firearm with a cartridge in an attached magazine or clip as “loaded,” it seems highly unlikely that the legislature intended by use of the word “with” in RSA 159:4 to include as “loaded” a broader category of firearms, i.e., those located near, but unattached to, a clip or magazine containing a cartridge. In light of the conflicting inferences that may be drawn from RSA 207:7, II, we are not persuaded that this statute is indicative of legislative intent to depart from the common meaning of the term “loaded” as used in RSA 159:4. See Phaneuf, 163 N.H. at 731 (we aim to preserve the common and approved usage of a word “unless from the statute it appears a different meaning was intended”); cf. Clark, 53 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 103-04 (interpreting “loaded” according to its common meaning in a section of the Health and Safety Code even though a section of the Penal Code contained a broader definition of the word).
 
While I agree the ruling makes "sense"

It is pathetic in my eyes, that something so common sense, even "needs" a courts ruling
 
While I agree the ruling makes "sense"

It is pathetic in my eyes, that something so common sense, even "needs" a courts ruling

To be fair, the statute is worded vaguely and the police and prosecutors took advantage of it, hence the court clarifying things.

If they court was really for us, they would have just struck down RSA 159:4 as unconstitutionally vague.
 
So, I can conceal carry in NH as long as the magazine is not in the pistol and the chamber is empty. That's cool. Wish Mass would do something so common sense-y. yeah right, I'll stop dreaming.
 
This makes so much sense and is based on logic so...we know this type of decision will never happen in the Corruptwealth.
 
To be fair, the statute is worded vaguely and the police and prosecutors took advantage of it, hence the court clarifying things.

If they court was really for us, they would have just struck down RSA 159:4 as unconstitutionally vague.

I had read the statute a number of times and though the intent is obvious, had a feeling it could be used against someone. (I think I may have mentioned this in a post before) Turns out I was exactly right. Thank goodness the judge wasn't a flaming douchebag like the individuals who charged the person.

But no, it wasn't 'fair'. But yes, they did take advantage of it. If you are taking advantage of something is is almost never 'fair'.

What stupid logic. It's either loaded or not. It doesn't matter where the mag is located outside of the gun.

Not stupid. They knew what it meant and was intended to mean. It wasn't logic that lead them to charge the individual. It was malice.
 
Last edited:
Dumbass said:
Prosecutors argued that the law that defines a loaded pistol should be construed broadly to include the proximity of ammunition to the weapon in the interest of public safety.

What stupid logic. It's either loaded or not. It doesn't matter where the mag is located outside of the gun.
 
anyone remember when CA citizens were walking around with pistols in a holster and a mag on the belt to get around some stupid law and the CA legislature then immediately made that illegal?

Doubt NH will do the same but the logic is correct on the decision based on the law.
 
Court: Ammunition must be in gun for weapon to be loaded | Local News - WMUR Home

Well now we know what is defined: Loaded magazine must be inserted into the gun for it to be considered loaded, regardless of a round in the chamber.

At least until someone is arrested for that and brings it to the NH supreme court.

ETA: Actual text of ruling: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2013/2013057dor.pdf
Well, let's help common sense celebrate one of its very rare victories!
 
So by their ruling, is a pistol in a vehicle with a loaded magazine inserted but an empty chamber considered "loaded" according to RSA 159:4? What does "can be discharged through normal operation" mean?
 
So by their ruling, is a pistol in a vehicle with a loaded magazine inserted but an empty chamber considered "loaded" according to RSA 159:4? What does "can be discharged through normal operation" mean?

If I'm reading the ruling correctly, I would say yes.

the pistol or revolver must contain a cartridge in the chamber or must contain a magazine, cylinder, or clip inserted in or otherwise adjoined to the firearm such that the firearm can be discharged through normal operation.

The key word there is the "or." I would suspect that normal operation would consist of pulling the trigger, or racking the slide if the chamber is empty and then pulling the trigger, but they didn't really address that part.
 
As I commented at the UL:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it," noted Upton Sinclair.

Everyone understood this law except those who wished to misunderstand it. The assistant AG and those like him are disappointed, because they prefer ambiguity. If the court had ruled in their favor, they could then charge anyone who possesses both a handgun and ammunition, no matter how physically separated they were.
 
Have to disagree

The statute is worded clearly enough that anyone with the prerequisite two brain cells comprehends the legal definition of loaded or not

This is just another example of an over zealous AG's office and Manchester's finest wasting tax payer dollars and trying to make criminals out of law abiding citizens

Bet this cost the defendant a boatload of money to prove his innocence

But dont worry, I'm sure that pud Shurtleff (Author of HB135) will propose a bill to clarify that all guns are loaded if there's a mag or ammo within 30 feet of it........
 
Have to disagree

The statute is worded clearly enough that anyone with the prerequisite two brain cells comprehends the legal definition of loaded or not

This is just another example of an over zealous AG's office and Manchester's finest wasting tax payer dollars and trying to make criminals out of law abiding citizens

Bet this cost the defendant a boatload of money to prove his innocence

But dont worry, I'm sure that pud Shurtleff (Author of HB135) will propose a bill to clarify that all guns are loaded if there's a mag or ammo within 30 feet of it........

Don't always agree with you, but I definitely do on this one. I hadn't known about this case, but I am not surprised it was Manchester PD. The same PD who will harass open carriers for their P&R if they walk down the city streets.
 
Who wooda eva thunk the bullets have to in the gun to have it loaded? That it had to go to a state supreme court for someone to decide is pitiful.
 
Back
Top Bottom