Maggie-Hassan

The New Hampshire Senate passed Senate Bill 116, which would repeal the licensing requirement for carrying a concealed pistol or revolver, bringing the state’s firearms carry law in line with neighboring Vermont. The bill was passed earlier by the New Hampshire House, so it will now go to the desk of Governor Maggie Hassan…who has promised to veto it, in a statement from her official website . . .

New Hampshire’s current concealed carry permitting law has worked well for nearly a century – ensuring the Second Amendment rights of our citizens while helping to keep the Granite State one of the safest states in the nation. Law enforcement, as well as citizens across New Hampshire, have strong public safety concerns about allowing people to carry concealed guns without a license and oppose removing the protections that the licensing process offers to help ensure that potentially dangerous individuals are not allowed to carry hidden weapons.

Our permitting system gives an important oversight role to local law enforcement, while allowing for appeals through appropriate channels. In his book Live Free or Die, Republican Governor Mel Thomson said that the current permitting process for concealed carry is ‘a sensible handgun law that leaves the issuance of handgun permits to the discretion of [local law enforcement]’. That is as true today as it was then. By passing Senate Bill 116, the legislature would be taking a step away from our tradition of common-sense gun laws, and I intend to veto this measure if it passes.”

NOTE: A previous version of this post incorrectly stated that New Hampshire was a ‘shall issue’ state. In 2014, the New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled in Doyon v. Hooksett P.D.,

RSA 159:6 does not define the term ‘suitable person’ for purposes of determining who may be licensed to carry a loaded pistol or revolver. However, we have construed the term to give some measure of discretion to the issuing authority to deny an application if it deems the applicant to be unsuitable.

The author regrets the error. Thanks to S. Olsen of the Women’s Defense League of N.H. (and others) for pointing out the error.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

76 COMMENTS

  1. If NH is like Alabama, the sheriffs really don’t want to give up those permit fees, so even with “shall issue”, they start squawking about “officer safety” or “public safety” when folks start talking about doing away with the permits all together.

    It’s all about revenue.

    • NH res permit is $10. Non-res is $100, but I just open carried when up that way.

    • Unfortunately, it’s more than that. The argument goes as follows:
      New Hampshire is already a shall-issue state. The way the rules are written, the local Chief of Police or Town Selectman is required to issue a permit unless they can demonstrate that the petitioner should be denied. Police have 10 days from the request date to issue the permit. If they fail to do so within that period or the deny for an insufficient reason, the petitioner has the right to appeal. If the petitioner is victorious, the town is required to pay all of the petitioner’s legal costs.

      Generally the system works, but there have been situations where the local Chief of Police has taken it upon himself to deny a permit illegally and has been made to pay the price.

      The issue is not whether the system is “fair” but whether the state should have the right to legislate the right to keep and bear arms at all.

      Given how “easy” it is to get a permit in NH, most residents are not going to see a big reason to change – largely because very few are ever denied their rights. For this reason, it’s unlikely the Governor will face any consequence in the polls over her veto. She won re-election last year and won’t have to face the voters again until 2016. By then, this veto will likely have blown over. Strategically, it might have made more sense for the NH legislature to pass this bill in 2016 when there might have been more pressure on the Governor.

      My bet is that she will veto and there will not be enough votes to override it.

      • Typically, the Chief that tries to wrongfully deny an application is an import from our southern neighbor trying to impose the same rules up here. I wish that, if they like that setup so much, they would just stay down there.

      • So, from your description, this veto isn’t going to gore enough NH oxen to result in any political consequences locally over THIS particular issue.

        Nevertheless, I wonder how politically vulnerable this politician will be at the next election. If she is NOT vulnerable then let-it-go. Conversely, if she WERE vulnerable on ANY issue whatsoever, I wonder if the PotG at large should set our sights on her.

        A couple of bucks from each of a million PotG in the other 49 States would build a pretty good war chest to support her primary opponent or her general election opponent. If vulnerable politicians got the idea that any anti-2A vote were hazardous to one’s political health then these politicians would have to consider whether to touch the 3rd rail.

  2. Veto power should be reserved for legislation that is unconstitutional, not financially feasible, etc.

    If the legislature (the voice of the people), by majority vote passes a valid law, it’s insulting that a single person can negate that with their “feelings”.

    Sure, bad legislation (i.e. stuff we don’t like) would have the same protection, but at least the rules would be consistent and the laws actually reflect the will of the people.

    • People elected the governor, too. The veto is a manifestation of separation of powers and “checks and balances”, normally a good thing. The veto override is another such manifestation. Hopefully it can be employed here.

      • As executive, the governor’s veto should affect laws that cannot be executed (no budget or other resources, or creates some sort of catch 22 conflict)

        The judicial branch can negate laws that are not constitutional.

        Not “liking” something should not be a valid reason.

      • Unfortunately, not nearly enough votes in either the House (50 short) or the Senate (maybe 4-5 short, we have a small Senate) to pull that one off. Maybe next year, she’s considering challenging Ayotte for the US Senate.

        • It would be nice if legislators would sufficiently agree that they, themselves, are the ones elected to do the people’s wishes, that many who voted against the bill would vote for the veto override, as in, “that is not your call!”, we have decided.

    • I echo Another Robert’s thoughts. Further, a lot of states have it so that legislatures can override the veto. Is that not the case in NH?

      • 2/3 of house and senate. Doesn’t look possible to override the veto considering it was passed like 14-9 and 211-150.

      • I daresay pretty much everywhere the gov has veto power, there is a way to override. Usually it involves a supermajority of the legislators, but evidently not always.

        • Sooner or later the decent people of this country are going to decide that enough is enough with elections, voting, vetoes and overrides and tell our lords temporal to shove it. That day is not today, not tomorrow, and probably not this year, but it is coming. They can only push us so far.

    • Problem is, under the current system, one has to pass it BEFORE you can find out if it’s Constitutional.

      All legislation really should have to pass a State (or Federal, depending on level) Supreme Court review, after passing the State or Federal legislature, before going to the Governor. It shouldn’t require the Citizen to cross the law, and spend thousands or millions of dollars in legal fees to have a law declared unConstitutional.

      If the courts later reverse themselves, they should be PERSONALLY responsible for all associated legal fees.

      This should keep the S.C.’s gainfully employed, and slow the floods of stupid laws considerably.

  3. Ah yes, Maggie Hassan, another not-from-around-here buttinsky harridan, like we have over here in Vermont; she’s a former Ivy-League Boston lawyer, married to the guy who runs the ultra-ritzy Phillips-Exeter Academy private school.

    These people know what’s best for us, citizen; move along now and knuckle under….

    • Seems like a lot of these Constitutional Carry bills are being passed by legislature with a nudge wink that the Governor will veto it. Then they can go well we tried and infringe for another election cycle.

  6. She’s a pro-Hillary, anti-2A Democrat. Vetoing pro-gun legislation is a virtual certainty, while being simultaneously ignorant of the salient facts thereof.

    I hope no one on TTAG votes Democrat in 2016. With few exceptions, they are decidedly anti-gun.

    • I’d prefer to vote Libertarian, if there were any truly viable candidates. About the last thing you’ll ever catch me doing is voting D.

      • I have voted Lib several times, essentially as a protest vote, when neither major candidate won my vote. But if I could choose one new Amendment, it would be a BINDING “none of the above” on every ballot. When I say binding, I mean none of the candidates won, and none of them can ever run for that office again, including the election coming up in 2 weeks.

    • This TTAG reader will not vote at all, ever again. The whole thing is a damnable charade, a one-Party regime and a band of thieves and wannabe tyrants writ large. When we vote, we validate their rule, and they laugh at our stupidity and ignorance. Outright now. Anyone bothering to vote in this country anymore is only fooling themselves.

      • Sorry if I gave the wrong impression David, I haven’t voted in a Presidential election since 92′ when the electorate college went against the state count for the Popular vote in Florida (no penalties ensued either). Still, I’d vote for a Libertarian if there was a viable one.

        I do agree with you on your gist, a waste of time & effort in every respect. The parties only allow those to run for important offices that have been thoroughly vetted, & tow the line in all matters statist.

        • Of the three possibilities mentioned in that article, I think numbers one and three pretty much tell the story, plus the abysmal ignorance of most Murkan derps of the actual issues and any acquaintance whatsoever with a genuine reading of American and Western European history.

          So basically voting is a waste of time and effort better spent on educating oneself and tooling up.

      • I don’t agree. If there was no fear of facing the voters at the polls, the latest attempt at national gun registration would have passed.

        National presidential elections are problematic, but local elections are much more doable to elect pro-second amendment canidates. The number of states that have passed Constitutional Carry Is proof of that.

        It is because of people getting out to vote that has made almost every state a shall issue state and has made the recent push for more constitutional carry states a reality.

        Which means sitting home and not voting, means the Statists win.

      • If a pro-2nd amendment voter fails to vote, that is the same thing as a vote for gun control. Obama won a second term because many americans didn’t vote. Hold your nose and vote Democrats out of office, or you might as well join Mothers Demand Action.

        • That argument doesn’t fly. It gets said at every election cycle; if we don’t vote bad things will happen and it will be our fault. It’s too late for all that now; decreasing numbers are voting and the ones who still do are heavily skewed, more and more, to the Dem- and prog-controlled masses. As was the intent all along. The Repub half of the Party is dead in the water now, and will only be allowed to continue to exist as a kind of rump minority that shouts and makes some noise once in a while, but the real ruling will be done by the Dem half of the Party from now on.

          The Dem hierarchy has no one to run except Field Marshal Rodham; Bernie Sanders or Warren down in MA have the proverbial snowball’s chances. The Repubs have only their little circus clown car, with all the usual fools and cretins spilling out and making some nice noises and the whole thing is just a charade. Voting is an exercise in futility and means nothing now at that level and damn little at smaller venues.

          We are looking at eight more years of an odious regime worse than the Incumbent’s and a long hard slog in opposition ahead; it will not be pretty. Telling folks that they can still make a difference through voting is whistling past the graveyard. Better we face up to unpleasant facts and make plans for what we need to do.

        • Davidx – you need to lead a bit about our republican form of gov’t. Perhaps you slept thru class.

          6million conservative the voted for RINO McCain in 2008 stayed home rather than vote for RINO Romney in 2012. And that damn sure was a vote for the Obumerster. Popular or electoral Obmuer would not have won

          • Alas, this is a HUGE part of our problem in the defense of the 2A and of the survival of our country.

            I have a dear friend who is right on all the issues; yet, he has never voted and will not vote no matter what admonishments I give him. He regards any effort to vote as entirely futile.

            In his case, he is probably correct. He lives in NJ which will never free itself no matter how horrific it may suffer at the hands of the Progressives. So many of us are in States where one or both of our Senators are beyond redemption and where our Congressional district is hopeless.

            We have to think strategically about such cases; right-minded individual who sees voting as futile. What else can such an individual do; or, what can we admonish such an individual to do?

            I think that we we need to support candidates financially who will move the ball in our direction. Such an individual could send $10 or $100 to a candidate or a PAC that will primary RINOs and back right-leaning candidates regardless of State or District.

            An easy answer would be to donate to NRA’s PAC; however, I suspect that this isn’t quite the best choice. I think the NRA is apt to back those incumbents it KNOWS they can rely upon to STOP legislation that harms the 2A. If so, it’s important; but, it doesn’t advance the ball.

            If we are to advance the ball we need to reach new candidates, freshman and sophomore incumbents who have not yet sold-out to establishment interests. We can afford to buy these guys’ loyalty or provoke their fear of the 2A constituency. Incumbents who learn to fear our opposition in the primary and again in the general election will be less eager to court the Moms and their Tap-Root funding source. Challengers who need support anywhere they can get it ought to be open to our message.

            The leadership can’t whip all the freshmen and sophomores on every vote; they can only whip them on a majority of votes. Most likely, the establishment leadership doesn’t care as much about the gun votes as it cares about winning pork for their own districts.

            Is GAO’s PAC a good place to invest?

            • I am thinking that the several responses so far to my posts about not voting at all, as it’s a waste of time and effort, fail to appreciate how far down the tubes this country has gone. Here’s a signal from the Clue Train:

              It’s OVER.

              You can vote and send money and post leaflets until the cows come home now and it won’t matter a whit. The NRA has gotten us as far as it has through our memberships, contributions, and the power of lawyers and politicians they have been able to get to over the decades. But 4 million paid members is a sorry drop in the bucket next to the tens of millions who own and use firearms; think how much more we could have done.

              But it’s TOO LATE now. That dog won’t hunt anymore. We’ve lost. In the political and cultural arenas, that is. Prepare to be an embattled and persecuted minority in our own country. Field Marshal Rodham and her minions will finish the job that Barack Hussein has been doing, and her husband before that. The Bush’s were caretaker/janitor presidents and of no use whatsoever to us, as has been the case all along with treacherous and deceitful Repub ass-hats.

              We are ruled by a corporate fascist oligarchy in late-stage capitalism; this cannot be sustained very much longer, not with $20 trillion in debt and climbing, a crumbling national infrastructure, a 3-days-just-in-time inventory for the stores concerning food and other goods, and a very vulnerable national Grid. The system is rigged badly against us and elections and voting are silly charades now that they foist on us for their own amusement, laughing as we continue to believe in the fairy tales about Democracy here. They have nothing but loathing and contempt for us.

              Got it?

              • I got it. It works just exactly as the politicians want it to work.

                This is going to be tedious, but I need to spell it out. Suppose a body politic consists of 100 voters. (Just add some zeros to make it realistic). Start the game with 49 voters who are members of the Sharks party and 49 who are members of the Crocs party. Just 2 disinterested voters who don’t bother voting. The spoils of political victory will go to the Sharks or the Crocs depending upon which one can win the vote(s) of the disinterested voters. Now, the winning party gets to tax 100 voters and spread the revenue across its 49 party members. This doesn’t work very well.

                The two parties need to change the system. Ideally, if there were only 1 member of the Shark party and 1 member of the Croc party there would be 98 disinterested voters. Whichever of the two competing parties won the vote(s) of 1+ of the disinterested voters would win control. These 2 or 3 or 4 members of the winning party would tax all 100 voters and spread the revenue only these few members.

                Reality is closer to 33 Sharks, 33 Crocs and 34 disinterested voters. Just a few of those disinterested voters have the power to tip the balance of power to whichever party is more likely to go along with their agenda.

                If PotG could muster our fellow gun owners we would be an insurmountable political force. We simply have not succeeded in getting our political act together. (To be slightly more precise, we’ve gotten our act together at the State level in plenty of States that are now Right-to-Carry; however, we haven’t translated that political prowess to the Federal level – yet.)

                Eventually, the situation in America may deteriorate to the point where what remains of civil order will have to be maintained by the militia. We should all fervently pray this day never comes. Yet, IF it should come, will the body politic be prepared to take-up its militia duty? How would we know?

                Our success – or lack thereof – in the debating halls will be an extraordinarily accurate barometer as to the capacity of the People to do their militia duty. If the PotG can’t muster in the debate hall how could we imagine they will muster on the Village Green of Concord or any other town?

                As best we can tell, the 3% who fielded the Revolution were supported by another 30% who rolled the cartridges and baked the bread. They were opposed by 33% who remained loyal subjects. Another 33% were ambivalent. How were Samuel Adams, Washington et. al able to count those in their muster; count those in the royalist muster and those who would stand aside? I imagine they used the political process – the debate halls – to take the measure of their support, opposition and pool of uncommitted.

                If we PotG, conservatives and libertarians simply sulk in our basements, taking stock of our staples, we will have no clue as to where we stand at the end of the world has we have known it. We will not be heard. We will win no converts from among the uncommitted. We will lose by default before the last shot-heard-round-the-world might be fired.

              • I understand your scenarios full well but I think it’s too late. The remaining window of opportunity is pretty much closed now, short of some crazy event/s that we can’t even imagine at this point.

                You and others here (and elsewhere) clearly don’t think it’s too late yet.

                I hope you’re right but fear you’re wrong.

              • Sounds like we have a mutual understanding of the evidence on the facts; we only differ on the conclusion. Perhaps the best outcome we might hope for.

                Keep your power dry.

      • The electoral college is a load of crap. Your vote doesn’t count for anything since the electors can technically vote however they damn well please and the popular vote doesn’t mean squat. It was designed so that the uneducated peasant masses can issue a vote without having too much of an impact on the outcome.

        It needs to go die, along with the two party state

        • If you do away with the electoral college, you might as well not vote outside New York and California.

  7. That would be my take on it as an off the cuff guess. Yeah, a quick look @ Wiki & it’s confirmed. Democrap.

    • Not to critique you guys @ TTAG too much, but if you would please do me a favor. If you find it desirable to delete a post, please delete my answer to that post as well.

      It looks a bit like I’m talking to myself, or worse, having a convo all by my lonesome. Peeps might’n get the wrong impression… ;p

  9. New Hampshire is NOT a shall issue state. It is a “most of the time” issue state. That is one of the driving factors behind this legislation — applicants are being denied for arrests without convictions, nonviolent misdemeanors, and poor driving records.

    Also, credit the election of this Massachusetts transplant governor to the NH Republican party who keep pushing moral majority candidates in the first state to pass gay marriage through the legislative process.

    • The moral majority (as if) has cost the republicans my vote several times, and the NRA-PVF my money for over 10 years now. Scott Walker may change that, he says clearly thar he is pro-life, but that will not be part of his campaign because the issue has been decided by SCOTUS, the recourse is a constitutional amendment. Any other story is a lie.

    • “. . . applicants are being denied for arrests without convictions, nonviolent misdemeanors, and poor driving records.”

      Jeff, has anyone dug into the details of these denials?

      If someone has been arrested for a violent crime or a felony and his case has not yet been adjudicated then I could imagine the cops denying his application until the case is cleared.

      If someone has a poor driving record I could imagine the cops denying his application until he accumulates a driving record that reflects that he has cleaned-up his act. (I’m not talking about lots of tickets for 10 miles over the speed limit or not stopping completely on a stop sign. I’m think of DWI or reckless driving.)

      Non-violent misdemeanors are a little harder to imagine. Possible, I suppose. Maybe a guy got several misdemeanor trespasses when he was harassing a neighbor in a hostile manner.

      In the remaining “May-Issue” jurisdictions, it would be useful to know the nitty gritty details on how this works. Conceivably (I doubt it, but let’s keep an open mind) there is a May-Issue official who denies applications on plausible bases. Maybe he approves applicants who have had just one misdemeanor bar fight but denies applicants who have racked-up 12 misdemeanor bar fights in the past 24 months. We might learn something if we found some such cases. Conversely, if the evidence shows that there are hardly any cases where May-Issue officials deny with plausible justification then this would be valuable information in the public debate as well.

      We should want to uncover the evidence that May-Issue is almost always implemented as an abuse of discretion. The political donor’s son with 6 bar fights is approved whereas the adult who had 1 misdemeanor trespass when he was 18 is denied. Why do we demand Shall-Issue? Because May-Issue is ONLY implemented as a politically-motivated abuse of power.

  10. New Hampshire is NOT a shall issue state. One of the driving forces behind this bill is that police chiefs are denying applicants based on their driving records, arrest (not conviction) history, and non-violent misdemeanors.

  11. “New Hampshire’s current concealed carry permitting law has worked well for nearly a century – ensuring the Second Amendment rights of our citizens while helping to keep the Granite State one of the safest states in the nation.”

    Per neighborhoodscout.com New Hampshire’s violent crime rate and total crime rate are both slightly higher than Vermont’s (Full disclosure: property crimes are higher in Vermont, but not by much). Conclusion? Similar location, demographics, and crime rates, but one has a licensing scheme which appears to do nothing for safety except to make some people feel safe. The seventh court of appeals approves.

    • As a former police department “assistant statistical officer” I can attest that the property and violent crime stats compiled and reported by local jurisdictions can run the gamut from crystal-clear/accurate to shoddy bullshit meaning nothing in common with reality and everything in between.

      I would caution against relying very far on the final stats reported by the state police and FBI accordingly.

      • I only googled “crime rate Vermont” and “crime rate New Hampshire”. Those were really the first ones that came up that uniform. I highly doubt the FBI stats will show the Vermont is a nihilistic waste land compared to New Hampshire. My point was they were nearly equal and her honor-less’ statement that carry licenses are the reason for the low crime was misleading at best.

        • I took your point OK; I just wanted to point out that the crime stats are a lot of hooey, and used mostly as political fodder at various times by the usual suspects. Not many folks are aware of how they are compiled and tend to accept them verbatim.

          The sergeant who had it before me at that particular department was a heavy-duty drunk and used to just whip together some crap and send it out, usually while slugging down the beers with the chief and lieutenant. When he didn’t wanna do the gig anymore, it got handed to me, and I started reporting the stuff accurately. Well, long story short; it made the media and the place went nuts. I was immediately taken off that duty and the department suspended its participation for quite a while after that, with the Staties and Feebies.

        • Thx, davidx. I noticed LAPD got caught under-reporting their crimes, and down-grading felonies to misdemeanors, etc. Something to do with officer bonuses. Also Chicago hasnt been included in FBI stats for awhile as they dont (wont?) format the data to fit FBI reporting metrics.

          You have to figure this is going on in many more big cities, and dozens of corrupt smaller departments.

          • Exactly. Don’t ever trust those crime stats figures. You don’t wanna see how they make sausage and you don’t wanna watch crime stats being compiled and faked and sent out and then repeated on the gummint sites and in the media.

            When my accurate stats went out to the state police and FBI, the media got ahold of them and showed us with far higher violent and property crime figures, which was true. Half the department hid and slept on the night shifts or studied for promotional exams or were drunk or hungover. Other departments may have other issues, such as the ones you mention at LAPD and Chicago PD.

            Then the politicians on police departments and in legislatures and other offices use them for their own purposes, i.e., beefing up police departments, buying more toyz, raising taxes, etc. Or the reverse; justifying their existence by reporting lower figures, like my department had been doing.

            As they say, revenge is a dish best served cold: the chief, lieutenant and several officers are dead now; others are retired. That former drunk sergeant finally got bounced out after putting the department and city through a massive civil suit litigation resulting from him beating the snot out of some kids with his PR-24 while half-drunk and hungover one night, and then failing out of the detox program. His gig after that was security guard at the city’s incinerator plant.

            Multiply this disaster by however many hundreds of effed-up departments and department brass and city fathers and mothers and you can see how reliable their reports might be.

  12. Interesting observation, notice no other right is contested as much as 2A. No one votes on the remaining ones.

    Protectors of the 2nd are in a unique position to move elected representatives out of office and into private employment.

  13. Giving “law enforcement an I prtant oversight” screw you you commie b!$&@.

    It’s all about the money. It’s all about these jackbooted thugs fisking the taxpayers with a non refundable tax and revoking them on a whim. And then when they do get the permit, the cops treat them worse than criminals, having their weapons drawn and yelling and screaming at people for things that most of the time aren’t even illegal.

  16. Email sent:

    http://governor.nh.gov/contact/index.htm

    Regarding Senate Bill 116.

    I was born in NH and lived both there and in VT for much of my youth. VT has had no problems not requiring a permit for a Constitutional Right for 240+ years. Why do you think the NH Citizens will lose control of themselves if not required to obtain a permit to be armed per the Constitution? Are the Citizens of NH less capable, trustworthy and responsible then residents of VT? Do you have data to support that assertion?

    While we await an answer, may I please see your First, Fourth, Thirteenth and Twenty-Sixth Amendment Permits, proof of training and receipts for fees paid to the government? You do want to be responsible, don’t you?

    By the way, Law Enforcement officials do NOT get to decide who may exercise Constitutional Rights. Not their job.

  17. The veto is disappointing but this was a low risk/high gain exercise for NH House, Senate, and Governor around 2A. Nothing more, nothing less. It is an interesting “win” that Hassan’s statement includes a backhanded admission that guns make people safer.

    I resent the NH Pistol & Revolver permit system as a 2A infringement but in my experience haven’t had an issue with it in practice. I’ve heard stories of law abiding citizens with old arrests (no conviction) being denied P&R permits but they are far and few between.

  18. The author of this article is completely wrong. NH is not a true “shall issue” state. Yes it is true we have the word “shall issue” in the law but we also have the words “suitable person” in the same sentence (below). Suitable person was never defined by the legislature and has instead been defined by the NH supreme court with each case lowering the bar on it allowing more people to be denied if the chief doesn’t like guns or has a God complex. The following cases have and continue to expand the definition of “suitable person” in NH: BLEILER v. CHIEF, DOVER POLICE (2007), GARAND v. TOWN OF EXETER (2009), Doyon v. Hooksett Police Department (2014).

    Anyone who states that there is no discretion in NH is frankly either intentionally lying or knows nothing about NH. Statute does not exist in a vacuum and the courts do change the meaning of laws.

    159:6
    “I. (a) The selectmen of a town, the mayor or chief of police of a city or a full-time police officer designated by them respectively, the county sheriff for a resident of an unincorporated place, or the county sheriff if designated by the selectmen of a town that has no police chief, upon application of any resident of such town, city, or unincorporated place, or the director of state police, or some person designated by such director, upon application of a nonresident, shall issue a license to such applicant authorizing the applicant to carry a loaded pistol or revolver in this state for not less than 4 years from the date of issue, if it appears that the applicant has good reason to fear injury to the applicant’s person or property or has any proper purpose, and that the applicant is a SUITABLE PERSON to be licensed.”

    • Exactly Solo. And in NH we’ve seen these Chiefs deny to Women. (Because they are Women.) A prior arrest years ago for a small amount of weed, etc…

  19. As several have pointed out, the statement about NH being a ‘shall issue’ state was incorrect. Apologies. I have asked Dan to strike the offending paragraph.

Comments are closed.