Derrick J Denied Concealed Carry by KPD

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.

Denial PDF


DenialofCCW-page-001 (1)

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!


75 Comments

  1. Question: can you still open-carry?

  2. Yes. Or he can carry concealed, as long as it’s not loaded.

  3. 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…

  4. 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 the issuing authority to demonstrate by clear and convincing proof why any denial, suspension, or revocation was justified, failing which the court shall enter an order directing the issuing authority to grant or reinstate the petitioner’s license. The court shall issue its decision not later than 14 days after the hearing on whether the petitioner is entitled to a license.

    Note that it specifies that the court must hold the hearing within 14 days (and that you must appeal within 30 days, or you lose the option), and is 100% clear that the burden of proof is upon the police.

    But something they don’t mention is that 159:6-e and 159:6-f exist.

    They are somewhat involved, but basically state that if you are unlawfully denied a license, you can obtain an injunction in Superior court, and that if you are forced to do so in order to make them comply with the law, that the police would be liable for reasonable attorney’s fees.

  5. 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?

  6. 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.

  7. 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!”).

  8. 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.

  9. 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?

  10. 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.

  11. Right … because carrying a concealed, unloaded handgun is a really smart idea.

  12. 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.

  13. 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

  14. I invite you to do some reading on due process. “Void for vagueness” is a good starting place.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. LoL … whatever.

  18. And here I thought you couldn’t read very well. Do your lips move when you do read?

  19. 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.

  20. Yo Big Douche don’t you have a cock to suck? Go make your daddy happy.

  21. He said “little.” Everybody drink!

  22. 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.

  23. 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.

  24. No, it’s actually a stupid idea. Hence why the KPD should not be encouraging it.

  25. 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.

  26. 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 otherwise mental. They take violence as far from the physical realm and as close to the mental realm as the state of technology allows. The closer violence is brought to the mental realm, the more it is subjected to reason, and reason favors peace.

    The history of weapons, from clubs to knives, spears, swords, etc., all the way to firearms, is the history of human civilization. They drove the shift from the brutal to the thoughtful. And a society which forgets that, will shift back towards the brutal, which is why areas where ordinary folks are unarmed tend to be so incredibly violent.

  27. You obviously missed my sarcasm in my previous remark. We agree, actually.

  28. 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 than being able to obtain an extension or any such thing).

    The NH Constitution also provides that, “[a]ll persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.” So, again, the presumption must be that such a right exists and, therefore, that any restriction thereof must be for some compelling reason.

    The NH Supreme Court has heard a number of firearms cases over the years, and has established that restrictions upon the right to keep and bear arms must be minimal, and for very significant reasons. For example, they ruled that if someone is caught and /convicted/ of carrying a pistol without a license, his gun must be returned to him, and that the police cannot require that he undergo a background check before doing so; the Court’s opinion was that merely being /convicted of a gun crime/ is not sufficient cause to believe that someone should even have to suffer the minimal indignity of having to undergo a background check, let alone some more serious restriction upon his rights.

  29. Yep, they are real thoughtful in Chicago these days. Not brutal at all.

  30. 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.

  31. 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.

  32. 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.

  33. 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…

  34. 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 🙂

  35. 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.

  36. Why? Because he is a liberty activist?

  37. Because he’s a silly little boy. I am right – you can’t read.

  38. 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, tried, and convicted for their crimes. Right?

  39. Chicago is the gun control capital of America.

    You just shot yourself in the foot with that one.

  40. 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.

  41. 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…

  42. 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.

  43. 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?

  44. 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.

  45. 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.

  46. 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 anyone’s hands. NH does not do so – as you’ve noted, Derrick (whom you think should not have a gun) is free to carry one as often as he likes, as long as it’s not a concealed pistol or revolver. In NH, nearly anyone who cares to carry a gun, is free to do so. Even those who are legally-prohibited can easily carry a gun, because cops are required to have cause to interfere – if someone’s walking down the street with a gun, he might very well be a convicted felon, but unless he acts in a way that gives cause to think he’s committing a crime, the cops cannot detain him and check on that.

    So, with guns everywhere, in the hands of nearly anyone who feels like having one, we live in one of the safest places on the planet. Apparently there is /not/ actually any need to keep guns out of anyone’s hands…

  47. I agree. People who commit victimless crimes should not be allowed own guns. They might defend themselves against legal criminals.

  48. 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.

  49. 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.

Care to comment?