Sight in Your Slug Gun Without Breaking the Bank

By Richard Becraft

New shotgun, new barrel, it doesn’t matter what the reason. Sooner or later every hunter needs to do it. Sight in that deer gun. If everyone had a magazine backing them with an expense account and plenty of time wouldn’t we all be lucky! Just stop by the grocery. Pick up a magazine, ransom rest, a box of every kind of shells made and then on out to our dream range.

Well until that happens, let me see what I can do to take some of the sting out of our end of that expensive ammunition. Let’s start by getting it “on the paper”. We need a steady shooting platform and a steady, comfortable place for the shooter to sit while aiming. Read more

New Hampshire Supreme Court Upholds Weapons Permit Revocation

By Tom Remington

71-year old Edward Bleiler, a retire bulldozer salesman, had his concealed weapons permit taken away from him in March of 2006 for what was perceived at the time by then Dover police chief William Fenniman, as improper behavior.

Details are sketchy as to the exact circumstances surrounding the event that lead up to the revocation. The Concord Monitor tells of the event this way.

The dispute over Bleiler’s gun began March 16, 2006, when he went to the city attorney’s office to talk about the contracts of city employees. To illustrate a story about past run-ins with the mafia, Bleiler pulled his .38 caliber revolver from his pocket and put it on a desk in the office. The city attorney reported the incident to the police, and, two weeks later, then-Police Chief William Fenniman revoked Bleiler’s license.

Bleiler said the actions of the chief of police was unconstitutional and he filed a lawsuit. In April of 2006, Bleiler lost his lawsuit in a Dover District Court. He appealed that decision to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.

What I find confusing is exactly what Bleiler was doing in the Attorney General’s office. Reports say that in his actions to retell a story, he pulled his loaded revolver out of his pocket and placed it on a desk in the office. It didn’t say which desk and any descriptions of what manner it was placed are lacking. One report says:

Bleiler did not threaten anyone, and said he used the gun as a prop to tell a story

This leaves me with several unanswered questions. Is the attorney general’s office in a state building? Is it legal to carry a weapon, concealed or not into a state building? If not, how did he get in there with it? Is it against the law to reveal a concealed weapon in public? Is it illegal to carry a loaded concealed weapon even with a permit?

The report says he didn’t threaten anyone with the gun but that the attorney general reported the incident and within two weeks his permit was revoked by the police chief.

The basis of Bleiler’s appeal is that his constitutional rights were infringed upon because a statute in New Hampshire that provides for revocation is vague.

Seacoast Online reports that the Court ruled under the belief that in comparing New Hampshire’s gun laws to other states, the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment is not absolute.

“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 also explained its decision in regards to the New Hampshire statute concerning the revocation of weapons permits.

“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.

I find this statement to be extremely confusing and contradictory. If the statute has a reasonable purpose to prevent anyone from having a loaded weapon in public without the publics’ awareness, then why is there then a provision to administer a concealed weapons permit? Does New Hampshire legislate that anyone possessing a concealed weapons permit have to have their gun unloaded and/or carry a sign saying they have a weapon concealed and that it may or may not be loaded?

The court further declared this.

“(Bleiler), who knew the proper procedure for handling a loaded weapon and failed to follow it, had a reasonable opportunity to know that using a loaded weapon in a public place to tell a story about organized crime threats was not a proper purpose and could result in the revocation of his license to carry a concealed weapon,” the court said.

Immediately we must ask if when obtaining a concealed weapons permit, does requirements for getting a permit explain that the proper handling is to not take a loaded weapon out in public? I can only assume that I must be missing some very important information in this story. Unless guidelines for handling a gun states that you can’t take a gun out in front of the attorney general, I fail to see how his actions validated the revocation of his permit.

Bear in mind that I’m assuming here that Mr. Bleiler was within the law to bring his concealed weapon into the attorney general’s office.

The Court refers to RSA 159:6-b in their ruling concerning revocation. This is what the Revised Statute says.

159:6-b Suspension or Revocation of License. –
I. The issuing authority may order a license to carry a loaded pistol or revolver issued to any person pursuant to RSA 159:6 to be suspended or revoked for just cause, provided written notice of the suspension or revocation and the reason therefore is given to the licensee. A licensee whose license has been suspended or revoked shall be permitted a hearing on such suspension or revocation if a hearing is requested by the licensee to the issuing authority within 7 days of the suspension or revocation.
II. When the licensee hereunder ceases to be a resident of the community in which the license was issued he shall notify in writing the issuing authority at his new place of residence that he has a current license. Such license shall remain in effect until it expires pursuant to RSA 159:6.

Source. 1979, 355:2, eff. Aug. 22, 1979.

I would have to agree with Bleiler in saying the the laws governing revocation of permits are vague. If, assuming Bleiler was within the law, he can have his permit taken away for what he did, then theoretically anyone who pulls a weapon in any public place has to be deemed as having improperly handled a gun and therefore subject for revocation as well.

Unless someone can provide me with additional facts on the issue, I have to believe the court is wrong in their ruling. The public does not want loaded weapons in the hands of those who cannot prove they are lawful and responsible but I fail to see how Bleiler fits that description.

Bleiler’s lawyers are considering an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Tom Remington

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!

« Previous Page