YOUR COMMENTS

Adam,

I agree with you, with one caveat. There's nothing in the article that leads to the conclusion they "accidentally" violated the law.
- Mike, Kittery, ME

Wow. A lot of people can't read to understand that Mr. Nappen was stopping the police from illegally using a federal background check system to perform unwarranted searches on people who had been cleared of any wrongdoing. Chris L, you're almost right. They'd really realize they weren't above the law if the FBI opened and investigation and fined them the $10,000 for every improper use they find evidence of. Instead they get scolded and told to behave just like I would if I accidentally violated a federal firearms law multiple times over the course of years, right?
- Adam, Columbia, SC

Jill from Concord asks,

"Why would they be on a fishing expedition? That makes no sense, i'm sure law officers have better things to do."

Oh Jill...poor naive trusting Jill. Why does any petty official abuse their authority? Because they can. Because they're human. As the article makes clear, they WERE doing it, and it is illegal, i.e. the police have comitted a crime.
- Mike, Kittery, ME

This is quite amusing. Do you or do you not have a right to being secure from unreasonable searches and seizures? When police acuse you of something, then change their minds, you should get your property back. They have absolutely no right to keep your property and then set unlawful requirements to return it to it's rightful owner. If police searched your house after dropping charges on you, it's an unlawful search. The same thing goes for fishing for the possibility that your gun was or wasn't used in a crime. Either we have civil rights, or we don't. Stop whining, the owner of the firearm wasn't a criminal THE CHARGES WERE DROPPED!
- Jeremy, Concord

Sam-bedford, Jim-epping...and everyone else that doesn't know how to read; Where does it say anything about these being potentially stolen guns? A NICS check is on the individual, not the weapon. A NICS check is already neccessary to be able to purchase a firearm so what the article is stating is that the police can not sieze legally owned weapons for potential "gun crimes" and not return them until or unless someone is found guiilty until the conduct a NICS background check illegally on what that persons record is from the time they purchased the weapon until the time whatever their situation is that occured. At least read the article carefully before you start insulting people.
- Evan, Manchester

OK while alotof you make valid points I do believe we are getting askew of the true debate here.. this really has nothing to do with felons getting guns back.. it is to do with law abiding citizens being forced to relinquish there firearms and then wait ridiculous amounts of time to get them back after doing nothing wrong... I am highly agreeable to the right to bear arms! Yet I am also for not letting a felon have a gun.. so where does that leave me? well stuck in the middle really... when the police run your criminal record it comes up with everything anyways wether you use NCIC OR NICS... THE BIG ISSUE HERE IS THE PROPER USE OF THE PROPER SYSTEM. as far as you pple who are touting the "stolen gun " issue.. if a firearm were properly registered and then reported stolen it automatically goes into the local, state , and federal databases... completely different from NICS. any way yopu look at it.. if you are a felon .. you will not get your gun back.. if the gun is stolen you won't get it back.. this really all bois down to one thing.. use of the proper system for the proper check by the proper people...
it is more beaurecratic then anything else ... and to those who say all felons should not lose their guns... don't you think you should have used the common sense to not commit that felony... if you want to benefit from the laws meant to protect us.. then damn it.. you should obey them as well... don't be such a hypocrite!
- Jason, Littleton

We have to wonder if some of these police departments were / are trying to attempt a backdoor gun registration scheme. I bet we’ll find out in the future if they have been doing the same scheme with those who have been issued concealed carry permits. NH state law forbids law enforcement and the state government from firearms registration.


http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/lsr_search/lsrresults.asp

Also watch out – there will be an attack on our 2A rights via an open carry ban. If the Left gets this passed, next will be a watering down of our concealed carry permits.
Now for those of you who are against open carry, let me remind you that concealed carry is not a right it’s a “privilege” essentially determined by your police chief (some who don’t particularly care for our Second Amendment rights), open carry is a right.


2010-H-2196-R Prohibiting the open carrying of a firearm in a public building.
Sponsors: (Prime) Delmar D Burridge
- Mac Wade, Newmarket

While I agree that a violent offender or someone who has misused a firearm should not be able to possess a gun, I find it troubling and unconstitutional that all felons lose their 2nd amendment rights. Felonies are serious crimes, but commiting one should be dealth with using common sense. There are many felons who have turned their lives around and conversely there are many violent people who have only been found guilty of misdemeanors.
- Jay, Concord

I love NH. The one thing I don't understand is under what premiss does the State deny the non-resident carry except for having a concealed carry from the home state. I thought that NH is a open carry. So why deny concealed carry if allowed to open carry?
Coming from NYC , we can't get a carry permit not even for outside the city. I blame NYC for that .We can carry to go hunting . So why penalize us who are not restricted persons .
- momo001, Queens/NY

The biggest question I haven't heard asked (I haven't read all the comments, yet): have these LE checks found any guns that were used in crime, or stolen? In other words, have there been any positive results from this use of the NICS? If not, then why keep doing it?
- Mac, Rawlins, WY

Jill--take a deep breath and a step back and try to look at this objectively. This system, NICS, was not created to be used to run background checks on innocent people. In the USA we have the presumption of innocence, no? This illegal circumvention of the regulations regarding usage of NICS by the law enforcement community was a breach of not just the laws, but of privacy. Let's replace the word 'gun' with 'wallet'. If your wallet was stolen, do you think that its right for a background check to be run on you before your wallet is returned to you? And if you try and argue that, in this instance, a wallet and a gun are two different things, then you have just lost the debate.
- JB, NB, NH

"I hope the state is willing to accept responsibility should they return a gun to a felon that does something with it".

@Jim Wilson, Manchester

Sir, it is illegal for a convicted felon to be in possession in the first place! - that's both state and federal law.

If the person is being charged by the police with a felony offense, the police aren't going to return the firearm to them.

I hope you're willing to research the actual law before making ignorant statements that promotes disinformation and unnecessary fearmongering.
- Mac Wade, Newmarket

standing up for the rights of the people? He found a loop hole for a check on a computer. What rights is he standing up for? Give me a break. It's not like he's protecting me. He's actually hurting me by keeping law enforcement from checking on bad guys.
- Jill, Concord

Jill from Concord,

How is the attorney hurting your rights? He is standing up for the rights of the people. Get your facts straight.
- Phil Hubbard, Northfield, NH

Police like to "check" anyone they have come in contact with. That's why they ask for things like birth dates when they get your address even if you are just a witness. It helps to narrow down any responses when they run you through the system.

NICS is probably faster and easier than NCIC (National Criminal Information Center). That system has more than just people with a gun impediment. This would be the appropriate system to be used by authorities.
- Ken S, Merrimack NH USA

Will the feds prosecute the NH police and courts for violating the law? Don't hold your breath.
- Paul, Rindge

Other attorneys have known about this for years, we just don't want bad people with bad guns. This now hurts all of us NH citizens.
- Edward, Concord

Why would they be on a fishing expedition? That makes no sense, i'm sure law officers have better things to do. This is about good people vs bad people. A bad persons gun was checked, and city boy attorney from NJ wants to hurt our NH rights and "safest state to live in" Nappen should go home and leave nh alone.
- Jill, Concord

A lot of you folks are not reading the article thoroughly. The complaint was that after it was determined that there was no cause for confiscating the gun, in other words, the owner had done nothing wrong, the gun was being held longer and a NICS performed. In other words, officials were doing a fishing expedition. The NICS was being used when there was no reason or justification for it.
- Charles Miller, Columbia, South Carolina

C. Mac, Unfortunately you are the one that is not comprehending what you read. The Police Departments and the courts were not running checks on the weapons, they were running background checks on the OWNER OF RECORD, the person, in most cased the victim, before returning them their property. The instant background check system is for FFL dealter and therefore not to be used by law enforcement and NCIC check for criminal history is not permitted to be used for this purpose.
- Mark, Scottsdale, AZ

I can not believe how many people commenting on this article haven't the abiltyb to comprend what there reading.
I believe this is a huge mistake, there are people out there who have purchased a used gun from a friend or thru a friend. Through a private sale, no record of file, no checks done. This is taking away a chance to find guns that were stolen and possibly used in a crime then sold to honest people. The new New Hampshire way, let keep protecting the criminals and not the victims.
- C Mac, Allenstown

Thank you Evan for your continued work to uphold the law and for supporting the 2nd amendment. I for one am glad you are here in NH.
- Billy C., Andover, NH

@Jim, Epping and @Sam C., Bedford:

As a woman I can't stand a man who whines about firearms. It's very unmanly. Especially here in NH, God's Country.
- Sue, Manchester

Sally, citing the Constitution and state law is "redneck responses"?
NH is turning more like MA. but not because of us guntoting, Constitution citing rednecks.
- Michael, Manchester

First, I am pro-second amendment and Pro-gun. BUT, after considering that there is a reason that law enforcement has your weapon, and to protect and serve the people, I believe they should do a check on the weapon and owner before releasing it back into the public. This loop-hole is not to protect law abiding citizens. I'm sure 'THE CRIMINALS OF YOUR STATE, THANK YOU'.
- antony b., corydon, in.

I wonder how they were able to use the service? When I opened an account with the state for NCIS I had to provide my Federal Firearms License (FFL). As far as I know you can't get an account without having an FFL.
- Bill, Deerfield

Mike R from Bedford has it right. Thanks God there are still a few people in this state that know how to read and protect the Bill of Rights!
- Alex J, Freedom, NH

“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."

This is it...plain english from our Framers of the Constitution. You can not argue with this. Look at the key words in it. I also own guns for defense. No one will ever tell me that I cannot save my family from harms way. In light of the chaos that has embraced us recently. This is good thing that has happened for us gun rights people and rest assured that the process for returning firearms is safe. If you do something stupid...they take them away. If that thing was stupid enough to take your gun rights away...you will not get them back. Felonies and any Domestic Violence cases especially. It is not too bad for gun control people as compared to the actual qoute above which clearly states that NO ONE CAN LEGALLY TAKE YOUR GUN RIGHTS AWAY.
- Nick, Hooksett

Thank you Nappen, there is nothing good about law enforcement violating the law.
- Jeff, Manchester

RDJ in Epping, NJ...yes, you really ought to trust that the government bureaucracy will be accurate and kind and caring, right?

That's how it always works in New Jersey, right?

Funny how your sort is always using the horrible gateway-to-tyranny line of "If you don't have anything to hide, why not?" until a clerical error happens to YOU. Then it's too late.
- Dave Sims, Derry

Mike from Bedford is correct. Article 2-a of New Hampshire's Constitution protects the right to bear arms for four reasons, not one of them mentions hunting.

"All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state." -- Article 2-a, New Hampshire Constitution

The "I'm a hunter" statement is irrelevant. The Constitution protects the right to own and carry guns in order for people to protect themselves from criminals and tyrannical governments.
- CDR, Lebanon

The checks can be done through the NCIC databases. All Nappen did was point out a technicality.

I would suspect that is a firearm was taken, it would be done for a reason and the person's history would be checked through the proper channels.

By the way, Nappen came up from NJ and started a good deal of turmoil in NH gun rights groups. He's not the angel everyone seems to make him out to be.
- RDS, Epping,NJ

I know this is on a tangent but Sally from Bedford does have a valid concern about NH becoming another Mass. Look who you folks put in place of Sunnunu. Shaheen has voted anti gun in every vote in Washington. Plus NH has voted for the anti gun president the last two elections. You reap what you sew. You folks need to change this.
- Jeff, Warwick, RI

This isn't the only effort Evan Nappen has made to protect the rights of law-abiding gunowners in New Hampshire. He's a director of Pro-Gun New Hampshire, Inc.; go to www.PGNH.org to read about some of his other accomplishments.
- Sam Cohen, Bennington, NH

I hope the state is willing to accept responsibility should they return a gun to a felon that does something with it.
- Jim Wilson, Manchester

DCF makes a good point. I however don't care if I get an extra background check out of a situation that led to my gun being in police hands. I don't want the police hampered in any investigations and the only people with bad backgrounds would be criminals anyway.
- J Paige, Manchester

Typical redneck responses! As a caring parent, anything that prevents police from doing everything they can before returning a deadly weapon to someone who is "suspicious" does not make sense. Why don't they give law enforcement rights to it? Just another step in making NH become Mass. and making gun ownership harder. My family hunts, and they would not care if someone checked their backgrounds. Why? Because they are not law breaking jerks.
- Sally, Bedford

Thank you Attorney Nappen! There are many in NH who truly appreciate your efforts in protecting the rights of ordinary citizens. Not everyone on this forum is a freedom hating fear monger.

Brian
- Brian, Exeter

Great job, Mr. Nappen!! Letting people get their property returned without being treated like a criminal is a good thing.

Btw, for all you people squealing "Eeek! It's a gun!" - get over it or move to a state where they have lots of regulations for people to own a gun (you can usually tell the high gun control states by the fact that they have high crime rates).
- CDR, Lebanon

Kevin from Lancaster is right, the proper tool for Law Enforcement is NCIC, not NICS. I am a gun owner and supporter of 2nd amendment rights, but as a 20 year veteran of Law Enforcement I can say that PROPER checks of people before returning seized guns has at least twice in my career prevented the return of guns to people who had become ineligible after the gun was seized. One received a felony conviction, one was subject of a restraining order. Had no check been done the Department would have been liable for putting those guns on the streets in the hands of people that shouldn't have had them. Don't get me wrong, I support every LAW ABIDING citizens right to firearms ownership - and in fact think more citizens should exercise that right. Gun laws only affect the law abiding, criminals ignore the law by definition. Routine checks ensure that law abiding citizens get their guns back, and criminals do not, but I agree that the proper tool needs to be used, and that tool is not NICS, it is NCIC.
- David, Derry, NH

Good job, Mr Nappen. We need more lawyers on our side keeping the bureaucrats from abusing their power.
- Cathleen, Center Barnstead

The misuse of the NICS database is a violation of federal law, and violation could result in a $10,000 fine and cost NH the loss of access to the database. Fortunately, the Dept of Public Safety recognized that they are not above the law. Thanks to Evan Nappen for pointing this out.
- Chris L, Manchester

One would hope that the Union Leader will soon be offering online reading comprehension courses for its readers.

A Thank You to the people who have correctly interpreted this article for those with said impairment.
- Mr Gordon, Port City on Sub-Tropical Island

I see a lot of folks actually believe the garbage that the NYT, Brady Bunch & Mayor Bloomburg routinely shovel to the public and the masses. The Instant check is on people who are buying a firearm from a dealer, and using it for any other purpose is against the law. ( and it is also required to be used by dealers at gun shows, despite what the above routinely state) If you want the law changed, write your congressman. I am sure Shea-Pelosi, being the good party before her state democrat who assumes if you own a firearm you must be a criminal will gladly introduce this type of legislation. I have no problem with keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, but I have read enough to know that there are a lot of people who will use any excuse to keep firearms from people who should have thier firearms returned. For example, your firearm is stolen, but the prep is caught. After the gun has been used as evidence it should be return to its rightful owner, however a lot politicians try very hard to keep you from getting it back.
- jeff, Goffstown

You people crack me up. NICS does background checks on people not weapons.
- John, Titusville Fl.

I'm a little confused that anyone would be upset about this. Police and courts don't have the right to go on fishing expeditions against people who they aren't pressing charges against. What was going on was illegal, and it sounds like it's being corrected.

For what it's worth, I appreciate Mr. Nappen's efforts. Just because we have "nothing to hide" doesn't mean we shouldn't be vigilant about our rights.
- JD, Manchester

Oh. My. Lord.

Did the previous commenters actually read and *comprehend* the article?

Police are still free to use NCIC (National Crime Information Center) to see if someone is a felon or "prohibited person" before returning seized firearms.

What they're not free to do, is continue ILLEGALLY using NICS (National Instant Check System) before returnign fireams.

Got that? Using NICS was an ILLEGAL action by police. Use of NICS except by licensed dealers is a CRIME, even when done by police departments.

Mr. Sweeney made the right call. He saved NH taxpayers a lot of money, whether by civil suits, or administrative fines.
- Kevin, Lancaster

You are misreading the article. Stolen firearms are listed in NCIC which is seperate from NICS. This isn't preventing law enforcement from checking to see if a gun is stolen. It is preventing law enforcement from running background checks on the owners of the guns before the gun is returned to the rightful owner, most likely after a case has been adjudicated in the courts. In order to purchase a firearm, a criminal background check is completed through the NICS and is done by dealers. I think the article is poorly written and doesn't spell it out clearly.
- DCF, Laconia

Try reading a little slower. It is not about allowing those who stole weapons to keep them. They will be charged, prosecuted and sentenced to prison.
It is about said weapons being returned to the owner who already went through a background check.
A weapon is not needed to end a domestic fight. Go in any tool box or kitchen drawer. I'm sure you will find something that will suffice.
- Michael, Manchester

Mr. Nappen is correct, the NICS system is to be used only by gun dealers. But up until recently States like NH actually could not do proper background checks on people. Recently NH and some other New England states have joined the 21st Century and can now get info on people when necessary. Look, Jim, Sam & Fredie, the law is the law, NICS was developed for a reason and that reason was not for Law enforcement to do background checks on potential criminals. There is a different method for that. I could go into all the details but it would really take to long. So, don't balme Mr Nappen, he represented his client properly, if you want to blame someone or something blame the people who made the rules that prevented real national background checks from being done (Law Enforcemtn and Legislature). But it is a mute point, NH now can particiapte in sharing info with the rest of the world.
- Michael King, Epping

Take a chill pill folks. The NICS system does not track stolen guns. It is a background check on the person buying the gun and is done at the time of sale. (yes even at gun shows) If a gun is stolen and the owner has reported it along with the serial number, the police will have the record.

If a gun owner is convicted of a felony, any felony, the state will take the guns.
- glockchem, Winchester

So this lawyer doesn't want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Ooooookay.....
- Jean, Manchester

The next domestic fight that leads to a killing, i'm sure will have a lawsuit with Nappens name all over it. He should be sued for allowing firearms to get in the hands of criminals.
- Fredie, Exeter

Ohh, my god. You have to be kidding me. I can't believe Nappen actually thinks this is a good thing. He is causing gun criminals to get possible stolen or illegal firearms back? What happened to our country? The right to bear illegal arms? Why are we not allowing our own police agencies to check if a firearm is stolen? What harm does that do to anybody but a liar and a thief?
- Sam C., Bedford

Good move Nappen! Let idiots keep stolen guns. Put my family at risk. You should sleep well at night. I can't stand people like Nappen.
- Jim, Epping