{"id":202,"date":"2014-08-25T08:21:23","date_gmt":"2014-08-25T12:21:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/jrhoell.com\/jr\/?p=202"},"modified":"2022-05-19T13:15:46","modified_gmt":"2022-05-19T17:15:46","slug":"hoell-continues-to-push-for-the-restoration-of-citizens-natural-rights","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/jrhoell.com\/jr\/2014\/08\/25\/hoell-continues-to-push-for-the-restoration-of-citizens-natural-rights\/","title":{"rendered":"Hoell Continues to Push for the Restoration of Citizens Natural Rights"},"content":{"rendered":"

by Shawne K. Wickham<\/em>
\nPublished in the New Hampshire Sunday New on August 24, 2014<\/a><\/p>\n

Gun license form must change, critics say<\/strong><\/p>\n

Issue not resolved: Some of the new wording will remain and that angers some gun owners. <\/em><\/p>\n

The Department of Safety has agreed to remove some \u2014 but not all \u2014 of the changes to the concealed- carry gun license form that angered gun-rights advocates earlier this month.<\/p>\n

But that\u2019s not good enough, some say.<\/p>\n

Earl Sweeney, assistant commissioner of safety, who approved the changes to the resident license form, met last week with several individuals who were outraged by those changes. And while both sides described the meetings as \u201ccordial,\u201d<\/p>\n

Gun form<\/strong><\/p>\n

The issue remains unresolved. <\/p>\n

State law bars someone from carrying a loaded pistol or revolver in a vehicle or concealed on his person (except at his home or business) without a license. <\/p>\n

And RSA 159:6 says local officials \u201cshall issue\u201d a license \u201cif it appears that the applicant has good reason to fear injury to the applicant\u2019s person or property or has any proper purpose, and that the applicant is a suitable person to be licensed. Hunting, target shooting, or self-defense shall be considered a proper purpose.\u201d <\/p>\n

At the center<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cProper purpose\u201d and \u201csuitable person\u201d are not further defined. And that\u2019s the crux of the controversy over the new license form. <\/p>\n

Until recently, the reverse side of the form included a summary of \u201csalient points\u201d in state gun laws, including this: \u201cApplicants not prohibited under federal or NH law from possession of a firearm shall be deemed suitable persons and the license shall be issued unless the applicant is so prohibited from possessing a firearm.\u201d <\/p>\n

However, the New Hampshire Supreme Court in May found that the Department of Safety had no authority to include such language, which does not appear in the statutes. So the department changed the license form, replacing the language on its reverse with the actual state laws. <\/p>\n

Now gun-rights advocates are making a similar argument, contending that state officials had no authority to change the license application. They want the old form restored, including that previous language. <\/p>\n

Rep. JR Hoell, R-Dunbarton, who serves as secretary of New Hampshire Firearms Coalition, said his meeting with Sweeney was \u201ccordial\u201d but he isn\u2019t satisfied. <\/p>\n

\u201cI told him for open and transparent government, we need to keep the form the way it was,\u201d<\/em> he said. \u201cThe former language basically said if you can buy, you can carry.\u201d <\/em><\/p>\n

Issues arose after court case<\/strong> <\/p>\n

Hoell said the form could be changed either through legislative rule-making or legislation. But he said the previous language, which had been on the form since 2003, needs to be restored until that can happen.
\n
\n\u201cI think what we\u2019ve asked for is a perfectly reasonable solution,\u201d<\/em> Hoell said. \u201cWe\u2019re talking four months more of re-issuing the old form and then when the legislative season starts, we can go hash out what should be the language on the form and what should be the language in the statute.\u201d<\/em> <\/p>\n

The Supreme Court case involved a Hooksett man whose gun license application was denied. He appealed, arguing that he was a \u201csuitable person,\u201d based on the wording on the back of the license form. <\/p>\n

The court wrote that the petitioner had not shown that the Department of Safety had rulemaking authority over resident gun licenses. Even if the wording on the back could be considered an administrative rule, such rules \u201cmay not add to, detract from or modify the law they are intended to implement.\u201d <\/em><\/p>\n

That language, the court said, \u201cwould remove all discretion to deny the application of a person not otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal or state law. <\/p>\n

\u201cThe legislature easily could have drafted the statute in this manner if, indeed, it intended to deprive issuing authorities of any discretion over determining the suitability of an applicant. We conclude that such a \u2018rule\u2019 would impermissibly modify the statute.\u201d <\/em><\/p>\n

The new license form also includes three new questions for applicants to answer, including: \u201cHas any state or federal agency or licensing authority ever claimed that you are prohibited by law or regulation from possessing a firearm?\u201d <\/em><\/p>\n

Changes will be made<\/strong> <\/p>\n

Gun-rights supporters said the question was \u201cunanswerable,\u201d and last week Sweeney agreed. He told the Sunday News the form will be modified, and the new questions removed, \u201cas quickly as possible.\u201d <\/p>\n

However, Sweeney said in an email, \u201cWe have not committed to any changes to the back of the form.\u201d <\/em><\/p>\n

In changing the form, he said, officials \u201chad no ulterior motive to abridge any of the rights expressed in the U.S. or State Constitutions.\u201d <\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cAs a lifelong owner of numerous firearms myself, those rights protect me as well,\u201d<\/em> he said. <\/p>\n

Concord attorney Penny Dean, who has been defending gun rights in New Hampshire courts for many years, also met with Sweeney last week. She, too, said her concerns were not allayed. <\/p>\n

Dean said the real problem is that the courts \u201chave been unfairly chipping away at our Second Amendment rights.\u201d <\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cHere\u2019s the really sad thing: It is not he who is the maker of the law who is the true giver of law; it\u2019s he who has interpreted the law.\u201d <\/em>
\n
\n\u201cThe bottom line is what\u2019s happening is wrong, and we need to do something about that,\u201d<\/em> she said. <\/p>\n

The previous language on the back of the form, she said, was not about making rules. \u201cIt\u2019s putting out in plain language for the average citizen what the law says and means,\u201d she said. <\/p>\n

Dean contends the legislative history on gun laws here is clear: \u201cIf you own a gun, you get a license.\u201d<\/em> <\/p>\n

She said the court\u2019s \u201ctortured and twisted and outcome-determinative interpretation of the law\u201d<\/em> may provoke an unintended consequence: More people will choose to openly carry their guns, which does not require a license in this state. <\/p>\n

Confrontations possible<\/strong> <\/p>\n

And that is likely to provoke more confrontations with police, Dean said, as people unfamiliar with the laws report people for carrying guns into stores and other public places. <\/p>\n

Dean also thinks the controversy could revive a push to have judges elected, not appointed. <\/p>\n

Meanwhile, Hoell said he plans to file legislation that would define \u201csuitable person\u201d in the law. <\/p>\n

And he said what the Department of Safety did may backfire. \u201cI think their efforts to try to maintain some level of discretion … will actually hurt them,\u201d<\/em> he said. \u201cBecause there will be a great clamor amongst the gun owners to replace the current system with constitutional carry \u2014 no license required.\u201d <\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by Shawne K. Wickham Published in the New Hampshire Sunday New on August 24, 2014 Gun license form must change, critics say Issue not resolved: Some of the new wording will remain and that angers some gun owners. The Department of Safety has agreed to remove some \u2014 but not all \u2014 of the changes […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[2,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-202","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-issues","category-updates"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/jrhoell.com\/jr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/202","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/jrhoell.com\/jr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/jrhoell.com\/jr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jrhoell.com\/jr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jrhoell.com\/jr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=202"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/jrhoell.com\/jr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/202\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":587,"href":"https:\/\/jrhoell.com\/jr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/202\/revisions\/587"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/jrhoell.com\/jr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=202"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jrhoell.com\/jr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=202"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jrhoell.com\/jr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=202"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}