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.
How does that work for a Vermont resident which is not required to have any license?? Just ****ing moronic!! MERICA!!
Even worse, it's in the Mecca of NH, where Freedom is everyone's first priority </sarcasm>
Stupid people are everywhere.
It's not specifically about the RSA, it's more about the rules in [thread=227695]Saf-C 2102.03[/thread], and is exactly the situation I outlined back on November 1st.Along with re-applying, I would CC Evan Nappen and PGNH. Include a letter with the above text of RSA 159:6 (bolded appropriately)
Saf-C 2102.03 said:License Required.
(a) For the purposes of this section, “resident state license” means a license to carry a pistol or revolver concealed in the state where the applicant resides.
(b) No nonresident license shall be issued unless the applicant provides a copy of the applicant’s resident state license, or unless the applicant displays, for verification, a resident state license.
It's not specifically about the RSA, it's more about the rules in [thread=227695]Saf-C 2102.03[/thread], and is exactly the situation I outlined back on November 1st.
That said, I don't see anywhere in the text of Saf-C 2102.03 (Adopted Rules 7/17/13) any mention of "restricted" licenses, but it could be read as indicating that a license that doesn't actually allow for concealed carry is not acceptable to New Hampshire:
How so? Are you saying if you have a LTC that is restricted to say, target shooting, that you cannot carry a concealed firearm while doing such, or traveling to do such?
So it does or doesn't allow you to carry a concealed firearm while target shooting?
Yes, but by common definition, that is not "carrying" in the sense of why a LTC is issued.
I also think PGNH may seem to be blurring the issues between a state that effectively issues no resident licenses, and a state that issues restricted ones. Restricted licenses were not an issue before and even if we take this as "carrying concealed" the OP has a work-restriction license, which is certainly a license to carry concealed, so it shouldn't be an issue. It's a different issue under the new regulatory junker either way. PGNH is just is picking its cases - they have limited resources.
OP: Get your own attorney and run it through or hold onto your "returned" application until PGNH gets the entire Saf-C kicked to the curb. But note, they are looking at getting NON-res licenses permitted for residents of those states that don't really issue carry licenses.
That's not what the article below said. They're going after the states that are "May Issue" with the default be restricted carry rights.
http://www.pgnh.org/new_jersey_sues...afety_over_non_resident_carry_license_denials
Just received an email from PGNH that the problem as it relates to restricted licenses has been resolved. They are still working on the issue relating to states that will not issue a license at all. Please see their website for more info.
I just heard about this last night. Good on PGNH to fix this problem. When I have the funds, I'm joining them instead if renewing with GO-NH.
I still can't get over the fact that in order to join them I have to mail a freakin check with a paper application!!!!
GONH is WORSE in that they state it will take 8 weeks to cash the mailed check and application!!!!!!
I joined NHFC in 5 minutes. 5 minutes and payment was instant.
GONH and PGNH are living in the freaking stone age by comparison.
Just received an email from PGNH that the problem as it relates to restricted licenses has been resolved. They are still working on the issue relating to states that will not issue a license at all. Please see their website for more info.
That's sort of the whole reason behind the concept of individual states, so imaginary borders could delineate regions where different systems applied. Imaginary borders determine who you can marry, how much of your income you give to the government, what hoops you need to jump through in order to drive a car, give a haircut, or cut down a tree. So yeah, the state you live in determines whether/what/where/how you carry.
Would you supports "States rights" when determining if deed covenants preventing sales of real property to jews or blacks was valid?Now that concept is bad.
Would you supports "States rights" when determining if deed covenants preventing sales of real property to jews or blacks was valid? Some rights transcend "states rights".
And some rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights must be incorporated by the individual states. This has yet to happen with Amendment number 2.
With regard to your question, I can answer from either my heart or my head thus creating the classic dichotomy between intellect and emotion. However, the point is really moot anyway because racial segregation and anti-semitism are alive and well and no laws are on any books are going to make them going to go away. Not to derail this thread, but I was listening to NPR recently on the 60th Anniversary of Brown v Board of Education. Today, American public schools are more segregated than they were in 1954. De facto always trumps de jure.
I don't believe in any type of firearms licensing, but as long as it exists and as long as that is left to each state to decide, then I'm okay with that. That's a position that angers a lot of people, but don't preach state sovereignty out of one side of your mouth whilst getting angry when a state exercises its sovereignty by doing something you personally don't like. We are supposedly a Federal Republic and what a state wants to do has wide latitude with regard regard to the other states, at least that's what many of you preach here. A civil war tested that concept to the max.
I thought Heller incorporated the 2a? Yes, it was weak on the bear part, but states and federal governments have been not too happy with the bear part since the 19th century Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk
I would guess the OP, having now been denied. Would be denied a resident permit upon moving to NH.
Any applicant, resident or non-resident, is unlikely to be denied a New Hampshire resident permit solely because of one denial, especially in this circumstance, where NH State Police [COLOR="#FF00000"]****[/COLOR]ed up non-resident applications temporarily.DSSP85 said:If you answer Yes to any of the following questions, you must provide complete details on the reverse side of this form.
Have you ever had a license to carry denied in this or any other state?