|
|
|
OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum > Stories From The States > New Hampshire > License required to exercise your fundamental Right
|
|
||
| OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum > Stories From The States > New Hampshire > License required to exercise your fundamental Right
|
|||
| Moderated by: jpierce | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Freestater Regular Member
|
On October 10 2008, my wife and I were leaving Manchester, NH to return home. We were pulled over by the Manchester police. We were asked for license, registration, etc, and after the officer was not satisfied with our answers, without even calling it in, he asked me to step out of our truck, whereupon he immediately pushed me up against the truck and searched me. He confiscated my sidearms and ammunition and arrested both of us. My wife has a concealed carry license, but they confiscated her sidearm and ammunition as well. They also confiscated our camera. The claim for the initial stop was "a loud muffler." When the truck was started up and driven onto a trailer at the impound lot, we asked the lot manager if he could tell what the problem was. He didn't think there was any problem with the truck, and when we told him that the police claimed that the muffler was too loud, he asked if we were kidding and pointed out that many of the commercial trucks with perfectly good mufflers were much louder than our pickup. We put the truck on a trailer because they confiscated our license plates. We are going to court to challenge the police, and are asking for any support or assistance that the gun community can offer. To me, the Second Amendment protects a pre-existing God-given Right to protect myself and my family. It is not a privilege subject to "reasonable restrictions" that vary from State to State at the whim of legislators or varying legislatures. The second Amendment was supposed to be a "reasonable restriction" _on the government_, not on the citizens that governments inevitably tyrannize. How is the claim that a gun owner needs a license any different from the attitudes of, "if you want to own a gun, then you should become a cop, or join the military?" I shouldn't need a badge to carry a gun, and no one should need a license either - you don't need a license to vote, do you? What is next? Permits to carry concealed books? Licenses to publish? Book registration? I own a restaurant, and the government requires me to have a "license to operate a place of assembly." I thought the Right of the People to peaceably assemble was protected by the First Amendment. Maybe that's just another one of those "reasonable restrictions" the State imposes through its "general Police Power." If you believe in Rights, Freedom, America, and all those things the Founders created this country for to begin with - those Rights all those colonists died to secure, and our current troops are supposedly dying to protect, then we ask you to do what you can to help us take the next step forward in protecting our Rights, your Rights, and your children's Rights. Otherwise, they will be gone. If you can post this account to a different forum, blog, or webspace, write an article about the Right to bear arms whether concealed or not, or maybe even just give 5 bucks to help us fight this in court (williamwalker.chipin.com) then we would greatly appreciate it. Links to [sensationalized] news stories and video are available on the ChipIn page. Thank you, Bill and Ivy Walker |
|||||||||
|
MarkNH State Researcher 
|
Bill, I agree with your interpretation of the Second Amendment but the NH Supreme Court ruled a little differently last year (the case about the guy who had his Pistol and Revolver License revoked). They felt that a person's Federal Second Amendment and State Constitutional rights were sufficiently protected by the ability to open carry a firearm in New Hampshire without a permit (ignoring the argument that you cannot carry a loaded firearm inside a vehicle). As the law stands at the moment (RSA 159:4), by your own admission, you broke the law (assuming your two handguns were loaded). One small consolation is that is only a misdemeanor so they can't take away your Second Amendment "right" for ever. I would love to see a legal challenge to the Constitutional grounds of requiring a permit for concealed and/or car carry in NH but I fear you will have a hard time arguing a case where, as you have already discovered, the media and public listen more to "multiple guns", "body armor", "driving with a suspended license", "misuse of plates" rather than Constitutional rights. Good luck. Last edited on Tue Oct 21st, 2008 06:01 pm by MarkNH |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
Freestater wrote: On October 10 2008, my wife and I were leaving Manchester, NH to return home. We were pulled over by the Manchester police. You better hope you win the suppression argument for unlawful stop/search - there is no way you are going to win on a claim that you have a right to refuse to be licensed to CONCEAL guns. Did you not read Heller? |
|||||||||
|
Freestater Regular Member
|
It's about fighting for what I believe in. It's about standing up to a system that always chisels away a little bit more of our Rights until there's nothing left, and We the People have no power left to fight, let alone win. In March of 1775, attorney Patrick Henry, rode into the small town of Culpepper, Virginia. As he rode into the town square, he was completely shocked by what he witnessed. There, in the middle of the square, was a man tied to a whipping post, his back laid bare, with bones exposed. He had been scourged mercilessly, with whips laced with metal. When they stopped beating him, Patrick Henry could plainly see the bones of his rib cage. He turned to ask someone in the crowd, "What has the man done to deserve such a beating as this?" The reply given him was that the man being scourged was a minister. He was one of twelve preachers, locked in jail, because they refused to take the king's license to preach the gospel. The governor was under orders from King George to compel all preachers to take the license. While being tried, without the benefit of a jury, the minister stated, "I will never submit to taking your license. I am controlled by the Holy Spirit, and authorized by God Almighty, and will not allow you to control me by a license, no matter what you may do to me." Three days later, he was scourged to death, and such was the fate of the other ministers, as well. This was the incident that sparked Patrick Henry to write the famous words, which later became the rallying cry of the American Revolution, "What is it that the gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to purchase at the price of chains and slavery? John Stark was right: Death is not the worst of evils. Licensure may be. Live free or die, Bill |
|||||||||
|
cato Regular Member 
|
Sounds like you're headed for a jury trial. Good luck. Have your attorney set up a LDF. Last edited on Tue Oct 21st, 2008 07:02 pm by cato |
|||||||||
|
Sonora Rebel Regular Member 
|
All American Citizens are BORN with that Right. Self Defense is one of those inalienable rights the 2A provides recognition of. In the Heller case, Justice Scalia wrote: “Nowhere else in the Constitution does a ”right“ attributed to ”the people“ refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention ”the people,“ the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset... (that would be the Militia argument.) The Second Amendment extends prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms... The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it 'shall not be infringed.'" Rights are not 'privileges' to be licensed... granted... or 'permitted' What some states have done is deny citizens their Contitutional RIGHTS! This is TYRANNY! They've done it for so long it's accepted as Normal. The Sheep have let them get away with it. In that... you get the government you deserve. Last edited on Tue Oct 21st, 2008 07:19 pm by Sonora Rebel |
|||||||||
|
JBURGII Regular Member 
|
This touches on what I have been thinking about lately. We have been attempting to insinuate ourselves in polite society by slowly exposing them to open carry weapons. But at what point does society push us toward demonstrating our willingness to go the extra step and take it to the courts, much less if and when we have a breakdown of modern society anyway and have to go for open revolt? These are just theoretical questions, not to be taken as a request for backup in any kind of rebellion. Just talking here.. I realize those who have spent years working on this subject do not want the good they have done to be undone but there does need to be some risk taking to further the cause. Test the limits of the law in such a way as to get judgements in our favor. As always, if I am wrong about anything I welcome correction.. J |
|||||||||
|
Sonora Rebel Regular Member
|
It's real simple... these errand boys sent by grocery clerks will uphold their oath to support and defend the Constitution or not. Obviously... NOT. This particular incident is so bad in so many ways as to be unconscionable. |
|||||||||
|
ivyleague28477 Regular Member
|
cato wrote: Sounds like you're headed for a jury trial. Good luck. Have your attorney set up a LDF. Bill's wife here. As Bill stated near the end of his post, we have set up a fund to help with the legal expenses. http://williamwalker.chipin.com should get folks there. Any little bit can help. My case is separate from his. They clearly violated my rights, as they have seized and still remain in possession of my sidearm and ammunition when I have the conceal carry license they require. They are requiring I jump through all kinds of legal hoops to get it back, when it was wrongfully seized in the first place. They told the media I was charged with things I was never charged with. They need to be stopped, and we both hope Bill's case is the one to change things for the better here in New Hampshire. |
|||||||||
|
PT111 Regular Member 
|
- you don't need a license to vote, do you? Yes, it called a voter registration card. You don't have to have it with you but it has to be issued. |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
ivyleague28477 wrote: cato wrote:Sounds like you're headed for a jury trial. Good luck. Have your attorney set up a LDF. I think if you had carried Bill's gun while in the vehicle no crime would have been committed. |
|||||||||
|
ivyleague28477 Regular Member
|
well, you're probably right, but (see below) I'm a tiny little thing and can barely carry my 1911 without falling over  Seriously though, the Second Amendment says "shall not be infringed", so why should I HAVE to carry Bill's guns just to not violate a law, or why should he HAVE to get a license (infringement) in order to carry concealed? Attached Image (viewed 836 times): Last edited on Wed Oct 22nd, 2008 02:26 am by ivyleague28477 |
|||||||||
|
MarkNH State Researcher
|
ivyleague28477 wrote:Seriously though, the Second Amendment says "shall not be infringed", so why should I HAVE to carry Bill's guns just to not violate a law, or why should he HAVE to get a license (infringement) in order to carry concealed? Based on your telling of the story* you were badly treated by the police and they should return your firearm, ammo, and camera. * There are at least four sides to every story, your version, the police's version, the media's version, and the truth. Unfortunately Ivy, for Bill the law is plainly written: If Bill was carrying a loaded firearm (i.e. ammunition in a magazine inserted in the firearm) in a vehicle without a license he broke the law as it is currently written. Can you challenge the arrest on unlawful search grounds? probably, although the misuse of plates charge indicates to me (not a lawyer/leo) that the officer had already ran your plates and found them to be invalid giving him probable cause beyond "a noisy muffler" for a stop. Can you challenge the charge on Constitutional grounds? probably, although the circumstances likely to be mentioned repeatedly by a prosecutor ("multiple guns", "body armor", "driving with a suspended license", "misuse of plates") as well of the relatively minor nature of the "crime" would make this a difficult case to take all the way to get both a ruling on incorporation of the second amendment to the States combined with a very narrow definition of reasonable restriction. Sadly the most likely outcome is that the system will find Bill guilty of two misdemeanors and a violation and he will get a fine and possibly a little jail time (your fellow Freestaters Lauren, Kat, and Russell can tell him what to expect in jail), and if he gets caught carrying concealed again within 7 years he gets a felony charge and loses his gun rights. |
|||||||||
|
KBCraig Regular Member
|
Just in case anyone is wondering, their case and their request for funds is valid. I can verify they are who they claim. It's not just scammers begging, is what I'm saying. |
|||||||||
|
ivyleague28477 Regular Member
|
MarkNH wroteUnfortunately Ivy, for Bill the law is plainly written: While you're right the (unConstitutional) "law" is plainly written; we are hoping to change that law. Your assessment is excellently accurate on what we can challenge, and yes, those are probably the hurdles we must face which is why we are asking for help. I know the leo did not run the plates prior to pulling us out of the vehicle, because while he was standing roadside taking apart our guns and we were already in handcuffs, he THEN called in and respectively received the call saying the registration was suspended (which is their basis for the charge of misuse of plates and for my charge of Operating with a Suspended Registration - funny cuz I wasn't operating anything). We have hired Attorney Evan Nappen, who is one of the best "gun lawyers" in the country. He says we have an excellent case... but we need (obviously) to be able to pay him for his services which is why we have asked for help. P.S. Thanks Kevin!  Last edited on Wed Oct 22nd, 2008 03:54 pm by ivyleague28477 |
|||||||||
|
smn Regular Member
|
I hope your lawyer is filing in Federal court under 42 USC 1983. IANAL, but GeorgiaCarry.org's set of lawyers are top notch and DKing has done some out of state work. See more at GeorgiaCarry.org and GeorgiaPacking.org. |
|||||||||
|
ivyleague28477 Regular Member
|
Thank you, smn! I don't know if he is, but I will send that along to him! All these little bits of information are so very helpful! We appreciate it! |
|||||||||
|
NavyLT Regular Member
|
Deleted. Last edited on Thu Oct 23rd, 2008 02:43 am by NavyLT |
|||||||||
|
NavyLT Regular Member
|
William Walker, 39, of 11 Neils Lane, Grafton, was driving a Mazda pickup truck when he was pulled over at Belmont and Bridge streets for a defective exhaust, according to Capt. Richard Valenti. Walker allegedly was wearing a bullet resistent vest under his clothing and had the loaded guns, along with numerous fully loaded magazines, concealed in his waistband. Valenti said the police report does not indicate why Walker was so heavily armed and wearing the protective vest. Walker is charged with carrying a concealed weapon without a permit. Police also cited him for operating a motor vehicle after license suspension and misuse of plates. His passenger, Sharon Ankrom, 31, of the same address, was arrested for disorderly conduct. She was also cited for operating a motor vehicle with a suspended registration as the owner of the pickup truck. |
|||||||||
|
NavyLT Regular Member
|
http://www.wmur.com/cnn-news/17685307/detail.html Loaded Guns, Body Armor Found During Traffic Stop Police Say Man Concealed Weapons Without Permit POSTED: 7:48 am EDT October 10, 2008 UPDATED: 12:15 pm EDT October 10, 2008 MANCHESTER, N.H. -- A man stopped by police Thursday night for a defective exhaust was wearing body armor and had two fully loaded concealed guns in his waistband, police said. Police said William Walker, 39, of Grafton, N.H., was charged with carrying a concealed weapon without a permit, as well as driving with suspended license and misuse of plates. The officer who pulled over Walker's pickup truck became suspicious when he noticed Walker's passenger trying to stick something underneath her seat, police said. "Upon approaching the vehicle, he learned that the driver was wearing body armor, as well as carrying concealed weapons and concealed ammunition underneath his clothing," Officer Paul Rondeau said. Police said Walker had two pistols and ammunition concealed inside his waistband. He was taken into custody. "He didn't have a permit to conceal either the weapon or the ammunition," Rondeau said. The passenger in the truck, Sharon Ankrom, was also arrested. Police said she initially gave them a false name and also tucked a pistol under her seat. She is licensed to carry the pistol. Ankrom has been charged with disorderly conduct and operating with a suspended registration because she owns the pickup truck. Police said they not sure why the two had the weapons or why Walker was wearing body armor. "We don't have any information that leads us to believe he was en route to commit a crime," Rondeau said. "We're not sure, and that part is still under investigation." Both were released on bail and are due back in court for arraignment later this month. |
|||||||||
|
smn Regular Member
|
There's his story, her story, the officer's story, and somewhere in between the truth. I've been pulled over for out of date tags, but that matter was resolved quickly when the officer verified over the radio my registration was up to date. Driving on expired tags is a great way to meet police officers. You meet more fine individuals when you're booked on a suspended license. The weapons charges might later be dropped, but remember, you may beat the rap but you won't beat the ride. |
|||||||||
|
Sonora Rebel Regular Member
|
All in all... this (now) appears to be a legit arrest.  |
|||||||||
|
ivyleague28477 Regular Member
|
NavyLT wrote: Unbelievable. The OP failed to mention that the search was pursuit to discovering that our good 'ol Bill here was driving with a suspended license. Oh, and good, faithful wife here had let the registration on the truck expire, so the plates on the truck were no good. Oh and faithful wife here gives the police a false name because she had a three year old traffic ticket in another state that had not been paid. They didn't mention any of that, did they? The registration is not expired. And the three-year-old traffic ticket was paid... wait for it folks... three years ago. You're really getting things quite confused and attempting to dig up dirt where there is none. |
|||||||||
|
ivyleague28477 Regular Member
|
smn wrote: ... remember, you may beat the rap but you won't beat the ride. true enough! |
|||||||||
|
NavyLT Regular Member
|
ivyleague28477 wrote:
Ok, you're right Ivy. Your registration wasn't expired. It was suspended. And I can't verify the traffic ticket, so your objection is sustained, I withdraw that. I deleted my previous posting. However, it would have been nice to inform people of the whole, entire situation before you started complaining on here about your rights being violated. And, I will give you credit for posting links to the sensastionalized news stories on your chipin site which, seemed to me, to merely point out all the facts. Ok, except that somehow a license to carry ammunition concealed is required, we all know that isn't true. Last edited on Thu Oct 23rd, 2008 02:59 am by NavyLT |
|||||||||
|
ivyleague28477 Regular Member
|
Wow, thanks NavyLT. I think... I realise it's hard to discern what is fact and what is lies the police told the news media, or even what twists the news media put on things to make the story sensational and I am truely sorry for that. I wish I could sit here and say 'this is true and that is not' but it's hard for me even to know what I can correct and what I should say because with a pending court case anything could potentially be used against us in court. Anyone can twist words to mean anything they want them to, really. What I do know and what I can say is they had no right to confiscate and hold my sidearm for merely a traffic violation when I have the valid license to carry. At best; even if they needed to hold onto it for their own safety for a time while the stop was made, they should have given it back immediately upon my release. They have not and I have to jump through all sorts of hoops to get it back. What I also know is the weapons charges against Bill are bogus and we have one of the best "gun lawyers" in the country (Attorney Evan Nappen) who is behind us 100% on this and says we have an excellent case... but we still need to pay him (of course). I can see where our "message" gets muddled in and among the traffic violation stuff, so I can understand people's hesitations. But everyone's advise and references to case law has been very helpful and I'd appreciate it coming! By the way NavyLT; in New Hampshire one doesn't need a license or permit for ammunition at all. One does not need a license or permit to Open Carry either. One would need a New Hampshire license (not a permit at all) to conceal carry. There are a few other instances where one would not need a New Hampshire license to conceal carry as well. |
|||||||||
|
smn Regular Member
|
As it's happened in GA and PA and other states, once your attorney can show the court the police are in the wrong about seizing your handgun and any statements about the ammunition, you want the police to dance. You shouldn't have to jump through hoops. See this GCO case: http://www.georgiacarry.com/county/richmond_carry/ Also see the Georgia section of this forum. The facts will be determined in court. When it's found your rights have been suppressed thats when you sock it to 'em. |
|||||||||
|
ivyleague28477 Regular Member
|
Nice! Thanks smn! Last edited on Fri Oct 24th, 2008 05:08 am by ivyleague28477 |
|||||||||
|
Shawn Regular Member
|
Ivy, I can't find the ladies name in NH that takes these types of cases, but she thinks that the concealed case was argued wrong....Ask Gun Owners of NH....think she is a member. Listening to her, she stated there are some interesting facts about NH law, like if its not a common pistol, then you don't need a permit (I can't cite statue). So, what type of weapon were you guys carrying? Don't answer that and please look up the statues, as that is what I remember from discussion she was in at the time. Sorry I couldn't be more help, but if you go to court, along with state violations, please assert 2nd 4th, 9th, 10th and 14th amendment violations. Its true that Heller spoke about an issue not before it at the time. I would still have it in your complaint...lets remember what happened in Miller vs. Texas. |
|||||||||
|
ivyleague28477 Regular Member
|
Penny Dean. She's excellent, but we can't afford one lawyer, let alone two, which is why we've created the ChipIn page (http://williamwalker.chipin.com). Bill is friends with Evan Nappen, so he (of course) wanted to go with him. Evan has authored several books such as The Declaration, all about gun rights. I have to "go it alone" on my case because Evan can't represent us both (conflict of interest or what have you). Hopefully I can glean enough knowledge from what he is giving Bill and what I research on line to make my case... 2nd, 4th, 9th, 10th, and 14th... okay got it. (I think LOL) as if running a restaurant on a shoestring budget wasn't stressful enough... *sigh* |
|||||||||
|
jraxis Regular Member 
|
MarkNH wroteCan you challenge the charge on Constitutional grounds? probably, although the circumstances likely to be mentioned repeatedly by a prosecutor ("multiple guns", "body armor", "driving with a suspended license", "misuse of plates") as well of the relatively minor nature of the "crime" would make this a difficult case to take all the way to get both a ruling on incorporation of the second amendment to the States combined with a very narrow definition of reasonable restriction. We don’t need to “incorporate” the federal Second Amendment. What we have in our own State constitution is already better:— [Art.] 2-a. [The Bearing of Arms.] All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state. |
|||||||||
|
no carry permit ? Regular Member
|
"Freestaters" or irresponsible people ? Driving on suspended licences and or bogus plates is reckless and irresponsiable. I hope they convict you, seize & sell your car with a civil forfeiture, and throw both of you bums in jail. When you refuse to register your car and maintain a drivers licence YOU HAVE NO LIABILITY INSURANCE. It's null & void and will not cover losses your negligence causes. You are putting the public at risk of serious financial loss by your criminal activities. You are violating others property rights, by claiming "rights" that don't exist. You don't have the right to drive uninsured and expect the responsible citizens to cover your losses. What if you make a simple mistake and cause serious injury to another citizen ? What about their rights ? Who is going to pay their hospital bills and replace the car you destroyed ? What if they are permanently incapacitated ? Anyone contributing to these criminals needs to think about what it's like when you get rear ended by one of these "freestater" nuts that have Zero liability insurance, a counterfeited licence plate made out of cardboard, and an selfish, immature attitude that places themselves above the law. |
|||||||||
|
KBCraig Regular Member
|
no carry permit ? wrote: "When you refuse to register your car and maintain a drivers licence YOU HAVE NO LIABILITY INSURANCE. Just in case you're uninformed rather than merely a loudmouthed troll: liability insurance is not required in New Hampshire. |
|||||||||
|
MarkNH State Researcher
|
jraxis wrote: MarkNH wroteCan you challenge the charge on Constitutional grounds? probably, although the circumstances likely to be mentioned repeatedly by a prosecutor ("multiple guns", "body armor", "driving with a suspended license", "misuse of plates") as well of the relatively minor nature of the "crime" would make this a difficult case to take all the way to get both a ruling on incorporation of the second amendment to the States combined with a very narrow definition of reasonable restriction. [Art.] 2-a. [The Bearing of Arms.] All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state. True, but the original post was all about the Second Amendment protecting a God given right and that is why the charges are bogus. I agree with that assertion but it will be difficult to win that argument in the courts here. With regard to the NH State Constitution we unfortunately have to deal with the bad ruling last year concerning the revocation of the pistol and revolver license of Edward Blevin where the State Supreme Court said the New Hampshire state constitutional right to bear arms 'is not absolute and may be subject to restriction and regulation'. |
|||||||||
|
MarkNH State Researcher
|
Shawn wrote: Listening to her, she stated there are some interesting facts about NH law, like if its not a common pistol, then you don't need a permit (I can't cite statue). So, what type of weapon were you guys carrying? Shawn, are you sure you understood her correctly? The NH law on concealed carry applies to any modern* firearm with a barrel less than 16 inches in length. * Modern in this context excludes antique firearms where the definition of antique is "utilizing an early type of ignition, including, but not limited to, flintlocks, wheel locks, matchlocks, percussions and pin-fire, but no pistol, gun cane, or revolver which utilizes readily available center fire or rim-fire cartridges which are in common, current use shall be deemed to be an antique pistol, gun cane, or revolver." In other words unless Bill was carrying two old blackpower pistols or two handguns with 16 inch barrels, or two handguns that fire ammunition not readily available** the law applies to him. ** The readily available clause may help someone one day but then it will all come down to a definition of readily available, is ammunition readily available if you can buy it on the surplus market, as components for handloading, on gunbroker? .22 short dates from 1857 but you can still buy it today, .32 S&W has been around since 1870, .45 LC dates to 1873, etc etc, all of those are readily available. Can anyone suggest a caliber that you can't buy or reload today but would still trust your life to carrying a handgun in that caliber? Last edited on Thu Oct 23rd, 2008 11:28 am by MarkNH |
|||||||||
|
ivyleague28477 Regular Member
|
Mark, do you know where I can find the Blevin ruling online? I can't seem to find it. Never Mind; found it under Bleiler http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2007/bleir101.pdf thanks!! Last edited on Thu Oct 23rd, 2008 06:40 pm by ivyleague28477 |
|||||||||
|
no carry permit ? Regular Member
|
KBCraig wrote: no carry permit ? wrote:"When you refuse to register your car and maintain a drivers licence YOU HAVE NO LIABILITY INSURANCE. Just in case you're just a jerk from Texas that attacks everyone that disagrees with your foolish opinions with the label TROLL: 1) You are still legally liable for injuries & damages you cause. 2) YOU STILL HAVE TO BE LICENCED 3) YOUR CAR STILL MUST BE Registered 4) Once you cross the boarder into most states without insurance it's a crime. 5) Whatever happened to being responsible and covering damages you cause as legally required. If you paralyze someone in an accident that is your fault, how would anyone cover the financial liability without insurance. More & more I see "freestaters" as criminals and irresponsible people that are looking for excuses for their actions. This case isn't a gun rights issue, they broke many laws and deserve the consequences. |
|||||||||
|
ivyleague28477 Regular Member
|
I dont know... there are some good things in that ruling as well as some bad. Okay lots bad... But they basically agree (bottom of page 4 top of page 5) that the RKBA is a fundamental right but then decided not to address Bleiler's assertions that by taking away his conceal carry license it forced him to open carry subjecting him to a 'stigma'. Now follow my thought process here and tell me what y'all think of it: If I can substantially prove the stigma which open carry subjects me and my business to with police reports and severe business decline, would it possibly open up this line of questioning again and therefore possibly reverse their ruling here that they need not review RSA 159:6-b? A little background on that line of thought. My husband and I run a restaurant in a little town here in NH. It's a Tex-Mex place and we have open carried here and encourage it from our partons, especially on Friday's where it's theme night and one gets a dicount for "dressing up" as a cowboy/girl. Our first two or three weeks of business were great... then we started getting calls from the local PD Cheif who told us basically that it would be in our best interest to conceal our weapons. He told us that he'd received several calls of concern because we open carry and encourage other folks to open carry. We've also had people outright walk out of our business and tell us it was because they did not like the open carrying. It's a small town, and the rumor mill is wild with stories about us 'weilding our weapons' and such and since those first few weeks, our business has rapidly declined. Therefore, I can substantially prove the 'stigma' that open carrying causes, and therefore might have some grounds to have them review the statue under 'strict scrutiny'. Thoughts? |
|||||||||
|
ivyleague28477 Regular Member
|
To no carry permit ?: yes if i were to cause damages without insurance I would still be liable even if i did not carry liability insurance. yes if i were to cause damages i would be in great financial hardship in order to cover those damages. yes if i were to cause damages it would be my responsibility to pay for said damages. no one ever said i would not be responsible and not pay for the damages i caused if such damages were to occur. those are the risks one takes when they do not have insurance - sure i could be out a ton. that's my dice to roll, not yours to judge me on. i have not caused damages. i've not been in an accident (other than a deer running in front of me and damamging my own bumper) in more than 12 years since the first year i was licensed. no it is not a crime to cross over into another state that requires insurance when you live in a state that does not require it. the vehicle was registered. they are claiming the registration was suspended for some reason; i have no knowledge of said suspension. the arguement that an average person is required to have a drivers' license in order to travel to and fro upon the earth is one that is under much scrutiny now a days. the term 'driver' referrs to one whose business it is to transport passengers or goods on a public way. the average traveler is not a driver under the strict legal definition. there have been cases more and more frequently which are proving this. what people must remember is that while there are many things at play in this case, just like each and every aspect will be individually decided in court, we must also look at each and every aspect individually. i'm talking about the motor vehicle things with other people who have done battle in that arena. i'm here looking to people for help and information on the RKBA battle. the motor vehicle violations in no way should change or prohibit our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Last edited on Thu Oct 23rd, 2008 07:52 pm by ivyleague28477 |
|||||||||
|
smn Regular Member
|
ivyleague28477 wrote: I dont know... there are some good things in that ruling as well as some bad. Okay lots bad...Tell them you're encouraging the 2A by using the first. |
|||||||||
|
PT111 Regular Member
|
yes if i were to cause damages without insurance I would still be liable even if i did not carry liability insurance. yes if i were to cause damages i would be in great financial hardship in order to cover those damages. yes if i were to cause damages it would be my responsibility to pay for said damages. no one ever said i would not be responsible and not pay for the damages i caused if such damages were to occur. those are the risks one takes when they do not have insurance - sure i could be out a ton. that's my dice to roll, not yours to judge me on. BS on that. My mother was hit head on by a driver while stopped on her side of the road with no way to avoid him. He had no insurance, no property and no way to pay the hospital bills that my family incurred due to it. My grandmother's hip was broken and for six weeks after she had to stay in the bed while we paid someone to look after her. After that she used a walker for another three months. Thank goodness my 6 year old sister and 6 year old cousin were strapped in and did not go face first into the windshield like my mother did. 35 years later my mother still finds pieces of glass in her forehead. It my be your dice to roll but you are gambling with other people's lives and they could be out a ton because of your carelessness. And the other driver, he had never had an automobile accident in his 71 years of living. |
|||||||||
|
ivyleague28477 Regular Member
|
smn wrote:Tell them you're encouraging the 2A by using the first. Well, yes I do tell people that (or similar) when they ask about our open carrying. Usually IF they ask they're curious, not fearful and it's been a really good opportunty, but my qustion is this: ivyleague28477 wrote: If I can substantially prove the stigma which open carry subjects me and my business to with police reports and severe business decline, would it possibly open up this line of questioning again and therefore possibly reverse their ruling here that they need not review RSA 159:6-b? I suppose I wont really know the answer until I try that argument in court, but I was wondering if, based on the situation, other people thought that might be a reasonable argument to pose. PT111, I'm sorry to hear of your family's troubles. He had no insurance, no property and no way to pay the hospital bills that my family incurred due to it.That doesn't mean everyone is in that situation just because they do not have insurance. Hospital bills can be paid over time. He should have been held liable even if he couldn't pay them up front and immediately. He could have conceivable paid those bills for your family on a weekly or monthly payment plan to the hospital or doctors or visiting nurses or what have you without any negative effect to your family's financial situation. You're right that his actions were irresponsible; that does not mean mine will be if ever I were in an accident. |
|||||||||
|
nakedshoplifter Regular Member 
|
So if NH is an open carry state, why was Bill not openly carrying his firearm? |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
nakedshoplifter wrote: So if NH is an open carry state, why was Bill not openly carrying his firearm? Click on NH on the map - what does the summary say about car carry? |
|||||||||
|
nakedshoplifter Regular Member
|
Ahh I didn't look at the map. After watching Dave Ridley's youtube vids I assumed NH OC was as liberal as VA. |
|||||||||
|
PT111 Regular Member
|
ivyleague28477 wrote:
How was he supposed to do it over time when he died in the accident. He had no family. lived in a rented house and the only thing he owned was the wrecked car. If you have enough to take care of someone if you cause a wreck and not worried about insurance than why are you asking for help with you legal fees? Last edited on Fri Oct 24th, 2008 01:48 am by PT111 |
|||||||||
|
Shawn Regular Member
|
MarkNH wrote: Shawn wrote:Listening to her, she stated there are some interesting facts about NH law, like if its not a common pistol, then you don't need a permit (I can't cite statue). So, what type of weapon were you guys carrying? Hey Mark, Yes, that is what she said. Have the courts spoken on this perhaps? I read over NH statues and I didn't see anything either and center fire would be a violation 159.1. She was on NRA news talking to Cam. I'm not sure if those shows are archived, but it might be worth an email to her or the show. Here's the link for the statues if anybody wants them. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-XII-159.htm |
|||||||||
|
Shawn Regular Member
|
ivyleague28477 wrote: Penny Dean. She's excellent, but we can't afford one lawyer, let alone two, which is why we've created the ChipIn page (http://williamwalker.chipin.com). Hey Ivy, Yes, I met Mr. Nappen at a law review seminar before...did he move to NH?. I thought he's practice was in NJ. I wasn't trying to be funny, but point out that there are specific legal arguments for each of the amendments listed. To each his own I guess. |
|||||||||
|
ivyleague28477 Regular Member
|
Shawn, Sorry I wasn't laughing at you, I was laughing at me. Yep Evan is now in NH. PT111, I was thinking that I would make payments over time as I suggested that man could have conceivable done since hospitals are typically quite flexible in payment arrangements. However, you bring up another good point - what if I were to die in the accident. Certainly I hadn't thought of that and perhaps I'll take a look at my position on insurance in the near future. I've been asked to not make any more comment on the case, so I can't answer more questions. I'd still love to hear anyone else's thoughts or ideas or known case law. Any and all input has been and is quite valuable - thank you all! |
|||||||||
|
cato Regular Member
|
ivyleague28477 wrote:
Both of you have said plenty and both of you should delete all your posts except for some statement approved by your attorney and the chip in info. Again good luck.... |
|||||||||
|
rmodel65 Regular Member 
|
I love freestaters and what they are doing. with that said to the reply about them not having DL and registration etc I let you look to Ronald Reagan's thoughts on DL requirements, he sure sounds like a freestater :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUKC9E04Sck |
|||||||||
|
KBCraig Regular Member
|
no carry permit ? wrote: KBCraig wrote:no carry permit ? wrote:"When you refuse to register your car and maintain a drivers licence YOU HAVE NO LIABILITY INSURANCE. New Hampshire is my home. I am temporarily displaced in Texas. Meanwhile, no one knows where you are, since you're anonymous and left your profile blank. And by the way, the only one who has attacked anyone here is you, bucky. |
|||||||||
|
no carry permit ? Regular Member
|
ivyleague28477 wrote: Tono carry permit ? Actually your are rolling the dice with other peoples money. Just like the illegal alien that hit me a few years back and had no insurance, you are a scum bag for driving around with no automobile insurance. Obviously you wouldn't have the $50,000 to pay someones medical bills that you injured, if you have to attempt to raise money at OC.org for your current legal bills. So what about the person you rear end ? Are you saying "freestaters" are above making a mistake ? If so why was your registration suspended ? Why did you lie & give the officer a fake name instead of exercising you right to remain silent ? Sounds like a few errors in judgment there, and you are asking for our money to solve your legal problem, brought on by violating the law NOT EXERCISING the right to open carry (which is what this site is about). Point 2: It is a crime to operate a uninsured vehicle (regardless of your home state's insurance laws) in Most STATES. Virginia & North Carolina for example. Get caught driving without insurance and you have a serious problem. Virginia $500 to get your licence back. North Carolina it's worse. Some States you get 10 days in jail. Drive with "Constitutional plates" and you get charged with use of counterfeit registration (often a felony charge in some States). I realize you "freestaters" tend to live in your own little world/OZ , but driving uninsured is illegal in most States because it causes risk to OTHERS that could care less about your crusade. With respect to the requirement to have a drivers licence being under scrutiny, only in your little world, most civilized people accept that as FACT and act responsibly. I sure wouldn't want to eat in you restaurant. If you aren't responsible enough to operate a motor vehicle legally, you probably blow off health department regulations also. I mean why would a "freestater" let the State regulate what temperature raw meat is stored at ? Why should the evil government regulate use of road kill in restaurants ? Required temps to cook fish ? Hell , I'm a "freestater" so what if somebody dies because of my "rights". Freestaters are just irresponsible, parasites hiding behind the veil of their imaginary world. Grow up ! |
|||||||||
|
no carry permit ? Regular Member
|
KBCraig wrote: no carry permit ? wrote:KBCraig wrote:no carry permit ? wrote:"When you refuse to register your car and maintain a drivers licence YOU HAVE NO LIABILITY INSURANCE. Actually you are constantly throwing around the word Troll for anyone that disagrees with you. |
|||||||||
|
KBCraig Regular Member
|
PT111 wrote: yes if i were to cause damages without insurance I would still be liable even if i did not carry liability insurance. That's a terrible thing to go through, but I have to point out that if the other driver had the state-required minimum amount of insurance, it would have been used up within the first week. Most states' minimum insurance (which is what most drivers carry) is for a maximum bodily injury payment of $20,000 per person and $50,000 per accident. With today's prices, that can be gone in just one day. A friend died after a motorcycle accident this past summer (it was the car driver's fault). He spent 9 hours at the local emergency room before being flown to Dallas, then passed away after 6 days at Parkland. When his widow got the final bill for the emergency room, it was for $67,203.43. That's for nine hours! Texas requires 20/40 coverage, so the insurance didn't even cover the first three hours of emergency care. So, you should really keep that in mind when talking about liability insurance. Now, let me add that trying to stereotype FreeStaters is about like trying to stereotype gun owners. You just can't do it, and anyone trying just looks foolish. The vast majority of those I've met and talked to aren't radical at all. They have driver's licenses and passports and pay income taxes. They register their cars and maintain insurance, for the same reason they wear seatbelts: even though the law doesn't require either in NH, it's a darn good idea. |
|||||||||
|
KBCraig Regular Member
|
no carry permit ? wrote: Actually you are constantly throwing around the word Troll for anyone that disagrees with you. Would you care to cite any instances of me calling someone a troll? I believe you may be the very first time I've done so. Feel free to prove me wrong on that. That fact that others have also called you a troll in other threads (like the Mtn Jack incident), is because of just what you've displayed here: blowing in and criticizing people for something you don't like, and wishing bad things would happen to them. |
|||||||||
|
PT111 Regular Member
|
KBCraig wrote: PT111 wrote:yes if i were to cause damages without insurance I would still be liable even if i did not carry liability insurance. Sadly most states minimum coverage laws are way out of date and the number of people driving around without insurance is scary. In your case that was $20,000 that his mother didn't have to pay. You also have to note that if you are injured it is your responsibility to pay the hospital bills, not the other person's no matter if they were at fault or not. Last edited on Fri Oct 24th, 2008 11:04 am by PT111 |
|||||||||
|
no carry permit ? Regular Member
|
KBCraig wrote: no carry permit ? wrote:Actually you are constantly throwing around the word Troll for anyone that disagrees with you. Oh yes Mountain Jack, another "Freestater" idiot that like this foolish couple gives open carry a bad rep. Last edited on Mon Oct 27th, 2008 02:19 am by no carry permit ? |
|||||||||
|
KBCraig Regular Member
|
no carry permit ? wrote: KBCraig wrote:no carry permit ? wrote:Actually you are constantly throwing around the word Troll for anyone that disagrees with you. A. You have failed to point out any other instance of me calling someone a troll. B. Mtn. Jack is not a Freestater. He is in Pennsylvania. But thanks for playing. Maybe next time you'll do better. |
|||||||||
|
marshaul Activist Member 
|
no carry permit ? wrote:ivyleague28477 wrote:Tono carry permit ? Hey, troll, did you know that you can drive without insurance in Virginia? At any rate, I just want to say that I, for one, have read over this thread and incident and you Freestaters have my full support! I wish I could frequent your restaurant; I'd get the cowboy discount every week!  Someone needs to run an establishment like that here in CA. |
|||||||||
|
Venator Regular Member 
|
PT111 wrote: yes if i were to cause damages without insurance I would still be liable even if i did not carry liability insurance. yes if i were to cause damages i would be in great financial hardship in order to cover those damages. yes if i were to cause damages it would be my responsibility to pay for said damages. no one ever said i would not be responsible and not pay for the damages i caused if such damages were to occur. those are the risks one takes when they do not have insurance - sure i could be out a ton. that's my dice to roll, not yours to judge me on. Didn't your family have insurance? If you take care of your own family first rather than depending on others to do it, that may be a better life plan. Lesson, don't rely on others for assistance. Always assume you will have to cover whatever life throws at you. |
|||||||||
|
marshaul Activist Member
|
Exactly, the whole concept of mandatory insurance is BS. If you want to be insured against injury in an auto accident, take responsibility for yourself and supply you and your family with insurance. Don't rely on the state or the responsibility of others, or you'll be screwed when you get hit by an illegal immigrant the state was unable to force to buy insurance. |
|||||||||
|
PT111 Regular Member
|
marshaul wrote: Exactly, the whole concept of mandatory insurance is BS. So we are no longer expected to be responsible for our actions? Suppose you are standing in your front yard and a drunk runs into your yard, kills your 2 year old son and puts you in a wheelchair for life. Shouldn't they have to pay something besides four years in jail? No wonder medical costs are so high, the few that can pay are having to pay for those who don't have to take responsibiliy for thier actions. Whay does anyone need insurance, just let those that want to pay for all those that don't want to. |
|||||||||
|
marshaul Activist Member
|
PT111 wrote: marshaul wrote:Exactly, the whole concept of mandatory insurance is BS. How did you get any of that from what I posted? When did I say people shouldn't be liable for damages they incur? You've taken what I said and twisted it backwards. What I said was simple: if you worry about uninsured drivers (which exist despite laws to the contrary) you had better insure yourself. How does that translate to paying for the other guy, too? If you're not liable, you don't owe anything. Buying insurance in case the guy who causes the accident is uinsured is prudent. Relying on him to have insurance is irresponsible. You have turned the concept of responsibility 180 degrees around. Your post is so damn stupid that I'm having a hard time addressing it properly. Seriously, trying to formulate a response to you reminds me of the "water" scene in Idiotocracy. The problem with mandatory liability insurance is simple: it encourages irresponsible people like yourself and your family to rely on the state to provide insurance by way of regulating the other driver, and when you get screwed for being irresponsible you come and whine at us even though you're the one who didn't take responsibility for your own life and limb (or in this case your mother). |
|||||||||
|
PT111 Regular Member
|
marshaul wrote: PT111 wrote:marshaul wrote:Exactly, the whole concept of mandatory insurance is BS. Who said we didn't take responsibility for our own life and limb. You are the one saying that there is not need to carry liability insurance because it is yout own responsibility to be covered if an illegal immigrant or a freestater runs over you. That they have no responsibility to pay for your hospital bills. You are the one saying it is fine for me to run over you without insurance because it is your responsibility to have insurance. It is fine to go out driving drunk and kill people because it is their responsibility to have insurance to pay their burial cost. You just serve a few years in jail and then get out ready to resume your life with all rights restored. For your information we had insurance that paid most of the bills. The state, you and I paid for his burial. That illegal imigrant that you mention. Who will pay his hospital bills? You and I. The motorcycle rider who gets his skull fractured because of no helmoet and with no insurance, who will pay his hospital bills. Again you and I will pay those bills for him to exercise his rights. Same way with seat belts and a hundred other rights. |
|||||||||
|
marshaul Activist Member
|
PT111 wrote:marshaul wrote:PT111 wrote:marshaul wrote:Exactly, the whole concept of mandatory insurance is BS. A: When did I say that not being forced to purchase liability insurance means people should also not be liable for damages they incur? B: You don't pay for the illegal if you aren't liable. Insurance is irrelevant to this fact. You've treated what I wrote as though, were I to argue that firearms owners need not possess liability insurance, you would turn it around and say I think firearms owners shouldn't be liable for people they shoot. Please read what I write, and do not argue against "points" I've never made. I will be very clear. People are, and should be, liable for damages they incur. However, no law can force all people to be insured. This means that some people will inevitably be screwed for relying on the state to provide insurance. If you don't rely on this, but instead purchase your own security, you have nothing to cry about when you get hit by an uninsured driver. This is getting more like Idiotocracy with each post. You are unable to respond to my actual argument, so instead you resort to straw men, attacking arguments I never made. |
|||||||||
|
CJ Regular Member
|
MarkNH wrote: Shawn wrote:12 or 15 mm pinfire. .38 and .44 rimfire. .44 bulldog. None are readily available but would be effective if loaded to their full abilities. I'd make things simpler though, I'd carry my Colt Walker (cap and ball, and more powerful than my .45 acp 1911 at that). According to, http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XII/159/159-4.htm "A loaded pistol or revolver shall include any pistol or revolver with a magazine, cylinder, chamber or clip in which there are loaded cartridges" if there isn't another section or law saying otherwise, a non-cartridge firing gun not loaded with cartridges (maybe they'd try to argue paper cartridges are cartridges for the purposes of the law if you used them) could be carried concealed (or loaded in a vehicle openly) with a license. This exception if I'm indeed fully correct on it, makes for some interesting possibilities for NH members who don't want a license to "conceal carry" (including open car carry).Listening to her, she stated there are some interesting facts about NH law, like if its not a common pistol, then you don't need a permit (I can't cite statue). So, what type of weapon were you guys carrying? |
|||||||||
|
Gunslinger Regular Member 
|
ivyleague28477 wrote: cato wrote:Sounds like you're headed for a jury trial. Good luck. Have your attorney set up a LDF. They have no case against you; you have a strong case against them. What law are you charged with violating? They violated your constitution rights to be secure in your person against unlawful search and seizure and commited false arrest and battery. Very strong case in Federal court. And a good lawyer can parlay it into getting the charges against your husband dropped. I believe his search was unlawful and their finding his gun is 'fruit of the poison tree.' http://www.gunlaws.com/gloaup-civilrights.htm Last edited on Mon Nov 10th, 2008 07:26 pm by Gunslinger |
|||||||||
|
ProtectedBy9mm Regular Member 
|
NavyLT wrote: ..."Upon approaching the vehicle, he learned that the driver was wearing body armor, as well as carrying concealed weapons and concealed ammunition underneath his clothing," Officer Paul Rondeau said. ...along with numerous fully loaded magazines, concealed in his waistband... is it just me, or is that ALOT of gear to be rollin' around with at any given moment? i mean, were you two out on a Spec-Op.? Last edited on Thu Nov 20th, 2008 12:00 am by ProtectedBy9mm |
|||||||||
|
ivyleague28477 Regular Member
|
Just an update to our situation. I represented myself (somewhat) successfully. The Disorderly Conduct charge was DISMISSED by the judge before even going to trial. He concurred that, if I had a right to bear arms in defense of my person(s) and/or property, than I conversely had the right to disarm myself with the same interests in mind when I (allegedly) placed my sidearm under the seat when the officer illuminated his lights. The False Report to Law Enforcement charge I was found NOT GUILTY. The judge concurred there is no law in NH requiring a person to identify oneself to an officer, let alone by a *specific* or *particular* name. Further, the judge concurred there is no "pistol permit" in New Hampshire, so when I answered "No" when the police asked if I had one, that answer was a true statement, since what we have in this state is a License to Conceal Carry; not a permit, and not for the pistol. I (as expected) was found guilty on the motor vehicle violations. I'll be appealing those, but that's somewhat irrelevant to this forum, thread, and/or topic, so I wont get into those details and take this thread off topic again. Thanks for the well wishes from those who gave them. |
|||||||||
|
KBCraig Regular Member
|
A further update: all gun charges dropped! (The "Evan" referred to is gun rights attorney Evan Nappen.) https://www.nhteaparty.org/index.php/topic,1299.msg13192.html#msg13192 ivyleague28477 wrote: Hi all. So, to update everyone on what happened today: About a week and a half ago, Evan filed a motion to dismiss both of the conceal carry charges against Bill, on the basis that he has a valid and current Virginia conceal carry license, which (in VA) is issued by the courts. The argument was that, because it is a court issued document, NH should recognize it under the full faith and credit clause. Last week the prosecutor came at us with a deal: he would drop all the charges except one of the conceal carry charges, which he would drop to a Class B misdemeanor. Bill and I said no deal. We didn't want any gun-related charges on his record period. Evan was told no deal and he prepared for trial today. So we arrived today ready to fight. The prosecutor and Evan chatted back and forth a few times. Eventually, there was a proposal whereby Bill would agree to not contest (plead "nolo contendre") a charge of class b misdemeanor disorderly conduct. This charge would hold a fine of $500, $200 to be paid today and $300 suspended for 1 year. In exchange, the prosecutor would drop both charges of conceal carrying without a license, would drop the charge of misuse of plates, and would allow for a "no finding" for one year the driving after suspension or revocation charge. We have to get back over to the court sometime today to pay the $200, but otherwise we are good to go. |
|||||||||
|
Grapeshot Founder's Club Member 
|
KBCraig wrote: A further update: all gun charges dropped! (The "Evan" referred to is gun rights attorney Evan Nappen.) Not a bad ending at all - could have been better without the expense though. Yata hey |
|||||||||
|
AJG Regular Member
|
Wow, I definately dont understand why you agreed to anything but all charges dropped! |
|||||||||
|
Grapeshot Founder's Club Member
|
AJG wrote: Wow, I definately dont understand why you agreed to anything but all charges dropped! My guess is cheaper (att'y fees), tired of all, regain the "privilege" to carry and no further risk however slight to conviction on weapons charges. Yata hey |
|||||||||
|
KBCraig Regular Member
|
Maybe Bill or Ivy will be along to explain further, but my understanding is that they had him fairly dead to rights on the issue of operating after suspension. The only question was that the original stop for faulty equipment (muffler) was bogus; the tow truck driver even expressed surprise and said it wasn't loud at all. |
|||||||||
|
KBCraig Regular Member
|
http://www.pgnh.org/manchester_prosecutor_drops_gun_charges_in_high_profile_case PRESS RELEASE -- Contact Evan F. Nappen, Esq., (603) 223-0001 Manchester, New Hampshire, April 6, 2009 - A recent gun-friendly outcome in a New Hampshire District Court could have positive implications for those who want to carry a concealed handgun. Prosecutors at the Manchester District Court dropped both counts of "carrying a concealed handgun without a license" against a man who was described by the media as "heavily armed," carrying two loaded handguns and spare loaded magazines, and wearing body armor. The case received television coverage and national publicity via an Associated Press story. William Walker was defended by attorney Evan F. Nappen of Concord (http://www.efnappen.com), the Corporate Counsel of the state-wide organization Pro-Gun New Hampshire (http://www.PGNH.org), and one of its five Directors. Nappen argued on motion that New Hampshire must honor the man's Virginia concealed carry permit because of the Federal Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause. This is significant because New Hampshire does not officially maintain concealed carry reciprocity with Virginia. Unlike marriage licenses and driver licenses, state concealed carry licenses are generally honored by other states through reciprocal state-to-state agreements - but Virginia is not among the states listed on the New Hampshire Department of Safety's Web page of such reciprocity agreements, http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/nhsp/ssb/permitslicensing/plupr.html. In a plea agreement reached with the State, both counts of "carrying a concealed handgun without a license" were dropped, and all firearms, magazines and accessories ordered returned by the State. Mr. Walker pled "No Contest" to disorderly conduct and a motor vehicle violation. He received a $500 fine with $300 of it being suspended. It's not clear what will happen to the next person "caught" carrying with only a Virginia license, but the case serves as an instructional precedent, although not a binding one. Now there is one more arrow in the legal argument quiver of those who wish to peaceably exercise their gun rights without a New Hampshire carry license. |
|||||||||