People in Portsmouth panic at the sight of man with guns. - Page 4
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 43

Thread: People in Portsmouth panic at the sight of man with guns.

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Highline View Post
    Yes you can.


    159:1 Definition. – Pistol or revolver, as used herein, means any firearm with barrel less than 16 inches in length.

    159:4 Carrying Without License. – No person shall carry a loaded pistol or revolver in any vehicle or concealed upon his person, except in his dwelling, house or place of business, without a valid license therefor as hereinafter provided.

    Chapter 159 which is the pistol/revolver licensing scheme has nothing to do with long guns. There is no other statue in New Hampshire law which governs the criminalization/permitting of concealment of a gun other than 159:4.



    The permit is only issued so that a disabled person can shoot from the vehicle.



    Arrested for what, exactly?



    That statement is correct. Any firearm can be open carried in New Hampshire anywhere other than in courthouses or federal buildings. Actually, weapons can be carried into federal buildings under certain circumstances.
    Go for it, feel free to be the test case in NH I'll be sure to show up to your trail.

    You can carry firearms into court houses, they must be turned over to the rent a cops.

    RSA 159:19,
    I. No person shall knowingly carry a loaded or unloaded pistol, revolver, or firearm or any other deadly weapon as defined in RSA 625:11, V, whether open or concealed or whether licensed or unlicensed, upon the person or within any of the person's possessions owned or within the person's control in a courtroom or area used by a court. Whoever violates the provisions of this paragraph shall be guilty of a class B felony.
    II. Firearms may be secured at the entrance to a courthouse by courthouse security personnel.
    III. For purposes of paragraph I, ""area used by a court'' means:
    (a) In a building dedicated exclusively to court use, the entire building exclusive of the area between the entrance and the courthouse security.

    But in order to get them back, they take all of your information and and run a back ground check on you.

    THEY MAY TAKE OUR LIVES BUT THEY'LL NEVER TAKE OUR FREEDOM!!!!!

  2.   
  3. Quote Originally Posted by S&WM&P40 View Post
    Go for it, feel free to be the test case in NH I'll be sure to show up to your trail.
    Test case?

    There is nothing ambiguous about the definition to which the provisions of 159:4 apply. If you are inferring that some police officer would arrest someone for concealing a shotgun because the law is murky, well, then I hope that I am the one who gets arrested for violating 159:4 for concealing a shotgun under my coat. That would be a wonderful deprivation of rights under the color of law civil action.

    An example of a murky law where a test case could ensue would be the Gun Free School Zone Act... no one really knows if it still violates Lopez or if all the BS Congress placed in it magically re-connects it to the Commerce Clause.

    The GFSZA is murky.... the chapter dealing with "pistols and revolvers" is not.

    You can carry firearms into court houses, they must be turned over to the rent a cops.

    RSA 159:19,
    I. No person shall knowingly carry a loaded or unloaded pistol, revolver, or firearm or any other deadly weapon as defined in RSA 625:11, V, whether open or concealed or whether licensed or unlicensed, upon the person or within any of the person's possessions owned or within the person's control in a courtroom or area used by a court. Whoever violates the provisions of this paragraph shall be guilty of a class B felony.
    II. Firearms may be secured at the entrance to a courthouse by courthouse security personnel.
    III. For purposes of paragraph I, ""area used by a court'' means:
    (a) In a building dedicated exclusively to court use, the entire building exclusive of the area between the entrance and the courthouse security.

    But in order to get them back, they take all of your information and and run a back ground check on you.
    I agree with your interpretation of that law... but in practice, most court security officers don't do this. They'll tell you to leave your firearm in your car and wont let you in otherwise.

    The important thing about that section is the placement of the word "may." It implies that a person "may" secure their firearm, not that a court security person "may" allow you to do it. If it implied the latter, court security would have the legal right to refuse it.

    I've personally been told to leave my firearm in my car before and I've pointed this out to the CSO's at the desk. They really don't care what the law says.

  4. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Highline View Post
    Test case?

    There is nothing ambiguous about the definition to which the provisions of 159:4 apply. If you are inferring that some police officer would arrest someone for concealing a shotgun because the law is murky, well, then I hope that I am the one who gets arrested for violating 159:4 for concealing a shotgun under my coat. That would be a wonderful deprivation of rights under the color of law civil action.

    An example of a murky law where a test case could ensue would be the Gun Free School Zone Act... no one really knows if it still violates Lopez or if all the BS Congress placed in it magically re-connects it to the Commerce Clause.

    The GFSZA is murky.... the chapter dealing with "pistols and revolvers" is not.



    I agree with your interpretation of that law... but in practice, most court security officers don't do this. They'll tell you to leave your firearm in your car and wont let you in otherwise.

    The important thing about that section is the placement of the word "may." It implies that a person "may" secure their firearm, not that a court security person "may" allow you to do it. If it implied the latter, court security would have the legal right to refuse it.

    I've personally been told to leave my firearm in my car before and I've pointed this out to the CSO's at the desk. They really don't care what the law says.
    They do understand that it's your right under NH law, I called the court in my city and after dealing with a know it all clerk who took upon her self to answer. After being asked twice to transfer me to the CHB. The CHB got on the phone and told me the steps I needed to follow in-order to turn over my firearm at the check point. They said it must be unloaded and holstered. He then stated that their policy was to take your information and run you in the system (NCIC and Triple I), if you came back as a prohibited person. They would not return your firearm to you, they would call the police and turn your firearm over to them.

    I called the AOC in Concord and talked with Jason(head of NH court house security) Vary nice and helpful guy. He said that while the policy does not carry any weight of law they ask that people follow it. Upon being asked if there was anything(Law) stating the firearm must be unloaded upon entering the court. He stated no, that is just what they ask. People are not forced to follow it. Also upon being asked about bring (Ar-15's and AK-47's) into court he stated he knew of nothing that would keep people from doing so. The policy is as follows

    NH RSA 159:19 states that Court Security Officers may secure firearms that are surrendered for safekeeping at security screening areas by individuals seeking to enter the courthouse.



    The general procedure for accomplishing this is as follows:



    It is the responsibility of the owner to ensure that the firearm is cleared of all ammunition prior to bringing it into the courthouse. The Court Security Officer will:



    1. Check to ensure that the firearm is in a safe condition by verifying that the firearm is not loaded.



    2. Place the firearm in a lock box for safekeeping. A lockbox is available at every courthouse.



    3. Obtain a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm, photo identification from the individual, and obtain the full name and date of birth of the individual.



    4. Complete and issue a receipt for the firearm to the individual.



    During the time that the individual with the firearm is in the courthouse, the Court Security Officer will determine whether or not there is anything (domestic violence orders or person being a convicted felon) that would prevent the individual from possessing a firearm. If it is found that the person is disqualified from carrying the firearm then local law enforcement is notified and they determine what further steps to take.



    Additionally, Court Security Officers are to be alert to the possibility of the individual becoming disruptive or agitated while conducting business with the court. If in the judgment of the Court Security Officer, the return of the firearm would create a risk to public safety, the firearm will be retained and turned over to local law enforcement and they determine what further steps to take.

    Feel free to PM and I'll give you his contact information.

    He did ask me what I would like the policy to be, so he is open to changing it. He stated it's not his policy. It was the person who he replaced policy.

    THEY MAY TAKE OUR LIVES BUT THEY'LL NEVER TAKE OUR FREEDOM!!!!!

  5. NH RSA 159:19 states that Court Security Officers may secure firearms that are surrendered for safekeeping at security screening areas by individuals seeking to enter the courthouse.
    Notice how their policy takes the right away from you and gives it to them? It is the placement of "may" that I was talking about. The law doesn't say that they "may" do it, giving them the option to not do it. It says an individual "may" exercise the option. It really peeves me when bureaucrats assume authority over something they don't have control of.

    Also-- I don't think that they have any authority to require firearms to be unloaded before you turn them over. If one is carrying a firearm for protection it would be kind of silly to carry it unloaded. I also don't believe they have the authority to retain a gun because someone is upset. Being upset isn't illegal and there is no statue which authorizes seizing the gun.

  6. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Highline View Post
    Notice how their policy takes the right away from you and gives it to them? It is the placement of "may" that I was talking about. The law doesn't say that they "may" do it, giving them the option to not do it. It says an individual "may" exercise the option. It really peeves me when bureaucrats assume authority over something they don't have control of.

    Also-- I don't think that they have any authority to require firearms to be unloaded before you turn them over. If one is carrying a firearm for protection it would be kind of silly to carry it unloaded. I also don't believe they have the authority to retain a gun because someone is upset. Being upset isn't illegal and there is no statue which authorizes seizing the gun.
    I called him out of the whole "unloaded firearms" and he stated there is nothing say they must be. I said the same thing you pointed out above, someone who is carrying a weapon/weapons for self defense are not going to carry an unloaded firearm this is not CA. He stated that he understood and that the policy was not a law. I also called him out on the whole "Obtain a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm" being that NH is an OC state. He again stated that part of the policy was just if the person was carrying concealed.

    I see this policy as a way to circumvent the law"RSA 159:19". They are trying to make it so difficult for someone should they choose to use their rights under 159:19. That they hope people will just say "The hell with it" and not use their rights as defined under RSA 159:19.

    THEY MAY TAKE OUR LIVES BUT THEY'LL NEVER TAKE OUR FREEDOM!!!!!

  7. I completely agree.... and it is unfortunate.

    Many people who are victims of domestic violence turn to the courts for assistance and protection. They should have every right to remain armed (and safe) right up to the point where they cannot carry any further.

    Without getting their chops busted by some bureaucrat.

  8. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataw. Co. NC.
    Posts
    135
    It's been years since I've heard about anyone being charged with it, but in NC people open carrying any type of a fire arm, even a BB gun could be charged with Going Armed To The Terror Of The Public.
    One case occurred along highway 10 in Newton NC. A elderly black man was walking with his rifle. Sheriffs deputies responded to the public's 911 calls about a armed man. It's thought the old man might have been disoriented and confused. When the deputies ordered him to drop the weapon he lowered it and then fired it into the ground, the deputies shot him dead.
    Around here if a hunter is spotted or a robbery occurs near a school the schools go into lock down and LEO's respond in force.
    It's not just the people of Portsmouth that panic at the sight of a armed individual, they freak out here to!

  9. Well, yeah, that seems to be a natural response for the unfamiliar.

    Law enforcement has a delicate balancing act when it comes to these types of situations. What they need to be perfectly clear about, though, is that mere possession of a firearm itself doesn't justify a Terry stop.

  10. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Highline View Post
    Well, yeah, that seems to be a natural response for the unfamiliar.

    Law enforcement has a delicate balancing act when it comes to these types of situations. What they need to be perfectly clear about, though, is that mere possession of a firearm itself doesn't justify a Terry stop.
    On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce D. Black of the United States District Court for New Mexico entered summary judgment in a civil case for damages against Alamogordo, NM police officers. The Judge's straight shootin' message to police: Leave open carriers alone unless you have "reason to believe that a crime [is] afoot."

    Continue reading on Examiner.com: Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly carrying guns - Washington DC gun rights | Examiner.com Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly carrying guns - Washington DC gun rights | Examiner.com
    New Hampshires AG has already stated(more then once) that open carrying a firearm is not reason enough for people to stop someone. OC is a right under state law and it needs to be respected. There was talk about some letter that the AG sent to all the police departments in the state. I have been unable to track down any such letter(nor has the AG's office, when I called them). Some towns/city's are better then others when it comes to this matter.

    THEY MAY TAKE OUR LIVES BUT THEY'LL NEVER TAKE OUR FREEDOM!!!!!

  11. +1 to your post.

    I was a police officer for 11 years in NH and actually remember reading said memo. It was issued by Cheshire County Attorney (then AG) Peter Heed.

    I remember debating this issue with a former sergeant of mine. Sadly, most cops seem to think there is an open carrying exception to the 4th Amendment (or Part I, Article 19).

    There isn't. :)

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast