High Court hears gun permit case

[Dreepa]

http://concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070510/REPOSITORY/705100332

Seacoast Porcs might be able to get behind this guy.

[cxxguy]

From what I read the old coot slammed it down on the town attorney's desk.  Probably ruined the guy's suit.  This legislative body will just be itching to bring up new gun control legislation.  One more wack job giving the majority of responsible gun owners a bad name.

The story seems odd.  OTOH, the guy is either being harassed, or thinks that he is.  OTOH, from the description of the incident it sounds like at the time, he was telling funny stories to the town attorney.  There are things I would want to know before I publicly linked my name with his:
  (1) Do these guys know each other? 
  (2) Are they friends?  Foes?  Aquaintences?
  (3) Was there, indeed, damage to the undergarments of the attorney in question, or did he take the act in the spirit in which sounds like it was intended?
  (4) Was the attorney the same Dover city attorney who is quoted in the article?
  (5) Did the attorney complain or request the investigation, or did some third party butt in?
  (6) Is the accused playing with a full deck?

[lildog]

Interesting story.  The one question raised here could have serious effect everywhere...

Is the right to keep and bear arms infringed if you are not allowed to conceal?

[lildog]

I just wrote up my take on the story here:

http://www.nhinsider.com/richard-barnes/2007/5/11/concealed-guns-constitutional-or-not.html

[Dreepa]

We knew that this was coming:
http://concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070514/REPOSITORY/705140307

[Lloyd Danforth]

Interesting story.  The one question raised here could have serious effect everywhere...

Is the right to keep and bear arms infringed if you are not allowed to conceal?

Any law that has the word 'firearm' is an infringement of RTKBA.  It is certainly an infringement if in order to be armed I have to become a target.

[mvpel]

Interesting story.  The one question raised here could have serious effect everywhere...

Is the right to keep and bear arms infringed if you are not allowed to conceal?

According to various high courts over the decades, no - regulation of the practice of carrying a concealed and loaded firearm is an allowable exercise of the police power.  This is not a formal finding in the US Supreme Court, but is rather clear and unambiguous dicta in the Robertson v. Baldwin case from 1897:

Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (article 1) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by law prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons; ...

The problem we have in New Hampshire is that the right is completely denied "in any vehicle" if you have no carry license.

It'll remain to be seen how far the Parker case can be carried beyond DC, assuming the likely possibility that the gun-banners' egos force them to appeal their loss.

[cyberdoo78]

I recently sent a letter to the Governor of the State of Alaska and asked her to ask the Department of Law for legal opinion that would show how several state statutes forbid the possession of firearms in certain places which is infringement on the right of an individual to keep and bear arms under the State's Constitution are constitutional.

Here is the response:

Your request for Governor Palin for a legal opinion justifying the constitutionality of unspecified state statutes regarding gun control under the the federal and state constitutions has been referred to me for response. I am a lawyer in the State's Department of Law.

The Department of Law does not give legal advice to private citizens. Its job is to provide legal advice and assistance to state agencies and officials. It is also not clear from your letter which particular statutes are of concern to you. You state that there are several statues that forbid the possession of guns in certain places and under certain circumstance. You are correct. A challenge to the constitutionality of any particular statute would arise in a specific fact setting, and then the applicability of the statute or statutes would be addressed by the court on a case-by-case basis.

If you are currently represented by an attorney in a proceeding in which one of those statutes is in issue, please bring your concerns to the attention of your attorney. Otherwise, please understand that while the State of Alaska and its officials consider public input into the democratic process to be very important, there is no specific advice we can provide in your response to your April 24, 2007, email.

-Talis J. Colberg
-Attorney General
--By Monica Jenicek
--Assistant Attorney General

Here is what I get from this letter. The law is the law until it isn't. Or the law isn't really the law until its judged to be in court. If I want to see these various unconstitutional laws go away, I have first break them, then get charged under them, then answer them in court, then fight the appeals, and move up the court ladder until I get final adjudication which might end up in failure anyway.

Don't you just love this system!

[Dreepa]

Also.. 'AK has to hire lawyers to figure out the law that our lawmakers made.'

[Recumbent ReCycler]

From what I've read in news reports, the judge appears to not be aware that without a license, you cannot have a loaded gun in your car.  I think if Edward had pointed out that fact and pointed out that RSA 159:4 is therefore in violation of Article 2-a of the NH constitution, he might have won.  Note that this is only speculation assuming that the news reports are accurate and that the judge is honest.  I wanted to go observe the trial, but my car was having some issues that I had to take care of before I could safely (in my opinion) drive it very far, and I didn't find anyone who was going and could give me a ride.

[TackleTheWorld]

I just wrote up my take on the story here:

http://www.nhinsider.com/richard-barnes/2007/5/11/concealed-guns-constitutional-or-not.html

Thanks for the link, Lildog, There's lots of good stuff I haven't seen before.

[LiveFree]

When you balance people's constitutional rights versus public safety, you have to follow the law. But the statute is relatively ambiguous."

The statute may be pretty vague, but Article 2-a of our state constitution certainly isn't. 

[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.

ALL PERSONS have the right to keep and BEAR arms in DEFENSE OF THEMSELVES.  Pretty freaking clear and yet they still trample all over it.  Just how the hell am I supposed to defend myself if I can't legally carry the damn thing loaded in my car?  Why should I have to open carry it and put a great big target on my hip?  Why shouldn't I be able to put on a jacket if I want to carry???  The permit is an infringement in and of itself!

[/rant]

[cyberdoo78]

LiveFree,

New Hampshire has a similar provisions in Alaska's State Constitution which leads to no interpretation problems.

Article 1 § 19. Right to Keep and Bear Arms

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State. [Amended 1994]

The problem is really this, that no one reads or knows the contents of their constitutions. The elected leaders do not write a bill, look to the various constitutions and check to see if its legal.

As the response from my own States' Department of Law indicates, legislators are free to pass any law, regardless of its constitutionality. It's constitutionality can only be challenged in the courts. If you disagree with the law's constitutionality then you should stand up, goto jail, then to court and prove it that it is unconstitutional.

However the problem as it appears to me is this. The courts, the only body who can remove a law once it is passed, are run by the vary same government which is run by the executive or legislative branches. The judges in those very courts are paid for, paid by, and continue to serve the other two branches.

Until such time as the people rise and up and change the system, either thru non-violent means, that is by electing people who -will- change the system, or through violent means, where by the leaders of the government are forcibly removed and replaced by those who pledge to change the system.

[mvpel]

The problem is really this, that no one reads or knows the contents of their constitutions.

And the anti-terrorism law enforcement officials say that if you quote the Constitution, you might be a terrorist.

[MaineShark]

Any law that has the word 'firearm' is an infringement of RTKBA.

I don't know about that... how about "any government employee who takes a firearm from any person against that person's free will shall be guilty of a Class A felony"?  I wouldn't mind seeing them pass something like that!

As the response from my own States' Department of Law indicates, legislators are free to pass any law, regardless of its constitutionality. It's constitutionality can only be challenged in the courts. If you disagree with the law's constitutionality then you should stand up, goto jail, then to court and prove it that it is unconstitutional.

Uh, you can typically sue them on the grounds that the law violates your rights, rather than actually having to violate it and get arrested.

Joe