In a 2013 lawsuit brought by ANJRPC and its Executive Director Scott Bach, the New Hampshire Supreme Court today unanimously invalidated an administrative regulation preventing non-residents from qualifying for a New Hampshire carry license unless they have a carry permit from their home state. The regulation unfairly discriminated against residents of states like New Jersey, which make it difficult or impossible to obtain a home state permit.
In its unanimous decision, the court opined,
"By requiring nonresidents to submit proof of their resident state licenses,the administrative rules effectively import into New Hampshire lawrequirements different from those set forth in RSA 159:6- namely, thoserequirements that residents of other states must satisfy in order to obtain aconcealed-carry license in their home states."
"It is indeed ironic that on the same day the New Jersey legislature is holding hearings to restrict right to carry as much as possible, our neighbors up north have recognized more rights for New Jerseyans than their own state recognizes at home," said ANJRPC Executive Director Scott Bach, who is lead plaintiff in the case.
"ANJRPC remains unwavering in its commitment to fully restore right to carry in the Garden State," said ANJRPC President Kathy Chatterton, "but we will also protect New Jerseyans' Second Amendment rights in other states when feasible, and that is exactly what we have done here. "
Today's decision reopens the door to obtaining New Hampshire non-resident carry licenses for all New Jerseyans and residents of other states that make it difficult or impossible for their residents to obtain home state carry permits.
The appeal in this case was handled by attorney Daniel Schmutter (click here to listen to oral argument). The case was originally brought by attorney Evan Nappen. Funding assistance was provided by the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund.
Please watch for a subsequent alert addressing the specifics of how to properly apply for a New Hampshire non-resident carry license in light of today's decision. For additional background on this case, see our original alert from 2013.