KBCraig
NES Member
This is why we argue that "close enough" isn't good enough when it comes to legislation. You always have to ignore the intent, and look at how it can be read literally, by someone willing to ignore the intent.
-
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 Court: Ammunition must be in gun for weapon to be loaded
- Thread starter soloman02
- Start date
MaverickNH
NES Member
No doubt prosecuted by the same NH Prosecutors that said there was no need for Stand Your Ground laws to protect us against overzealous Prosecutors. Rat-bastards...
I'm curious - the law might have originated as an LEO safety bill, intending all guns not carried with a NH Pistol & Revolver License (P&RL) be unloaded and locked in the trunk. But there might have been compromises that allowed unloaded guns to be transported, not in plain sight, anywhere in the vehicle, without a NH P&RL. Or maybe just the typical poorly worded law that become ambiguous on the day of enactment. Anyone know the legislative history of this law?
I'm curious - the law might have originated as an LEO safety bill, intending all guns not carried with a NH Pistol & Revolver License (P&RL) be unloaded and locked in the trunk. But there might have been compromises that allowed unloaded guns to be transported, not in plain sight, anywhere in the vehicle, without a NH P&RL. Or maybe just the typical poorly worded law that become ambiguous on the day of enactment. Anyone know the legislative history of this law?
It all depended on how you defined "loaded." I have always (and many others) defined loaded as a round in the chamber. The problem is there was no actual definition of "loaded." I suspect the problem lay in the fact that when this law was written it was a different era and the legislators assumed that people (including prosecutors and police) would be smart enough to know that "loaded" meant a round in the chamber. Which means they likely didn't foresee some overzealous cop and prosecutor taking advantage of it. Or they intentionally wrote it vague.
Thankfully, the court saw the BS the prosecutors were trying to pull and explicitly defined "loaded" in the context of the law so that none of this BS can happen again.
So based on this ruling you can have a loaded magazine partially inserted into the gun in such a way that the magazine catch doesn't engage and it's not considered loaded.
Pretty cool ruling (despite being pretty obvious.)
![[rofl2]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/035.gif "ROFL2 [rofl2]")
Breathe....
Now and then they accidentally get a gun issue right, but usually for the wrong reason. I place zero faith in them being able to read NH's law and come to this conclusion. It is in cursive. You are just high Simkin second hand smoke.
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
The key at this juncture is to be glad they came to the right conclusion, but to take heed of what it means that the question was asked at all...
It means they are coming. NH is not MA, but much as with national policy we need to go on the offensive and crush this gun-grabbing culture at every level so that people do not have to spend untold thousands of dollars answering dumb questions like this in the courts. We need an educated and free jury pool who knows right from wrong and won't allow agenda driven prosecutions. We need the same as judges and prosecutors.
Complacency cost us dearly in the last century. Don't repeat that mistake and realize that the current judges won't be there for ever. Who will replace them?
It means they are coming. NH is not MA, but much as with national policy we need to go on the offensive and crush this gun-grabbing culture at every level so that people do not have to spend untold thousands of dollars answering dumb questions like this in the courts. We need an educated and free jury pool who knows right from wrong and won't allow agenda driven prosecutions. We need the same as judges and prosecutors.
Complacency cost us dearly in the last century. Don't repeat that mistake and realize that the current judges won't be there for ever. Who will replace them?
Last edited:
If the guy has a good lawyer, he'll get the fees paid for by the AG's office.
Please forgive me for being slow....
It was my understanding based on info from free state friends and half-assed goggle-fu that a non-licensed MA resident could carry a handgun in NH open if loaded, and concealed as long as there was no ammo on their person. This interpretation led to one NH resident carrying 12 mags for 4 different pistols, causing his pants to fall down.
Based on this ruling, the new understanding is that a MA resident can carry concealed as long as the mag is not in the gun?
Or does it merely require the chamber to be empty?
It was my understanding based on info from free state friends and half-assed goggle-fu that a non-licensed MA resident could carry a handgun in NH open if loaded, and concealed as long as there was no ammo on their person. This interpretation led to one NH resident carrying 12 mags for 4 different pistols, causing his pants to fall down.
Based on this ruling, the new understanding is that a MA resident can carry concealed as long as the mag is not in the gun?
Or does it merely require the chamber to be empty?
INAL, but based on my understanding of the court ruling, you could carry a firearm concealed on your body, unchambered and no magazine in the magazine well (keep magazine in pocket) and be fully compliant with the law.
What's not clear to me at this point is what "loaded" means. They talk about "normal operation". Does "normal operation" mean you just have to pull the trigger (and flip the manual safety, if equipped)? Or does "normal operation" also include racking the slide?
If loaded does mean a loaded magazine in the mag well, does that also mean that it has to be "attached" in that the magazine release engages? Or can you just have the mag "sitting" in the mag well?
Ultimately it means that each of us need to work harder to ensure that gov moonbeam is defeated next year. the AG's office is swept clean and the statists replaced with professionals that respect liberty/freedom/limited gov
Furthermore each of us should consider working harder to figuratively speaking hold a flamethrower to our reps/sens feet to be sure that legislation is written/re-written to be crystal clear.........this was a stupid case that would never have happened if the legislature had done their job and been unambiguous in the language used in the RSA......better yet if our turd rep from the NRA hadn't poked his nose into our business a couple years back we would have already passed constitutional carry.......
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 6,920
- Likes
- 615
Very good questions that definitely need some clarification. If that's the case, then I won't bother getting a NR permit for the few times a year that I go there. I will just drop the mag in a cargo pocket and call it a day. By the language it does appear that would satisfy the law for being unloaded - no?
edit: I know that it is perfectly legal to OC without a permit, but my personal preference is CC, and besides, I only own CC type holsters anyway.
I think the court does a very good job of spelling out what is legal. Mike's (mikem317) comments are thoughts about what might also be legal.
It is clearly legal to carry a concealed, empty pistol with a mag "dumped in a cargo pocket" as stated above, or in a mag pouch. It certainly puts a NR P&RL in a new light.
It might also be legal to carry, as Mike suggests, with the mag inserted but not latched, but I'm not certain how that would work anyway, or what the advantage of that might be. I think any advantage in "speed of ready-ing the gun" would be offset by the possibility of slinging the mag across the street as you moved the gun ("Hey..a little help here?"), but that's just me.
It is clearly legal to carry a concealed, empty pistol with a mag "dumped in a cargo pocket" as stated above, or in a mag pouch. It certainly puts a NR P&RL in a new light.
It might also be legal to carry, as Mike suggests, with the mag inserted but not latched, but I'm not certain how that would work anyway, or what the advantage of that might be. I think any advantage in "speed of ready-ing the gun" would be offset by the possibility of slinging the mag across the street as you moved the gun ("Hey..a little help here?"), but that's just me.
KH56010
NES Member
"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. " Looks to me that if you have a mag safety and pull the mag out but leave one in the chamber, you're good to go.
The best part about this is that for people like me who don't want to have another CCW license and won't be getting one. You can conceal carry unloaded, open carry loaded and only have to pop the mag out but not unholster the gun when getting into a vehicle.
The best part about this is that for people like me who don't want to have another CCW license and won't be getting one. You can conceal carry unloaded, open carry loaded and only have to pop the mag out but not unholster the gun when getting into a vehicle.
Of course now, it begs the question, why even having a P&R license at all? As in, the state could now abolish it since it's practically meaningless.
Constitutional Carry is now a few notches closer to becoming a reality in NH.
Constitutional Carry is now a few notches closer to becoming a reality in NH.
KH56010
NES Member
It's already been tested, hence the thread.
I don't know where I got the "no ammunition on your person" idea, and clearly I'm not the only one...thought I saw it on a NH.GOV site.
That's great news!
I think having a magazine half in the well in the hope of speed....is stupid. Its going to fall out, or you'll pay thousands of dollars to have a lawyer try to explain the difference between "in the grip" and "latched"
That's great news!
I think having a magazine half in the well in the hope of speed....is stupid. Its going to fall out, or you'll pay thousands of dollars to have a lawyer try to explain the difference between "in the grip" and "latched"
Read the ruling again:
"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."
A round in the chamber means "loaded" regardless of whether you have a mag safety.
joeendris
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2011
- Messages
- 4,144
- Likes
- 789
![[laugh2]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/014.gif "Laugh at above [laugh2]")
Unlike your name, which denotes that the glass might slowly empty itself of said water
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
Until they actually do pass constitutional carry, the P&R is very relevant. I for one do not like adding time and steps towards making my self defense firearm ready to fire. Seconds count.
The wording in RSA 159:4 is "a loaded pistol or revolver", NH law doesn't care how you transport a gun if it isn't loaded.
They don't use the attached phrasing here, only in the F&G regulations on long arms (RSA 207:7), which is a whole separate broken bit of the law in need of cleanup.
Last edited:
KBCraig
NES Member
It has always been the law that a permit is only needed for two things:
1) Carrying a loaded handgun in a vehicle (which this ruling addressed); or
2) Carrying a handgun on your person that is both loaded and concealed.
The standard for "loaded" is the same in both instances.
No license is needed for any other form of carry: open/loaded, open/unloaded, or concealed/unloaded.
That was not specifically addressed by the court. The "normal mode of operation" could, theoretically, mean it's not "loaded" if you have to rack the slide.
I wouldn't want to be the test case on that one, though. There are plenty of Fudds who think that's "normal", because they were taught to carry that way in the military.
The only thing the ruling says for certain, is that if there is no round in the chamber, and no loaded magazine in the gun, then it is not loaded.
Now, I know (well...am pretty sure) that other states specifically define 'loaded', and that at least one, a loaded but empty chambered semi-auto handgun is considered unloaded. However that is not specified in NH. I wouldn't push carrying concealed with a magazine inserted on an empty chamber, but having read the ruling (not just snippets), it is entirely plausible that that is lawful without a license.
The issue with the ruling, is they give a 2 possible definitions, and say that the second definition is what they are defining 'loaded' to mean. However, they then go to give their own verbiage of that definition, which now includes a new phrase, "through normal operation of the firearm."
Well what the hell is "normal operation"? I mean, you just defined loaded as "containing a cartridge in any position from which it can be fired". That is much more explicit. Of course if you have a revolver, with no round in a cylinder/chamber, yet the next cylinder is loaded, when you pull the trigger the loaded cylinder moves to the chamber and therefore will fire. So that is included in the definition where if it just said "contains a cartridge in the chamber", would not be.
So is racking the slide "normal operation of the firearm"? I propose, using the definition the court cited, no, it is not. The round is NOT in a position in which it can be fired. It must first be MOVED into a position AND then the trigger pulled to be fired. Same as loading a cylinder. Same as loading a magazine and dropping the slide. Whether you position the magazine, or it is already positioned, the cartridge must be moved. But of course the court had to again, be ambiguous.
Furthermore, the case they cite, says this:
The court ruled this was NOT a loaded firearm. Of course this was a 17 year old ruling out of California, but is what the court cited. Also, having the shells in the shotgun stock is much more similiar to having a loaded magazine near (but not in) a firearm then it is to having that inside the firearm.
However, the court also noted that
They then when to explain how if the legislature meant that loaded to include what the prosecutors argued, they would have added that, and cited states that do have laws as such. NH does not.
But that brings us full circle, because here is what the actual RSA says.
Well the court said that "pistol or revolver WITH a magazine..." meant that 'with' meant attached, and not near. So based on the law itself, it could once again be argued that a loaded magazine in a firearm, but a round not chambered, IS a loaded firearm.
So your guess is as good as mine, when prosecutors make of their own definitions, and then judges go ahead and do the same.
The issue with the ruling, is they give a 2 possible definitions, and say that the second definition is what they are defining 'loaded' to mean. However, they then go to give their own verbiage of that definition, which now includes a new phrase, "through normal operation of the firearm."
Well what the hell is "normal operation"? I mean, you just defined loaded as "containing a cartridge in any position from which it can be fired". That is much more explicit. Of course if you have a revolver, with no round in a cylinder/chamber, yet the next cylinder is loaded, when you pull the trigger the loaded cylinder moves to the chamber and therefore will fire. So that is included in the definition where if it just said "contains a cartridge in the chamber", would not be.
So is racking the slide "normal operation of the firearm"? I propose, using the definition the court cited, no, it is not. The round is NOT in a position in which it can be fired. It must first be MOVED into a position AND then the trigger pulled to be fired. Same as loading a cylinder. Same as loading a magazine and dropping the slide. Whether you position the magazine, or it is already positioned, the cartridge must be moved. But of course the court had to again, be ambiguous.
Furthermore, the case they cite, says this:
The court ruled this was NOT a loaded firearm. Of course this was a 17 year old ruling out of California, but is what the court cited. Also, having the shells in the shotgun stock is much more similiar to having a loaded magazine near (but not in) a firearm then it is to having that inside the firearm.
However, the court also noted that
They then when to explain how if the legislature meant that loaded to include what the prosecutors argued, they would have added that, and cited states that do have laws as such. NH does not.
But that brings us full circle, because here is what the actual RSA says.
Well the court said that "pistol or revolver WITH a magazine..." meant that 'with' meant attached, and not near. So based on the law itself, it could once again be argued that a loaded magazine in a firearm, but a round not chambered, IS a loaded firearm.
So your guess is as good as mine, when prosecutors make of their own definitions, and then judges go ahead and do the same.
Last edited:
