NH Supreme Court 2A ruling.

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bg

Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2003
Messages
903
Location
When you find out, let me know..
This seems strange to me. Check out the statement from the Court below.
http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070719/NEWS/707190400
excerpt
CONCORD — The state Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the state Constitution's right to bear arms can be restricted and regulated.

"As numerous courts in other states have recognized with respect to their state constitutional right to bear arms ... the New Hampshire state constitutional right to bear arms 'is not absolute and may be subject to restriction and regulation'," the court ruled.

The court ruled in the case of Edward Bleiler of Dover who sued after the police chief revoked his concealed weapons permit. Bleiler's lawyer said they may appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The case arose from an incident at Dover City Hall in March 2006, when Bleiler displayed a loaded handgun in the city attorney's office. Bleiler did not threaten anyone, and said he used the gun as a prop to tell a story.
Click to expand...
Look at this. Does this sound weird or am I mis-reading it..?

"The statute has a reasonable purpose, it protects the public by preventing an individual from having on hand a (loaded) deadly weapon of which the public is unaware," the court said.
Click to expand...
How is this reasonable ? If the public knows about a weapon, then why
have a CCW in the first place ? Sorry, I guess I'm missing the boat, but
this seems like a pretty goofy conclusion to me. :confused:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think you mean "NH" not "Conn."

Anyway, IANAL, but it seems that in court decisions, "compelling public need" trumps anything, including inalienable rights. It's a common magic formula to say that this or that right may be subject to "reasonable" limitations in the interest of a "compelling public need."

--Len.
 
the guy was apparently an idiot hothead and basically our worst nightmare for ccw
 
This WAS New Hampshire.

I find this to be the most ominous thing about that ruling:
The court said strict scrutiny need not be applied in all cases involving fundamental rights. For example, property ownership rights are fundamental, but zoning ordinances regulating them do not receive a strict scrutiny analysis, the court said.

Like the gun regulations, zoning ordinances balance the property owners' rights against those of the public good.

"Strict scrutiny, with its presumption of unconstitutionality, is a standard of review traditionally used in areas where courts deem any burdensome legislation to be 'immediately suspect,'" the court said. "Gun control legislation, by contrast, with its legislative motivation of public safety ... is not inherently suspicious."
Click to expand...

So, a "motive of public safety" basically renders ANY legislation out of the zone of being suspect. That makes my skin crawl. In the "Live Free or Die" state too! Say it ain't so, Andy!
 
Welcome to the Fourth Reich, which allows the Reichspräsident to take any appropriate measure to remedy dangers to public safety.
 
The case arose from an incident at Dover City Hall in March 2006, when Bleiler displayed a loaded handgun in the city attorney's office. Bleiler did not threaten anyone, and said he used the gun as a prop to tell a story.
Click to expand...
Lovely. These aren't the people I envision suing for our rights. Bleiler helps foster the image that people who carry concealed weapons are dangerous.

Hopefully, someone with a real case WILL sue, and this matter will go before the court again.
 
The report said he was going to appeal to the supreme court. If cirtoris is granted to Parker vs. DC... it could be interesting. Of course, the Parker case is on MUCH firmer ground.
 
The court said strict scrutiny need not be applied in all cases involving fundamental rights. For example, property ownership rights are fundamental, but zoning ordinances regulating them do not receive a strict scrutiny analysis, the court said.

Like the gun regulations, zoning ordinances balance the property owners' rights against those of the public good.

"Strict scrutiny, with its presumption of unconstitutionality, is a standard of review traditionally used in areas where courts deem any burdensome legislation to be 'immediately suspect,'" the court said. "Gun control legislation, by contrast, with its legislative motivation of public safety ... is not inherently suspicious."
Click to expand...

I can't believe how dumb they think we are. Keeping and bearing arms is as innocuous as using a piece of rope to hold up your pants. There is no danger to the public good while keeping and bearing arms! It's the MISUSE of arms that is of concern, just as using that piece of rope to strangle someone instead of using it to hold up your pants would be of concern. Getting caught without that rope is getting caught with your pants down, same as getting caught without your arms when you need them is a problem.

This particular court is advocating oligarchy! Blatantly! This court needs to be reversed and then repopulated with REAL justices - justices without leftist dictatorial proclivities. In plain English, they are dangerous to liberty.

It isn't up to the courts to decide what's good or bad for us. Its up to us and our legislators, adhering to our constitutions to decide those things. The courts ain't our keepers. They prove it every time they overstep their bounds.

Woody

Thomas Jefferson worried that the Courts would overstep their authority and instead of interpreting the law would begin making law....an oligarchy...the rule of few over many.
 
Let me get this straight ... a guy has his concealed carry permit revoked for openly displaying a gun, and NH SC sees a connection? So the upshot from the top is that he can still - nay is required - to display it always? Is it just me, or is there really a non-sequitor here?
 
Woody !

Not only could I not have said it better, I doubt I could have said it as well.
 
I strongly and affirmatively disavow any association with the "24 hours" remark above. I realize this was a "theoretical" remark, but it could be construed otherwise.

But maybe it's time we put our "tactical" minds together and developed some realistic strategies to deal with renegade Courts. What, exactly, are the legitimate checks and balances to the Supreme Courts' (note the plural) powers?

After all, as I understand it, SCOTUS' powers are essentially self-proclaimed, much like the self-proclaimed powers of so many dictators and emperors of the past --including Napoleon, Castro, Amin, and Hitler, to name a few who jump to mind.

So what are these checks, and how can we implement them?

The Leftists have no shame about inciting antlike behavior in "demonstrations" to "raise onsciousness" about their peeves and desires. Can we not follow their (very strategic) lead and organize demonstrations? I personally abhor standing around with a group of people chanting mantras and slogans, but apparently the Leftists have found this technique very effective.

We should be thinking far more tactically (and I don't mean this in the "gimcrackery" sense that we look at flashlights and camo) about how to counter the thrusts of the Leftist Judiciary.

So. Here's a start:

1. Impeachment proceedings
(advantages? disadvantages? effectiveness? logistics?)

2. Demonstrations
(advantages? disadvantages? effectiveness? logistics?)

3. Selection of those who appoint Judges
(advantages? disadvantages? effectiveness? logistics?)

4. Homeland Security as a Tool?
(advantages? disadvantages? effectiveness? logistics?)

5. What can they do to us?
(relative strengths and vulnerabilities)

6. Other

7. Other

Were I a General about to conduct an initial high-level strategy meeting to determine tactics to counter an enemy's present and possible future thrusts, that's what I'd put on the agenda to have the junior officers kick around as a starting point --with a view toward developing an effective strategy to defeat an enemy.

In about 1967, when GCA68 was being generated in the Legislature, I suggested to the NRA* that with so many retired military as members and Directors, who are experts in this sort of thing, that we should embark on such a strategy development.

I was essentially ignored.

And GCA 68 was born.

---------
* Let's not start a debate about the merits of the NRA. I'm just pointing out that this kind of strategic thinking was not "in vogue" at the time. Remarks about "how come I quit the NRA," etc., would not be productive in developing strong strategies against present and future anti maneuvering.
 
the New Hampshire state constitutional right to bear arms 'is not absolute and may be subject to restriction and regulation'," the court ruled.
Click to expand...

Funny , I don't see anything in the following that says "except","as long as", "with due regulation" , etc etc . . What I DO see is a right , plainly stated , without restrictions .


All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.
Click to expand...

The fact that any judge can say that a right , affirmed by the state/fed constitution , is not absolute , tells me that he should no longer be a judge . Are not judges' jobs to rule based on constititution(s) , especially to prevent bad laws and actions (prohibited by said constitution(s) ) ? Seems like the judicial branch has become less of a "check" on the other 2 , and more like an arm :mad:
 
if you read the original story ... you wouldn't have any sympathy for this guy.

he reportedly plunked down a loaded revolver on the desk of a city official in a defiant, if not aggressive manner.

in my home state not too far away from NH ... that will get you arrested for brandishing. if he did that to me i would have drawn my weapon and possibly shot him.

so the chief (a bad one too by NH RKBA standards) revoked his CCW. he can still open carry as is his right is in NH.

Ma$$hole with a chip on his shoulder to boot. (Wellesley, IIRC).
 
This particular court is advocating oligarchy!
Click to expand...

Well, yeah, but the question I'd like answered is this: I thought that our rights are absolute unless and until we are tried by a court and they decide to remove them. Is that no longer the case?

It seems to me that the fact that his license was revoked is not the problem: it's the fact that the police chief got to make the decision.

If he had gotten arrested for brandishing, and tried, and convicted, AND if the NH CCW laws required a record completely free of criminal firearms violations, then there would be no problem... right?


We should be thinking far more tactically (and I don't mean this in the "gimcrackery" sense that we look at flashlights and camo) about how to counter the thrusts of the Leftist Judiciary.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't know if NH has a local 2nd rights group like we do in VA, but they would be a good place to start looking.

However, I think that local pro-2nd people need to get on the ball and avoid the "Catholic Priest" phenomenon here: we need to prevent the lot of us looking bad because one guy was an idiot.

We all pretty much agree that with the current set of facts, this guy was wrong. Then we're running headlong into things that affect all of us, like oligarchy, without realizing that by not denouncing this guy, we're implicitly saying that we're ok with this behavior.

In short: NH residents need to let the NH public know that we don't approve of his actions. Most anti's seem to be people that agree that guns need to be around - they simply don't think guys like this should have them. If we agree, we should say so.
 
I think the Supreme Court ruling that a fundamental right requires no more jurisprudential notice then a zoning ordinance is a LOT more disturbing then a guy plunking a loaded revolver down on an attorney's table.

No one died from the latter..they may very well from the former.
 
The guy acted like an idiot. I don't think one incident like this throws into question the idea of NH being one of the most free states in the country. Gun rights are not the only basis on which to judge a state in terms of freedom. Practically speaking, NH is still one of the best.
 
Gun right is not the only basis as to judging freedom but it is a major part. It's great to have freedom of religion and freedom of press, but if you aren't allowed the means to protect your goods, your person or your freedoms, then the "ship of state" is a submarine with screen windows.
 
The judge ruled that there can be some laws regarding what you can do with a gun and where.

Honestly, I can't see how that's different from other freedoms (speech, assembly, religion, etc.). You can't legally just gather a group any time and sit in the middle of the State Police headquarters, having a religious service, for example. This is not radically different from that. I don't find that ruling to be generally alarming.

A greater problem, for me, is when the right to bear arms and the right to self-defense are NOT treated like the other freedoms, not when they are.
 
What you can do with guns and where has nothing to do with keeping and bearing them. All the Second Amendment protects is the keeping and bearing of them.

Woody
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

K
  • Locked
NH - High court hears gun permit case
Replies
10
Views
649
GUNNER..
G
SSN Vet
  • Locked
how to loose your permit...(well, maybe)
Replies
0
Views
614
SSN Vet
SSN Vet
U
  • Locked
Delaware Supreme Court win on public housing gun case
Replies
4
Views
699
Old Fuff
O
S
  • Locked
RI high court upholds CCW restriction
Replies
13
Views
1K
RealGun
RealGun
M
  • Locked
Case Law; U.S. Supreme Court and the Second Amendment
Replies
0
Views
455
Mr Jody Hudson
M
Back
Top