License required to exercise your fundamental Right

imported post

smn wrote:

... remember, you may beat the rap but you won't beat the ride.

Click to expand...

true enough!

imported post

Wow, thanks NavyLT. I think...

I realise it's hard to discern what is fact and what is lies the police told the news media, or even what twists the news media put on things to make the story sensational and I am truely sorry for that. I wish I could sit here and say 'this is true and that is not' but it's hard for me even to know what I can correct and what I should say because with a pending court case anything could potentially be used against us in court. Anyone can twist words to mean anything they want them to, really.

What I do know and what I can say is they had no right to confiscate and hold my sidearm for merely a traffic violation when I have the valid license to carry. At best; even if they needed to hold onto it for their own safety for a time while the stop was made, they should have given it back immediately upon my release. They have not and I have to jump through all sorts of hoops to get it back.

What I also know is the weapons charges against Bill are bogus and we have one of the best "gun lawyers" in the country (Attorney Evan Nappen) who is behind us 100% on this and says we have an excellent case... but we still need to pay him (of course).

I can see where our "message" gets muddled in and among the traffic violation stuff, so I can understand people's hesitations. But everyone's advise and references to case law has been very helpful and I'd appreciate it coming!

By the way NavyLT; in New Hampshire one doesn't need a license or permit for ammunition at all. One does not need a license or permit to Open Carry either. One would need a New Hampshire license (not a permit at all) to conceal carry. There are a few other instances where one would not need a New Hampshire license to conceal carry as well.

imported post

As it's happened in GA and PA and other states, once your attorney can show the court the police are in the wrong about seizing your handgun and any statements about the ammunition, you want the police to dance. You shouldn't have to jump through hoops.

See this GCO case: http://www.georgiacarry.com/county/richmond_carry/

Also see the Georgia section of this forum. The facts will be determined in court. When it's found your rights have been suppressed thats when you sock it to 'em.

imported post

Nice! Thanks smn!

imported post

Ivy,

I can't find the ladies name in NH that takes these types of cases, but she thinks that the concealed case was argued wrong....Ask Gun Owners of NH....think she is a member. Listening to her, she stated there are some interesting facts about NH law, like if its not a common pistol, then you don't need a permit (I can't cite statue). So, what type of weapon were you guys carrying? Don't answer that and please look up the statues, as that is what I remember from discussion she was in at the time.

Sorry I couldn't be more help, but if you go to court, along with state violations, please assert 2nd 4th, 9th, 10th and 14th amendment violations. Its true that Heller spoke about an issue not before it at the time.I would still haveit in your complaint...lets remember what happened in Miller vs. Texas.

imported post

Penny Dean. She's excellent, but we can't afford one lawyer, let alone two, which is why we've created the ChipIn page (http://williamwalker.chipin.com).

Bill is friends with Evan Nappen, so he (of course) wanted to go with him. Evan has authored several books such as The Declaration, all about gun rights.

I have to "go it alone" on my case because Evan can't represent us both (conflict of interest or what have you). Hopefully I can glean enough knowledge from what he is giving Bill and what I research on line to make my case...

2nd, 4th, 9th, 10th, and 14th... okay got it. (I think LOL) as if running a restaurant on a shoestring budget wasn't stressful enough... *sigh*

imported post

MarkNH wrote

Can you challenge the charge on Constitutional grounds? probably, although the circumstances likely to be mentioned repeatedly by a prosecutor ("multiple guns", "body armor", "driving with a suspended license", "misuse of plates") as well of the relatively minor nature of the "crime" would make this a difficult case to take all the way to get both a ruling on incorporation of the second amendment to the States combined with a very narrow definition of reasonable restriction.

Click to expand...

We don’t need to “incorporate” the federal Second Amendment. What we have in our own State constitution is already better:—

imported post

"Freestaters" or irresponsible people ? Driving on suspended licences and or bogus plates is reckless and irresponsiable. I hope they convict you, seize & sell your car with a civil forfeiture, and throw both of you bums in jail.

When yourefuse to register your car and maintain a drivers licence YOU HAVE NO LIABILITY INSURANCE. It's null & void and will not cover losses your negligence causes. You are putting the public at risk of serious financial loss by your criminal activities. You are violating others property rights, by claiming "rights" that don't exist. You don't have the right to drive uninsured and expect the responsible citizens to cover your losses. What if you make a simple mistake and cause serious injury to another citizen ?What about their rights ? Who is going to pay their hospital bills and replace the car you destroyed ? What if they are permanently incapacitated ?

Anyone contributing to these criminals needs to think about what it's like when you get rear ended by one of these "freestater" nuts that have Zero liability insurance, a counterfeited licence plate made out of cardboard, and an selfish, immature attitude that places themselves above the law.

imported post

no carry permit ? wrote:

"When yourefuse to register your car and maintain a drivers licence YOU HAVE NO LIABILITY INSURANCE.

Click to expand...

Just in case you're uninformed rather than merely a loudmouthed troll: liability insurance is not required in New Hampshire.

imported post

jraxis wrote:

MarkNH wrote

Can you challenge the charge on Constitutional grounds? probably, although the circumstances likely to be mentioned repeatedly by a prosecutor ("multiple guns", "body armor", "driving with a suspended license", "misuse of plates") as well of the relatively minor nature of the "crime" would make this a difficult case to take all the way to get both a ruling on incorporation of the second amendment to the States combined with a very narrow definition of reasonable restriction.

Click to expand...

We don’t need to “incorporate” the federal Second Amendment. What we have in our own State constitution is already better:—

Click to expand...

True, but the original post was all about the Second Amendment protecting a God given right and that is why the charges are bogus. I agree with that assertion but it will be difficult to win that argument in the courts here.

With regard to the NH State Constitution we unfortunately have to deal with the bad ruling last year concerning the revocation of the pistol and revolver license of Edward Blevin where the State Supreme Court said the New Hampshire state constitutional right to bear arms 'is not absolute and may be subject to restriction and regulation'.

imported post

Shawn wrote:

Listening to her, she stated there are some interesting facts about NH law, like if its not a common pistol, then you don't need a permit (I can't cite statue). So, what type of weapon were you guys carrying?

Click to expand...

Shawn, are you sure you understood her correctly?

The NH law on concealed carry applies to any modern* firearm with a barrel less than 16 inches in length.

* Modern in this context excludes antique firearms where the definition of antique is "utilizing an early type of ignition, including, but not limited to, flintlocks, wheel locks, matchlocks, percussions and pin-fire, but no pistol, gun cane, or revolver which utilizes readily available center fire or rim-fire cartridges which are in common, current use shall be deemed to be an antique pistol, gun cane, or revolver."

In other words unless Bill was carrying two old blackpower pistols or two handguns with 16 inch barrels, or two handguns that fire ammunition not readily available** the law applies to him.

** The readily available clause may help someone one day but then it will all come down to a definition of readily available, is ammunition readily available if you can buy it on the surplus market, as components for handloading, on gunbroker?

.22 short dates from 1857 but you can still buy it today, .32 S&W has been around since 1870, .45 LC dates to 1873, etc etc, all of those are readily available.

Can anyone suggest a caliber that you can't buy or reload today but would still trust your life to carrying a handgun in that caliber?

imported post

Mark, do you know where I can find the Blevin ruling online? I can't seem to find it.

Never Mind; found it under Bleiler http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2007/bleir101.pdf
thanks!!

imported post

KBCraig wrote:

no carry permit ? wrote:

"When yourefuse to register your car and maintain a drivers licence YOU HAVE NO LIABILITY INSURANCE.

Click to expand...

Just in case you're uninformed rather than merely a loudmouthed troll: liability insurance is not required in New Hampshire.

Click to expand...

Just in case you're just a jerk from Texas that attacks everyone that disagrees with your foolish opinions with the label TROLL:


1) You are still legally liable for injuries & damages you cause.

2) YOU STILL HAVE TO BE LICENCED

3) YOUR CAR STILL MUST BE Registered

4) Once you cross the boarder into most states without insurance it's a crime.

5) Whatever happened to being responsible and covering damages you cause as legally required. If you paralyze someone in an accident that is your fault, how would anyone cover the financial liability without insurance.

More & more I see "freestaters" as criminals and irresponsible people that are looking for excuses for their actions. This case isn't a gun rights issue, they broke many laws and deserve the consequences.

imported post

I dont know... there are some good things in that ruling as well as some bad. Okay lots bad...

But they basically agree (bottom of page 4 top of page 5) that the RKBA is a fundamental right but then decided not to address Bleiler's assertions that by taking away his conceal carry license it forced him to open carry subjecting him to a 'stigma'.

Now follow my thought process here and tell me what y'all think of it:

If I can substantially prove the stigma which open carry subjects me and my business to with police reports and severe business decline, would it possibly open up this line of questioning again and therefore possibly reverse their ruling here that they need not review RSA 159:6-b?

A little background on that line of thought. My husband and I run a restaurant in a little town here in NH. It's a Tex-Mex place and we have open carried here and encourage it from our partons, especially on Friday's where it's theme night and one gets a dicount for "dressing up" as a cowboy/girl. Our first two or three weeks of business were great... then we started getting calls from the local PD Cheif who told us basically that it would be in our best interest to conceal our weapons. He told us that he'd received several calls of concern because we open carry and encourage other folks to open carry. We've also had people outright walk out of our business and tell us it was because they did not like the open carrying. It's a small town, and the rumor mill is wild with stories about us 'weilding our weapons' and such and since those first few weeks, our business has rapidly declined. Therefore, I can substantially prove the 'stigma' that open carrying causes, and therefore might have some grounds to have them review the statue under 'strict scrutiny'.

Thoughts?

imported post

To

no carry permit ?

Click to expand...

:

yes if i were to cause damages without insurance I would still be liable even if i did not carry liability insurance. yes if i were to cause damages i would be in great financial hardship in order to cover those damages. yes if i were to cause damages it would be my responsibility to pay for said damages. no one ever said i would not be responsible and not pay for the damages i caused if such damages were to occur. those are the risks one takes when they do not have insurance - sure i could be out a ton. that's my dice to roll, not yours to judge me on.

i have not caused damages. i've not been in an accident (other than a deer running in front of me and damamging my own bumper) in more than 12 years since the first year i was licensed.

no it is not a crime to cross over into another state that requires insurance when you live in a state that does not require it.

the vehicle was registered. they are claiming the registration was suspended for some reason; i have no knowledge of said suspension.

the arguement that an average person is required to have a drivers' license in order to travel to and fro upon the earth is one that is under much scrutiny now a days. the term 'driver' referrs to one whose business it is to transport passengers or goods on a public way. the average traveler is not a driver under the strict legal definition. there have been cases more and more frequently which are proving this.

what people must remember is that while there are many things at play in this case, just like each and every aspect will be individually decided in court, we must also look at each and every aspect individually. i'm talking about the motor vehicle things with other people who have done battle in that arena. i'm here looking to people for help and information on the RKBA battle. the motor vehicle violations in no way should change or prohibit our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

imported post

ivyleague28477 wrote:

I dont know... there are some good things in that ruling as well as some bad. Okay lots bad...

But they basically agree (bottom of page 4 top of page 5) that the RKBA is a fundamental right but then decided not to address Bleiler's assertions that by taking away his conceal carry license it forced him to open carry subjecting him to a 'stigma'.

Now follow my thought process here and tell me what y'all think of it:

If I can substantially prove the stigma which open carry subjects me and my business to with police reports and severe business decline, would it possibly open up this line of questioning again and therefore possibly reverse their ruling here that they need not review RSA 159:6-b?

A little background on that line of thought. My husband and I run a restaurant in a little town here in NH. It's a Tex-Mex place and we have open carried here and encourage it from our partons, especially on Friday's where it's theme night and one gets a dicount for "dressing up" as a cowboy/girl. Our first two or three weeks of business were great... then we started getting calls from the local PD Cheif who told us basically that it would be in our best interest to conceal our weapons. He told us that he'd received several calls of concern because we open carry and encourage other folks to open carry. We've also had people outright walk out of our business and tell us it was because they did not like the open carrying. It's a small town, and the rumor mill is wild with stories about us 'weilding our weapons' and such and since those first few weeks, our business has rapidly declined. Therefore, I can substantially prove the 'stigma' that open carrying causes, and therefore might have some grounds to have them review the statue under 'strict scrutiny'.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Tell them you're encouraging the 2A by using the first.

imported post

yes if i were to cause damages without insurance I would still be liable even if i did not carry liability insurance. yes if i were to cause damages i would be in great financial hardship in order to cover those damages. yes if i were to cause damages it would be my responsibility to pay for said damages. no one ever said i would not be responsible and not pay for the damages i caused if such damages were to occur. those are the risks one takes when they do not have insurance - sure i could be out a ton. that's my dice to roll, not yours to judge me on.

Click to expand...

BS on that. My mother was hit head on by a driver while stopped on her side of the roadwith no way to avoid him. Hehad no insurance, no property and no way to pay the hospital bills that myfamily incurred due to it. My grandmother's hip was broken and for six weeks after she had to stay in the bed while we paid someone to look after her. After that she used a walker for another three months. Thank goodness my 6 year old sister and 6 year old cousin were strapped in and did not go face first into the windshield like my mother did. 35 years later my mother still finds pieces of glass in her forehead.

It my be your dice to roll but you are gambling with other people's lives and they could be out a ton because of your carelessness. And the other driver, he had never had an automobile accident in his 71 years of living.

imported post

smn wrote:

Tell them you're encouraging the 2A by using the first.

Click to expand...

Well, yes I do tell people that (or similar) when they ask about our open carrying. Usually IF they ask they're curious, not fearful and it's been a really good opportunty, but my qustion is this:

ivyleague28477 wrote:

If I can substantially prove the stigma which open carry subjects me and my business to with police reports and severe business decline, would it possibly open up this line of questioning again and therefore possibly reverse their ruling here that they need not review RSA 159:6-b?

Click to expand...

I suppose I wont really know the answer until I try that argument in court, but I was wondering if, based on the situation, other people thought that might be a reasonable argument to pose.

PT111, I'm sorry to hear of your family's troubles.

He had no insurance, no property and no way to pay the hospital bills that my family incurred due to it.

Click to expand...

That doesn't mean everyone is in that situation just because they do not have insurance. Hospital bills can be paid over time. He should have been held liable even if he couldn't pay them up front and immediately. He could have conceivable paid those bills for your family on a weekly or monthly payment plan to the hospital or doctors or visiting nurses or what have you without any negative effect to your family's financial situation. You're right that his actions were irresponsible; that does not mean mine will be if ever I were in an accident.

imported post

So if NH is an open carry state, why was Bill not openly carrying his firearm?

imported post

nakedshoplifter wrote:

So if NH is an open carry state, why was Bill not openly carrying his firearm?

Click to expand...

Click on NH on the map - what does the summary say about car carry?