NH Non-resident permit qualifies under Gun Free School Zones Act exception?

[Kevin_NH]

Regarding the "Gun Free School Zones Act", I understand the open question about whether the NH Resident permit is a qualifying permit for the exception in the federal law, specifically:

if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license...

My question is, does the New Hampshire non-resident permit meet this requirement? As this permit is issued by the State Police, it would seem to qualify under this clause in the Federal law?

 

[drgrant]

No. Not unless there is an exclusionary clause in the law that says that non resident permits can ONLY be signed off on by the NHSP, and I doubt that exists. The RSA's, from what I remember, are a lot wider than that, which fails the GFSZ test.

That said, depending on what you think of US v Lopez, the issue might be somewhat moot. It considerably raised the bar for a GFSZ case... I am curious if there has been even a single GFSZ case brought in federal court since then... would be an interesting read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_v_lopez

-Mike

 

[strangenh]

No. Not unless there is an exclusionary clause in the law that says that non resident permits can ONLY be signed off on by the NHSP, and I doubt that exists.

RSA 159:6:
"...the director of state police, or some person designated by such director, upon application of a nonresident"

That will almost certainly qualify and is the only nonresident option described in the law. But I think the wrong issue is being raised.

ETA: ScottS sums it up well here: http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...-by-a-school?p=1018397&viewfull=1#post1018397

It was also my (perhaps mistaken) understanding that the issue was not just about the issuing authority; rather it is about the nature of the limits on license issuance.

The GFSZA says:

"verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license"

but RSA 159:6 says just "is a suitable person to be licensed"

There is a question on that ground, I thought.

(Not an NH attorney.)

I know the issue is supposedly stemming from non-LEOs being able to issue (e.g., the selectmen), but I think that is a stretch to say all towns would then fail. There is considerable (not on this site) chatter about the other question - as to whether the standards for license issuance are an issue under the Act.

 

[SClaflin]

See United States v. Tait, 202 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir.2000) for a relevant discussion on this issue.

 

[ScottS]

I have my own opinion on the NH License with regard to the GFZA, as well as whether or not the "new and improved" GFZA will survive a challenge after the Lopez ruling, but everyone has to make that decision for themselves.

One factoid worth considering: When Richard Young was arrested for sneaking past security at the Zero-bama "town hall forum" at Portsmouth High School in 2009, and found with a loaded gun in his pickup truck in the school parking lot, he was charged with having a concealed gun without a license and criminal trespassing. He was not charged with a violation of the GFZA, nor was it ever discussed in any of the surrounding media.

Take it for what it's worth.