Odd carry case
Police chief in NH denies man a carry permit, given his frequent encounters with the law. But a judge says yes. At least, that’s what the headline says. In reality, the chief dropped the ball in his denial. Seems pretty open and shut, if he was convicted of a crime making him a prohibited person, then it’s lawful to deny him a permit. However, the article mentions his extensive criminal history but I see no convictions. Odd.
April 11th, 2012 at 10:06 am
Ferrara has been charged and convicted of numerous crimes in the past eight years, Streeter said.
The list, included in court documents, describes arrests for drug possession, simple assault, driving while intoxicated and driving with a suspended license, Streeter said.
But Streeter said that since Ferrara hasn’t been convicted of a felony, he was granted a permit.
New Hampshire should include “being a public nuisance” in its exceptions for a permit. Sounds to me like this guy is what you want a gun for.
April 11th, 2012 at 10:54 am
I know that on the Ohio CHP Application Form, you have to answer if you ever have been Charged with a “Crime of Violence.”
April 11th, 2012 at 11:48 am
I’m 100% fine with him carrying, as well as countless of non-violent felons.
Are they the best people on Earth? Nope. Do they deserve their rights as much as I do? Yep!
Remember the 1st Amendment protects the Klansman talking about how much he hates the blacks, not Me talking about how much I like ducklings!
April 11th, 2012 at 12:38 pm
I agree with Weer’d Beard – if he is not safe to have a gun, he should be locked up. If you cannot trust him with a gun, you cannot trust him with a car, a steak knife, a chainsaw, or even his own two hands.
April 11th, 2012 at 2:11 pm
@Weer’d Beard
+1
April 11th, 2012 at 3:27 pm
This case isn’t about guns, it’s about due process. The police ‘forgot’ to show up for a court date, so they lost. If the situation had been reversed, and a person forgets to show up for court on a traffic citation or criminal case, they have to answer for that.
If the police chief felt that the man’s arrest record was so important as to require his rights to be curtailed, he should have thought it important enough to send someone to the hearing.