-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
NH laws about signage/CCW?
- Thread starter vellnueve
- Start date
NH RSA's are silent on signage with regard to concealed carry. There is no specific requirement for a sign, as they have no legal weight other than that of any sign, i.e. "no smoking" or "shirts required." If found to be carrying in a place (assuming private property) posted "no weapons," you could be asked to leave, and if you refuse, you could be cited for trespassing. Beyond that, I wouldn't worry. Unlike some other states, there is no special restriction on carrying "in a posted place," as it were. On top of that, I've never seen a "no guns" posted place.
Disclaimer: IANAScrivener
P.S. A better home for this thread would be "Gun Laws."
![[laugh2]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/014.gif "Laugh at above [laugh2]")
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
I love it! We have a new "classic"!
On the topic - New England (TTBOMK) doesn't have any laws that specifically make it a crime to possess/carry a gun into a posted business/building. Most states that got CCW within the last 25 years seem to have laundry lists of "prohibited places" including signage issues that carry weight of law.
I love it! We have a new "classic"!
On the topic - New England (TTBOMK) doesn't have any laws that specifically make it a crime to possess/carry a gun into a posted business/building. Most states that got CCW within the last 25 years seem to have laundry lists of "prohibited places" including signage issues that carry weight of law.
very true- I have a client in TX that told me he got his license, he was pretty steamed to find out that Mass carry laws are so much better then TX
I didn't have the heart to tell him about VT
NH is a "trespass standard" state, which means that you will only get in
serious legal trouble if someone tells you to leave and you don't. And of
course none of that will ever happen if you conceal your gun properly.
-Mike
serious legal trouble if someone tells you to leave and you don't. And of
course none of that will ever happen if you conceal your gun properly.
-Mike
TX isn't that bad- a lot of people do not fully understand 30.06, and they
don't understand that about 85% of the "no guns" signage in TX doesn't
apply to CHL holders or isn't 30.06 compliant. The statute there is VERY
specific about what is and is not compliant- and if it's not, then legally
speaking it doesn't mean anything. A lot of people that don't fully
understand the law get worked up for no reason about signage that really
is not applicable to them as a CHL holder.
-Mike
Well, I went to an event in Manchester, don't know if they had a no guns policy or not (didn't see any signs, so maybe not), carried my SW317. The event staff patted down my jacket pockets and pants pockets (looking for booze I guess), but somehow didn't see the 317 under my shirt.
MaverickNH
NES Member
I was in a vendor company in Columbus, OH last week and they had the big sign posted on the front door prohibiting firearms on site - the red "X" through the revolver type. Over lunch, I casually brought it up and nobody seemed anti-gun, nor did they think the boss of the private company was anti-gun. In fact, some were hunters and one woman was planning to get a pistol for home defense.
I askedthat fateful question about what they would do if anyone bust in the door and started shooting (deranged customer, former employee, ex-spouse, etc) and only then did it dawn on them that they would be fish in a barrel. It's surprising how few people think it through...
Maybe someone will have a word with the boss. I can't really deny business to them as an industry representative, but maybe I can plant the seeds of thought.
I askedthat fateful question about what they would do if anyone bust in the door and started shooting (deranged customer, former employee, ex-spouse, etc) and only then did it dawn on them that they would be fish in a barrel. It's surprising how few people think it through...
Maybe someone will have a word with the boss. I can't really deny business to them as an industry representative, but maybe I can plant the seeds of thought.
Scott,
The Rockingham Mall in Salem has signs posted that state something to the effect that "firearms, legal or not, are not permitted in the mall".
Just FYI... Make sure if you go to the Rockingham Mall you're well-covered...![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
The Rockingham Mall in Salem has signs posted that state something to the effect that "firearms, legal or not, are not permitted in the mall".
Just FYI... Make sure if you go to the Rockingham Mall you're well-covered...
Thanks! I don't get to Salem very often, but don't open carry very often, either.
Can't understand a sign that says "firearms, legal or not, are not permitted in the mall."
What scenario is this projecting? What other illegal activities do they feel compelled to post? "Note: For everyone's continued safety, there is no stealing or robbing allowed in this mall."
It reminds me of the people at the range, who, upon seeing my FAL say "Is that legal??" What is the expected answer here? "No, but don't tell"? But, I digress.
Thanks for the heads-up.
Can't understand a sign that says "firearms, legal or not, are not permitted in the mall."
What scenario is this projecting? What other illegal activities do they feel compelled to post? "Note: For everyone's continued safety, there is no stealing or robbing allowed in this mall."
It reminds me of the people at the range, who, upon seeing my FAL say "Is that legal??" What is the expected answer here? "No, but don't tell"? But, I digress.
Thanks for the heads-up.
It has nothing to do with being a test case or not. In the case of some of
those places if they have metal detectors and wanding you're not getting
in regardless of whatever the signs do or don't say.
Note that this has nothing to do with binding signage. Binding signage
means you are committing a crime by violating the sign. Non binding
signage means all they can really do is kick you out or ask you to
leave. (this doesnt mean that there wont, of course, be a "man with a
gun call" followed up by the typical attendant LE harassment, it just
means you won't go to jail or get charged with a crime. )
-Mike
MaverickNH
NES Member
Scott,
The Rockingham Mall in Salem has signs posted that state something to the effect that "firearms, legal or not, are not permitted in the mall".
Just FYI... Make sure if you go to the Rockingham Mall you're well-covered...
Lott had an interesting post on his blog about how to reverse a mall's sign policy: http://www.ohioccw.org/content/view/3844/83/
... from Ohio, no less.
"Elyria's Midway Mall Removes "No Guns" Signs"
Mike has the right idea. The biggest problem would be getting stopped at the Verizon Center and turned away, and blowing your $100 on tickets, and explaining to your wife and kids why you can't see "Doofuses on Ice."
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,551
- Likes
- 33,615
No. The biggest problem if this happens in a MA location is that an officer responding to a request for assistance from venue staff, or a detail officer on site, will file an incident report with the LTC issuing chief suggesting that your attempt to violate their policy makes you a person unsuitable to be so licensed. Reactions to this would vary from "guess what those jerks want to me to with your license" to a house call to pick up your formerly valid LTC.
This is not an issue in those states where you actually have to commit an offense to lose your license, or be found unsuitable for renewal.
Yes, and there might be other consequences in FL, TX, or Canada, but the title of this post is: "NH laws about signage/CCW." What part of that is confusing?
kevin9
NES Member
It sure does, and everytime I walk by it, I adjust my holster.
Lynne, I ask your forgiveness for this up front, and I realize it won't have the same impact as if you were a man, but I can't help it...
Is your holster per chance a crotch holster?
Lynne, I ask your forgiveness for this up front, and I realize it won't have the same impact as if you were a man, but I can't help it...
Is your holster per chance a crotch holster?
Ah...no.
Going to resurrect this one. Are there ANY limitations on where you can/cannot carry in New Hampshire (other than federal buildings and courts perhaps)? I'm assuming here locations that haven't posted no-weapons signage.
Schools K-12 I believe. Check the RSAs, it's only a couple pages long and online for easy reading . . . UNLIKE MA MGLs!!
Colleges are NOT victim-rich targets by law in NH. I know that for a fact.
Colleges are NOT victim-rich targets by law in NH. I know that for a fact.
Thanks guys I figured their laws would be pretty liberal.
MaverickNH
NES Member
What about federal law, does it restrict where I can carry a firearm in New Hampshire. Yes, it does, federal courthouses, national parks (National Forest Service) and arguably federal buildings and potentially school zones which is defined as elementary, junior high and high schools (simply because of the language in RSA 159 New Hampshire license have not been challenged on this point yet, don’t be the test case!).
http://www.gonh.org/uploads/239/NH-Fed_Guns_Laws_Synopsis.pdf
The above from Go-NH may have been authored/co-authoered by Penny Dean, a NH lawyer (found something at http://www.pennydean.com/first_trial_g000000.doc)
I have downloaded and compiled the NH RSAs and the word "school(s)" is not present. Where might they have come up with the above?
http://www.gonh.org/uploads/239/NH-Fed_Guns_Laws_Synopsis.pdf
The above from Go-NH may have been authored/co-authoered by Penny Dean, a NH lawyer (found something at http://www.pennydean.com/first_trial_g000000.doc)
I have downloaded and compiled the NH RSAs and the word "school(s)" is not present. Where might they have come up with the above?
MaverickNH
NES Member
OK - I got a very quick response from Dean:
"I hope this answers your question. The problem is FEDERAL LAW, arguably
(and I am VERY conservative on this issue as it has not been decided,
and although I think there is an argument, I must err on the side of
certainty until a court decides this). In NH one could claim that NH
Pistol/revolver licenses are not issued to exempt one from the federal
prohibition of carrying guns in school zones, (see below) which requires
that in order for one to be exempt from the federal prohibition....of
firearms on school property, the license must have been issued AFTER the
government entity (law enforcement authorities-not selectmen who
sometimes issues NH license) determines the "individual is qualified
under law to receive the license" There is no formal or explicit
qualification procedure in NH prior to the issuance of a NH license.
18 USC 922 q
(2)(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess
a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or
foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable
cause to believe, is a school zone.
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm--
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do
so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political
subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political
subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a
license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political
subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to
receive the license;
(iii) that is--
(I) not loaded; and
(II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that
is on a motor vehicle;
(iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a school
in the school zone;
(v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into
between a school in the school zone and the individual or an
employer of the individual;
(vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official
capacity; or
(vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while
traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining access to
public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school
premises is authorized by school authorities."
The key point, it seems, is an understanding of what "the law enforcement authorities of the State or political
subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to
receive the license" means or dooesn't mean. Presuming my town to be a political subdivision and my town's Chief of Police to be LE authorities in question, I'm not sure where the uncertainty might be.
By Dean's statement "There is no formal or explicit
qualification procedure in NH prior to the issuance of a NH license." I'm lead to wonder if she implies that in a Shall-Issue state like NH, that we are not, as such, qualified to be issued a CCW permit, but are simply not disqualified so as to not receive a CCW permit.
Any other interpretations I'm missing?
"I hope this answers your question. The problem is FEDERAL LAW, arguably
(and I am VERY conservative on this issue as it has not been decided,
and although I think there is an argument, I must err on the side of
certainty until a court decides this). In NH one could claim that NH
Pistol/revolver licenses are not issued to exempt one from the federal
prohibition of carrying guns in school zones, (see below) which requires
that in order for one to be exempt from the federal prohibition....of
firearms on school property, the license must have been issued AFTER the
government entity (law enforcement authorities-not selectmen who
sometimes issues NH license) determines the "individual is qualified
under law to receive the license" There is no formal or explicit
qualification procedure in NH prior to the issuance of a NH license.
18 USC 922 q
(2)(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess
a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or
foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable
cause to believe, is a school zone.
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm--
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do
so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political
subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political
subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a
license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political
subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to
receive the license;
(iii) that is--
(I) not loaded; and
(II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that
is on a motor vehicle;
(iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a school
in the school zone;
(v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into
between a school in the school zone and the individual or an
employer of the individual;
(vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official
capacity; or
(vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while
traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining access to
public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school
premises is authorized by school authorities."
The key point, it seems, is an understanding of what "the law enforcement authorities of the State or political
subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to
receive the license" means or dooesn't mean. Presuming my town to be a political subdivision and my town's Chief of Police to be LE authorities in question, I'm not sure where the uncertainty might be.
By Dean's statement "There is no formal or explicit
qualification procedure in NH prior to the issuance of a NH license." I'm lead to wonder if she implies that in a Shall-Issue state like NH, that we are not, as such, qualified to be issued a CCW permit, but are simply not disqualified so as to not receive a CCW permit.
Any other interpretations I'm missing?
What do you think would happen if a common citizen went up to a police officer who was on duty and OCing in the mall and made a scene that they were illegally carrying the firearm the the premises based on the Mall's policy and did they think they were above the law?
