• 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 Who to Vote for.... Supreme Court rules on House gun ban

design

design

Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
1,636
Likes
1,367
Feedback: 4 / 0 / 0
Update: ICYMI, the attorney that argued this case and is working for Rep. John Burt is running to be a County Prosecutor. (Hillsbourough, NH) Vote for Dan Hynes.
https://hynes4nh.com/

If you have friends in the southern part of NH (West of Everett turnpike), make sure that they vote for Hynes. The County attorney is very important when it comes to your gun rights.


In an opinion released this morning, the NH Supreme Court reversed an order of the Superior Court that had dismissed a suit brought against the Speaker of the NH House challenging the adoption of a rule that prohibited members of the House from carrying or possessing weapons anywhere in the Statehouse. The putative basis for that dismissal was that the matter was a “political question” in which the Courts should not interfere.

While the state Supreme Court did not reach the constitutionality of the rule being challenged, this does represent a major defeat of the lefties presently in charge of the General Court.

The parties bringing the suit, Representatives John Burt, Kevin Craig, Alicia Lekas, Tony Lekas, and Hershel Nunez, along with their counsel, Dan Hynes of Liberty Legal Services of Manchester, are to be congratulated on their fight for our hard won freedoms.

The opinion in the case of John Burt et a. vs. Speaker of the House of Representatives can be found at https://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2020/2020050Burt.pdf
 
Last edited:
“...to find the challenge nonjusticiable would “violate the principles of our checks and balances system of government, and deprive plaintiffs of their constitutional rights.”

That’s it, right there.

Belly up to the *Bar*, Justice Branch!
 
drgrant said:
@KBCraig


View: https://youtu.be/JW68goC4_es
Click to expand...

Thanks, but my only role was to say, "Sure, sign me up!" I submitted a statement, but I don't know if it was ever entered.

So here's where we stand: the case has been remanded for the Merrimack Superior Court to reconsider. First, the defendants must submit a response, then there will be discovery. If the Republicans regain the House in November and revoke that rule in January, the other side will obviously move to moot the case. The court would likely agree, but of course we'll argue that the history of flip-flops on the rule when the majority switches parties makes it still ripe for a decision.

The Merrimack court could always take the NHSC's ruling into account, and still rule against us. And then we'd appeal to NHSC again.

Best case, the ruling would take six months from now, and if it goes to NHSC again, at least a year.

Either way, help us regain the majority so that we can rescind this rule.
 
State Supreme Court sent it back to Superior Court with a clearly worded hint that it will pass muster citing Heller
“laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings” are “presumptively lawful regulatory measures”
So yes, expect to see it back in Supreme Court in a year.
 
Does a House Rule have the force of law against the members of the House? Can there be a House Rule that violates the freedom to bear in our NH Constitution?
 
TayNinh_66 said:
State Supreme Court sent it back to Superior Court with a clearly worded hint that it will pass muster citing Heller
“laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings” are “presumptively lawful regulatory measures”
So yes, expect to see it back in Supreme Court in a year.
Click to expand...

This points out the flaws of the Heller ruling. The opinion cedes ground on multiple fronts on issues that were never argued. Courts typically try to avoid ruling when they are able to, pulling out mootness and lack of standing. Just because some statute has been longstanding doesn't make it presumptively constitutional any more than one's opinion that this or that exception is reasonable. When courts issue proclamations like these on issues that weren't even disputed in the filing, let alone argued, they place their thumbs on the scales of justice.
 
design said:
@strangenh How does the legal process work? Should outsiders submit additional briefs in support of this case.
Click to expand...
I don't have an appellate or trial practice, so I'm not the genius on this one.

Certainly third parties can submit briefs at the appellate level, but this is effectively back at the first (trial) level. Rather uncommon for parties to submit amicus briefs at this stage. Right now it's probably best to see how Attorney Hynes would like third parties to support his clients' position, and for any active groups to ensure he's aware of issues they consider important, so those issues can be raised before this court and preserved for appeal (assuming Hynes believes raising those points to be in his clients' best interest). On appeal, then they can coordinate. A court generally has no obligation to accept an amicus brief (with some exceptions, like from the state's attorney general), and most require court or bilateral permission to file one.

Groups should coordinate with Attorney Hynes for now and save the amicus briefs for the inevitable appeal to the NH Supreme Court (and perhaps federal appeals as well).

NH rules about such briefs at the NH Supreme Court:
www.courts.state.nh.us

Welcome

An official New Hampshire Government web site.
www.courts.state.nh.us www.courts.state.nh.us

A generally good overview of the how/why of amicus briefs in the first place:
 
NHSC is still a reasonable body.
Years ago, a friend argued a case before the court Pro se against the town police chief and a bunch of lawyers paid for by the town. (The town board knew the chief acted illegally but fought anyway)
The court acted based on the evidence and not the pedigree of those speaking. He won. A lone citizen trying to get a conflicted budget committee member, the chief of police, to obey written law.

Epilogue: Some years later, the Chief was finally removed after an employee filed a federal sexual harassment lawsuit. They found binders full of info on his "enemies" in his office. The town? Atkinson`
 
Last edited:
NHKevin said:
Anything about his primary opponent John Coughlin?
Click to expand...
Didn't want to praise or diss either of the two fronrunners. It's done and now the general election is coming. So: Coughlin's a retired judge and had a brief run as Hills Atty General back in 2003 before being activated for service. While in the office he caused some turmoil among established career attorneys but some say that was a good thing; Benson nominated him as a judge in 2004, and with his history and background, I'd think he can certainly do the job. And being able to do the job with a prosecutor's and judge's perspectives is one thing the position has needed given the farce that occurred with the current office holder in charge.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • Locked
Hawaii State Supreme Court Rules No Right to Bear Arms
Replies
2
Views
375
Admin
Admin
New York's Radical Gun Restrictions Headed To Supreme Court
Replies
1
Views
291
Rob Boudrie
Rob Boudrie
Supreme Court Hears Texas Gun Store Owner’s Lawsuit Against Bump Stock Ban
2 3
Replies
87
Views
2K
HorizontalHunter
HorizontalHunter
The NRA Is About to Notch Another Legal Victory at the Supreme Court
Replies
13
Views
636
groundscrapers
G
Beyond ‘Ghost Guns’: Democrat House Member Pushes ‘Zombie Gun’ Ban
Replies
10
Views
412
quinnjalan
quinnjalan
Back
Top Bottom