At present, some Buford T. Justice can refuse to give you a New Hampshire pistol revolver license if, for example, you opposed their budget increase at a town meeting, testified against civil asset forfeiture, or spoke out about this or that or whatever. They won’t say that is why, they’ll just decide you are not a suitable person when you apply for the license. Existing state law provides the opportunity for decisions both arbitrary and capricious.
The Chief and the Chief alone gets to decide what ‘suitable’ means on any given day (kind of like this chief with other laws) and you are welcome to take them to court at the expense of both your time and money (and the towns money-which is your money and you neighbor’s money) should you disagree.
New Hampshire House Bill HB1400 would make a simple change to the exciting statute that would make everyone in New Hampshire equal before the law.
[
and that the applicant is a suitable person to be licensed] unless the applicant is prohibited by New Hampshire statute from both owning and possessing a firearm.
If an applicant is prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm under state or federal law that is that. If they may legally own or possess a firearm that is also that; they are as entitled to put on a coat when it rains while carrying that firearm as not without fear of suddenly becoming a felon because of the weather.
Updated: HB 582 in the Senate, improves this language while also making the acquisition of a pistol revolver license optional. There are reasons aplenty to still need the license but the right to that choice is less tenable when a committee is willing to recommend only changing the language (HB1400) without restoring the second amendment right (HB582), which should not require a legal person to ask permission to carry, open or concealed.
Hassan vetoed the previous version on 582 (SB 116). So, where do you stand? Incremental improvement with greater odds of becoming law, principled stand for all or nothing, somewhere in between?
