New Hampshire Questions Its: ‘Mother, May I’ Concealed Carry Licence Policy

This editorial first appeared at NH Union Leader Corp News-site: http://tiny.cc/mnkblx

New Hampshire Concealed Carry License
New Hampshire Questions Its: ‘Mother, May I’ Concealed Carry Gun Policy

New Hampshire – -(Ammoland.com)- The NH state Department of Safety created a controversy this summer by changing some language on the state’s concealed carry license application.

The language seemed to imply that the department has wide discretion when deciding who gets concealed carry permits. The controversy raised a very important question about the state’s concealed carry license: Why do we have one?

State law requires a license for the concealed carry of a firearm. A gun owner has to apply to a specific state or local official, who “shall issue a license to such applicant… 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.”

The law does not define “suitable person to be licensed.” It has been broadly interpreted to mean anyone not barred by another law from owning a firearm. Felons, for instance, would be denied, but any legal gun owner would be granted a license.

If that is so, then why bother with the process? Just let all legal gun owners carry concealed. If that is not so (the only reason to have a licensing process is to bar some legal gun owners from carrying concealed), then we have a state law that grants government officials the easily abused power to decide whether citizens are “suitable” for concealed carry.

Vermont has a simpler process, which is that there is no process. (Constitutional Carry)

That state has no prohibition on carrying concealed. No one has to ask the government’s permission. If you legally own a gun, you can legally carry concealed. It works for Vermont. It can work for the “Live free or die” state, too.

  • 6 thoughts on “New Hampshire Questions Its: ‘Mother, May I’ Concealed Carry Licence Policy

    1. For travel to evil states that allow out of state carriers with reciprocal agreements with that piece of paper , proving that other states deny you your right to self defense and 2nd amendment rights.

    2. States like NH,CT,NY,RI,NJ,etc. can have all the tyranny they want. At least these states are last places in the country I would ever go to for anything anyways ! (Even if they were pro 2A) These are states that just suck anyways,…who cares ?

    3. You see this is called common sense, (constitutional carry follows the constitution to the letter). The left have a debilitating fit when they are not allowed to disregard the law and common sense, especially when gun control is involved.

    4. Better read up. Along with VT, NH is the last hold out in New England not to be grouped with CT,NY,RI, & NJ. Did you know VT is the most Liberal state in the union but has constitutional carry. Riddle me that one.

    5. Why does anyone need a STATE Permission slip anyway?

      “A “Statute’ is not a Law,” (Flournoy v. First Nat. Bank of Shreveport, 197 La. 1067, 3 So.2d 244, 248),

      A “Code’ is not a Law,” (In Re Self v Rhay Wn 2d 261), in point of fact in Law,)

      A concurrent or ‘joint resolution’of legislature is not “Law,” (Koenig v. Flynn, 258 N.Y. 292, 179 N. E. 705, 707; Ward v State, 176 Okl. 368, 56 P.2d 136, 137; State ex rel. Todd v. Yelle, 7 Wash.2d 443, 110 P.2d 162, 165).

      All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accord with God’s Laws.

      “All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process of Law..”
(Rodriques v. Ray Donavan, U.S. Department of Labor, 769 F.2d 1344, 1348 (1985)); ”

      “…an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void…” -Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137; 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803)

      Arms restrictions even concealed weapons bans are unconstitutional, since arms bearing is an individual right and the legislature may not restrict any aspect of such a right.
      Bliss v. Commonwealth

      Stop Being “Law Abiding”

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>