-
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.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
NH Non Resident Denied due to MA Restrictions
- Thread starter swesson
- Start date
Not so much stupid, but corrupt. NH is generally better than most states, but just being better doesn't mean awesome. There is still plenty of BS. I'd welcome the day when people in masses joined together, stopped waiting for the legislature to only pass lawful legislation, the enforcers to only enforce laws and not make up their own, and the judiciary to rule timely based on the lawfulness and not personal agendas, and take matters into their own hands. But I'm not only my breath.
Is a restricted LTC-A that says "no concealed carry" really a license to carry?
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:
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:
Saf-C 2102.03 said:
I'm very sorry that NH has taken this position! However twice before someone at NH SP "made up" the same requirement with no legal backing and got beat down. So someone has an "agenda" and this time they created some sort of legal backing in the Saf-C which appears to me to be something akin to the MA CMRs (and Fed CFRs).
Kevin is right, a MA LTC that is restricted isn't really a "CARRY" license but more correctly it is a "license to possess in MA"! Thus, NH SP is on fairly firm ground with their current interpretation until such time as the Saf-C is revised to more correctly correspond with the RSA.
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?
In common usage "carrying a firearm" does not mean shooting at a target range. It means carrying on one's person in public. And with a restricted LTC you can not legally do that unless your chief gives you (in writing, signed, on letterhead) a letter stating that his interpretation of your restriction is that you can "carry" to/from the specified restricted activity. Most chiefs don't allow this, and I'd say that wrt getting such a letter your odds are better betting on the lottery.
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.
So it does allow the carrying a firearm concealed in the state where the applicant resides. That strangely sounds like what the requirement says in Saf-C 2102.03.
You are reading into it too much.
strangenh
NES Member
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.
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.
Last edited:
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
strangenh
NES Member
I understand their assertion and I disagree with you. The old regulation allowed one to use a license from another state if your state did not issue. But MA licenses were accepted with restrictions. NJ doesn't HAVE restricted licenses. It's issue or not, almost entirely not. "The change requires applicants to have a carry license from their home state in order to qualify for the New Hampshire non-resident license." The word restriction doesn't even appear in the article.
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.
Awesome and just what I would expect from PGNH!
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.
the OP could still open carry in NH right? although not in a vehicle, which makes it awkward to lock and load every time you get in and out of your car!
makes no sense anyway you cut it
makes no sense anyway you cut it
All true, but IIRC it is an all volunteer operation in PGNH (I'm good friends with some of their officers) and cost may be a factor . . . online secure (if there is such a thing) cc services and websites cost real money. So they still process things manually . . . that should be the worst thing you can say about an org! When it came to dealing with the real issue (non-compliance with RSA) they didn't sit on their hands did they? That's where the rubber meets the road and they were dealing with it 21st century style!
the_shootist
Banned
I avoided all this crap and simply moved to NH.....problem never materialized for me
Gee, I thought it was a concept called state's rights...you know that concept that some of you boyz are always talk in' bout, and how the Civil War or War of Southern Independence and evil statist Lincoln was trying real hard to crush the sovereignty of the individual states and all of that.
Now that concept is bad. This "no borders" thing sounds like yore favor in' the United Nations. Hell let's let all Mexicans in.
See, you like to diss things when it doesn't go your way. Of course we talk about incorporation of the 2A too, but that's gettin' a little esoteric.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,545
- Likes
- 33,590
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
My understanding is that Heller opened the door for incorporation but it is not a done deal. This may be an imperfect understanding because incorporation is for me anyway, is a hard legal principle to fully grasp. This is one reason, so I have been led to believe that nothing has fundamentally changed in Mass since Heller. Perhaps Messr Boudrie or one of our other equally erudite scholars could elaborate a bit on this.
pdm
NES Member
This thread has gone off course, time to head back to the [thread=227695]thread about Saf-C 2102.03[/thread]?
Unlike Massachusetts, New Hampshire does not give complete discretion; New Hampshire towns cannot deny a resident permit solely because the applicant has a previous denial (especially one that was ultimately reversed). swesson would need to disclose the denial, and explain the circumstances on the back of the form:
That said, it would be very annoying to have to list a prior denial and explain it on all future applications, this is one reason I never applied for a Rhode Island permit.
Unlike Massachusetts, New Hampshire does not give complete discretion; New Hampshire towns cannot deny a resident permit solely because the applicant has a previous denial (especially one that was ultimately reversed). swesson would need to disclose the denial, and explain the circumstances on the back of the form:
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:
That said, it would be very annoying to have to list a prior denial and explain it on all future applications, this is one reason I never applied for a Rhode Island permit.
Last edited:
