Today I received a certified letter informing me that I have been denied permission to carry a firearm concealed. Below is a copy of the letter.
Recent Forum Posts
- Victim's come in all shapes and sizes: Robert L. Lamontagne's wrongful conviction April 2, 2025 penguin
- Robert L. Lamontagne vs. The State of New Hampshire: I've Appeared March 31, 2025 system
- A new American civil war March 31, 2025 Leif_Alexander
- Please, Show Some Decency March 21, 2025 system
- Demand Letter to Keene Police RE: 91-A Compliance March 17, 2025 system
Other Cool Sites
Question: can you still open-carry?
Yes. Or he can carry concealed, as long as it’s not loaded.
Right … because carrying a concealed, unloaded handgun is a really smart idea.
No, it’s actually a stupid idea. Hence why the KPD should not be encouraging it.
You obviously missed my sarcasm in my previous remark. We agree, actually.
No, I caught it. You obviously missed mine. But my point remains: there are limited options, and by denying one, KPD will consequentially be encouraging another.
Not to mention the fact that the law only disarms those who abide by the law, and not the dangerous criminals its designed for, thus defeating its purpose…
Derrick can certainly strap a handgun onto his belt and open-carry in NH, so no one disarmed him. Just the though of this silly little boy carrying a handgun around, however, makes me extremely uncomfortable.
Why? Because he is a liberty activist?
Because he’s a silly little boy. I am right – you can’t read.
Doesn’t seem to be any problem with Agent Kris’s reading. You used “silly little boy” as a descriptor, not as a reason for denial.
FYI, even if you had worded it as a reason, it would not stand up – “silly little boys” are actually allowed to carry concealed firearms in New Hampshire. There’s no minimum age (just a parental permission requirement for those under 18), so there are plenty of “silly little boys” that have licenses to carry concealed pistols.
Maybe we can put KeeneGuy’s fear at ease. Do you know of any injuries or deaths resulting from misuse of firearms by “silly little boys” with concealed licenses in NH?
Nope. NH is one of the safest places on the planet. Violent crime and even “accident” rates are so low that you have to use multi-year averages to have any sort of meaningful number; an incident or two more or less in a given year will change the rate, because it’s /that/ low. You also have to do a multi-year average for the “accident” rate because there are so many years where it’s zero.
The law in question also only applies to pistols and revolvers (defined primarily by barrel length in NH). If you can manage to conceal a long gun, there’s no prohibition on doing so. So, Derrick cannot legally conceal a little pocket pistol, thanks to KPD, but if he can get his hands on an M16 and a trenchcoat, he’s welcome to carry that. Or any of a variety of other combinations that have /far/ more potential destructive power than a pocket pistol.
Apparently, that’s what KPD wants to encourage…
To answer your question, no, arrests are not justification for limiting your carry of firearms. This to me is a violation of the 2nd amendment and due process clause.
The problem is that any police officer could arbitrarily arrest you and then fail to convict you in court. The record of that arrest is not sufficient to restrict any of your rights. However, I see that NH courts have ruled otherwise…
Luckily for the rest of us what you think is of no consequence to the KPD. That record of arrests is more than enough reason to deny his application, and it will stand up in court.
Luckily its not for you, its for anyone who may question whether the KPD and other police departments like it are legitimate law enforcement, or crime organizations themselves.
LoL … whatever.
Hey, lookie what I found! Bleiler v. Chief, Dover Police Dep’t, where the NH Supreme court heard a case on whether another concealed-carry denial was a violation of… you guessed it… 2nd Amendment and due process clause void for vagueness!
The court ruled in the negative, but the decision is criticized as turning a “shall issue” state into a “may issue” state.
Not too bad for a below-average, psychologically disturbed, pathetic, wannabe lawer.
Bleiler slapped a loaded pistol down onto a desk in a city office in an attempt to intimidate/threaten the occupant of that desk, if I recall correctly.
/That/ is the sort of behavior that the legislature created the “suitable person” standard to address. The Bleiler case sets a high bar for what actually qualifies, and the cops just being uncomfortable with someone is not sufficient.
Ah, but it will be sufficient in Derrick’s case; multiple arrests including trespassing, resisting arrest and criminal contempt. Hardly a suitable person. In the end, however, it is up to the courts to decide this and not all of us.
Well so far your track record predicting what the court will do isn’t very good. I have to give you credit though for joining in the discussion some, rather than just being completely belligerent 🙂
If he didn’t have an arrest record the KPD would not have a leg to stand on. However, if he had just a couple of minor arrests and wasn’t associated with a group of knuckleheads that go out of their way to harass and provoke the KPD, other public employees and private citizens, he probably would have been issued the permit.
As much as you people don’t like it, there is a political/human aspect to this – and karma is a bitch.
Oh, there most certainly /is/ that “political/human aspect to this.” There’s nothing in having an arrest record like his that even vaguely justifies denial of a license – none of his arrests are for any behavior (violence or such) that would cause anyone to believe he is a serious threat to others. You’re 100% right that this is a case of “karma.” And, such behavior on the part of government employees is a criminal act in New Hampshire. Since you’re so gung-ho about “the law’s the law” and such, I know you’ll immediately call for those responsible to be arrested,… Read more »
The text of 159:6-c, for anyone who is interested: Any person whose application for a license to carry a loaded pistol or revolver has been denied pursuant to RSA 159:6 or whose license to carry a loaded pistol or revolver has been suspended or revoked pursuant to RSA 159:6-b may within 30 days thereafter, petition the district or municipal court in the jurisdiction in which such person resides to determine whether the petitioner is entitled to a license. The court shall conduct a hearing within 14 days after receipt of the petition. During this hearing the burden shall be upon… Read more »
It looks like someone tried something like that before: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2009/garan094.pdf
the court decided that the “superior court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over RSA 159:6-c proceedings.” This means he has to go to district court first and he did not, from the way I read it.
Exactly. Those later sections come in handy if they still refuse to abide by the law after the District court overturns their decision, which is a scenario that sometimes occurs (“yeah, so what if they ruled that we have to issue one – make us!”).
All of you wannabe lawyers make me laugh. He is not getting his license to carry concealed. We do not want criminals carrying concealed firearms.
Besides, why do people like Derrick who claim they are “peaceful” need to carry a concealed firearm anyway?
What, we have to be lawyers to discover that the state is violating the law even on its own terms?
And btw, the last time you said “wannabe lawyers” on this site, the person responded that they were an actual lawyer. Now THAT was funny. And your response was then “you’re not a very good one.” lol
And here I thought you couldn’t read very well. Do your lips move when you do read?
Its Friday night, don’t you think you should give it a rest? You don’t want to overheat that authoritarian personality of yours.
Make your mom happy by lying to her and telling her you’re going to leave the basement and spend the evening socializing with some new friends that you wish you could meet.
Then, get back to me next week and we can delve into those substantive subjects on the other thread that you’ve recently touched on and I’m sure you’re anxious to break down and analyze.
Yo Big Douche don’t you have a cock to suck? Go make your daddy happy.
And yet here you were on a Friday night. Maybe you should give it a rest. Stop hogging the family computer and let your siblings have a turn.
Peaceful, civilized individuals are armed. You’d know that if you were either peaceful or civilized, but you’re neither. Violence exists in the world, no matter what we want. Uncivilized individuals use brute force to address it, creating a huge disparity based upon physical might. I drag boilers around for a living, and would likely prevail in a “hands on” confrontation – does /might/ make me /right/? Firearms, on the other hand, separate the ability to effectively respond to a violent attack as far from the physical as has yet been managed. There are minimal physical requirements, and the skill is… Read more »
Yep, they are real thoughtful in Chicago these days. Not brutal at all.
Chicago is the gun control capital of America.
You just shot yourself in the foot with that one.
Actually no, I didn’t – you missed my point again. You stated “they drove the shift from brutal to thoughtful”, and there’s nothing thoughtful about pointing a loaded handgun at someone and pulling the trigger; it’s still a brutal action. Violence is violence.
I am not in favor of really strict gun control for law-abiding citizens, but there must be a way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and other unsuitable people like Derrick J, for example.
They did drive that shift. And places where guns are prohibited from large portions of the population are brutal, precisely because of the lack of firearms. Shooting someone is neither brutal not thoughtful. No action can have moral value without context. Saying that “violence is violence” is like saying that “sex is sex,” and that sex is either good or bad. No, some is one, and some is the other; trying to equate self-defense and an attack is like trying to equate consensual sex and rape. And no, there is no need for a “way” to keep guns out of… Read more »
What flavor is the Koolaid, Sharkie?
Wouldn’t know – I don’t drink that crud.
Also, FYI, the Jonestown “suicide” used Flavor Aid, not Koolaid… and were on your side of the political fence. So your comment is doubly ridiculous.
LoL … ok. Sharkie. My gosh, you really are just one of those pain-in-the-ass losers who think they are so much more intelligent than most. Keep dreaming, buddy.
Perhaps. A friend of mine has commented about the difference between arrogance and conceit. What he said boils down to this: conceit is pretending to traits that you do not actually have, whereas arrogance is when you can actually back it up. I’ll freely admit that I can be quite arrogant, at times. But at least I’m not conceited, like you. (and, FYI, someone with an IQ of 101 is “more intelligent than most” – so using that as a standard to accuse others of arrogance doesn’t say much about your own point of comparison – someone who accuses others… Read more »
So you admit to being arrogant … but not conceited.
LMHO … You obviously don’t know that the words “arrogant” and “conceited” are synonyms for each other.
Quite the high IQ you’re sporting there Sharkie, but it looks to me like you have your thumb pressed firmly down on the scale.
Someone’s not familiar with the concept of defining words. I gave the definitions, and explained the difference. I did not claim that those were the only definitions that exist, but rather exactly specified that they were particular definitions presented by one individual.
I agree. People who commit victimless crimes should not be allowed own guns. They might defend themselves against legal criminals.
The NH Supreme Court has ruled before on 159:6 that “An individual may also be unsuitable if he or she has a “significant and unexplained arrest history.”
So let me ask Derrick, did the Police Chief ever let you explain your arrest history before denying your application?
They don’t even have to ask him for an explanation. Burden is on them, so they are obligated to /look/ for an explanation.
“He’s an activist, so he gets arrested occasionally” is an explanation, and not exactly one so complex that they could not have figured it out.
They claim “assaultive or threatening behavior” and then go on to back that up by “specifically” giving a list of arrests… none of which are for assaultive or threatening behavior.
Isn’t awesome when some ass googles copy’s and prints shit lol. Shark ur more like a minnow
Try that again in English, maybe?
Can’t read Dumass?
No, I can read English. I don’t read, speak, or understand “Dumass.” Apparently, it’s the language in which you are most fluent?
Maine shark go get a job u fuckin loser. Help America instead if living off our sweat and blood. U leech.
I manage a mechanical contracting company. What do /you/ do? Suck tax money, or flip burgers?
I’m a manager at a ten thousand a year country club. Name ur business
Name yours. You talk big, but then hide and expect others to go first.
I’m guessing that “a manager” rather than “the manager” probably means that you “manage” a janitorial cart or somesuch.
As I have already told your punk pussy ass friend. Email me personally. We can meet and u can prove this face to face. But like 99% ull bitch out and claim all this bullshit u have lol. If u owned that u really think ud have time to answer to every blog on here like u do lol. Hahaha.
Actually, I answer very few blog posts, and I type very fast. Frequently, I reply while I’m on hold – managing a business entails a lot of phone calls.
I really have no interest in emailing you. You could show up at Burning Porcupine and ask around. Everyone knows me, so someone could point me out. That would be simple enough, if you actually want to meet.
New Hampshire is a “shall issue” state, meaning that local law enforcement must issue a license to carry a loaded handgun 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.”
“…application is a suitable person to be licensed”. End of story for this little FreeKeener.
I invite you to do some reading on due process. “Void for vagueness” is a good starting place.
I invite you to read the law – that is, if you can read at least at a high school level. RSA 159:6 a-f is pretty clear to the average person. “Void for vagueness” is not applicable here.
LoL … you’re pathetic.
Fascinating! Then the average person must know exactly what this law means by “suitable person.”
I’ll take a crack at it. A “suitable person” is whomever the Police Chief deems a “suitable person.” Am I right? Or is it the NH Supreme Court? Because they haven’t really clarified it much either from what I could find.
Actually, yes, “suitable” woult be considered completely-vague, if that were the standard. But it’s not. Within RSA159, the legislature saw fit to make it clear that the intent is that the issuing authority must present a compelling case of unsuitability if they wish to make that claim. The burden of proof is specifically upon them, and the statute is clear that they are obligated to issue licenses promptly and without adding their own requirements, unless they are able to find evidence to support denial (and if they cannot find such evidence within 14 days, they are obligated to issue, rather… Read more »
The judiciary’s interpretation is in flux here. Would depend highly on the details of the prior police interactions. Could be a winnable case, if the facts are good and if done correctly. But wouldn’t be simple.
It’s never simple. Particularly when, as “KeeneGuy” notes, this is clearly political. But the law is clear, and the Court would have to rule in direct contradiction to the law in order to uphold this nonsense. Not that courts have never done so – they break the law quite frequently. But if they’re going to rule in accordance with their own laws, they would have to rule that this is a clear violation of his rights. The “evidence” presented does not come close to justifying KPD’s decision. The ultimate solution, of course, is to simply eliminate the license requirement. It’s… Read more »
He said “little.” Everybody drink!
Arrests and “contacts” are legally meaningless. Only convictions matter.
Appeal to the district court within 30 days of July 9. Unless you’re a prohibited person by virtue of having been convicted of a felony (by NH standards), you will win. And the police chief will have to personally pay your legal fees.
Are you telling me that folks in America are supposed to be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?
Derrick pled guilty to 5 charges – http://freekeene.com/2012/05/02/derrick-j-signs-plea-deal-ends-victimless-crime-spree/
Yes, he did: all misdemeanors that are not disqualifying. Except for possession of marijuana, all of them were for the same incident of violating the trespass order at the court property, an order which was later overturned IIRC.
So all police have to do is arrest you for basically anything, release you without charge or conviction, and then use it later to deny you a permit.
So some folks imagine. Fortunately, such nonsense does not fly in NH. They can /do/ it, but they’ll get nailed for it if he appeals.
Actually no – they won’t. He’s an unsuitable person under the eyes of the law, and the courts will not rule otherwise. Of course, we’ll just have to wait and see who’s right on this.
This is New Hampshire, not NYC. If you imagine that such nonsense would be good, please just leave this state that you obviously hate.
Derrick pled guilty to 5 charges – http://freekeene.com/2012/05/02/derrick-j-signs-plea-deal-ends-victimless-crime-spree/
[…] July 9, 2014, Keene Police Chief Ken Meola sent me a letter denying my application for a Concealed Carry Permit in New Hampshire. As his reason for denial, he said I, “have had several contacts with the […]
[…] license for anything they want and so far the NH supreme court is backing them up. In 2014 Derrick J was denied a concealed license by Keene Police for basically not being obedient to police, as they later explained in court. […]
[…] license for anything they want and so far the NH supreme court is backing them up. In 2014 Derrick J was denied a concealed license by Keene Police for basically not being obedient to police, as they later explained in court. […]
[…] On February 22, 2017 New Hampshire became a constitutional carry state. It also became a Shall Issue state. This means that any person who is not otherwise legally prohibited will not be harassed, kidnapped, or robbed by members of the New Hampshire gang or its subsidiaries for carrying (properly, not brandishing) a firearm concealed or openly, and that no extortion fee will be required- provided the gang follows their own rules. However, concealed licenses will be issued by request to residents for $10 and non-residents for $100, providing they are not otherwise legally prohibited. Subsidiary gangs of New Hampshire… Read more »