Zim's hearing of 15 June 2009 for the return of his pistol

In May of 2008, my friend "Zim", who had not lived in NH for very long at that time, was pulled over in Raymond, NH. Someone had told him that you can openly carry a loaded handgun in NH without a license, which is true, but nobody had told him that RSA 159:4 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/RSA/html/XII/159/159-4.htm prohibited carrying a loaded handgun in a vehicle without a license. When he was pulled over, the police seized his Glock. He was later convicted of a Class A Misdemeanor at trial (punishable by up to 1 year incarceration). RSA 595-A:6 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LIX/595-A/595-A-6.htm required the police to return his property, but they refused. After requesting the return of his property, he was told that he would have to fill out a form and submit to a background check, even though there appears to be no law that requires him to do so. His statement is here: http://vampirezim.com/courtstatement.html
The prosecutor and the judge suggest that Federal law may prohibit him from owning a firearm, but they obviously were not very familiar with the applicable law as they could not cite it or say what law they were referring to. The code that prohibits certain people from possessing firearms is 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). http://trac.syr.edu/laws/18/18USC00922.html
The prosecutor suggested that his conviction may prohibit him from owning a firearm. I contend that the conviction in no way prohibits him from owning a firearm because the maximum penalty for a misdemeanor in NH is 1 year in prison, and 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) states that "It shall be unlawful for any person - (1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; (2) who is a fugitive from justice; (3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution; (5) who, being an alien - (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26))); (6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) who is subject to a court order that - (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate; (B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and (C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce."

Since his conviction, which was a non-violent misdemeanor that does not fall under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), it does not prohibit him from possessing a firearm.

The judge and prosecutor obviously were less familiar with firearms laws than I am, and the judge was obviously giving "Zim" a hard time, trying to get him to cite the laws that allow him to own a firearm. Notice that neither the judge nor the prosecutor cited any laws. The prosecutor said that he didn't think they had the authority to return the pistol until he obeyed their demands. On the contrary, the police had no authority to not return the pistol to its rightful owner, and their demands appear to also be in violation of RSA 159:26 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XII/159/159-26.htm

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• Zim's hearing 20090615
• police
• Judge
• David G. LeFrancois

[Grunt922]

@elmajiko420 rights are given to you at birth and cant be taken away. if i was convicted of a felony, id still own a gun because its my birth right and my constitutional right.

[supermasterchief117]

is there one for something related to not your fault of losing control of your vehicle? or something like that.

[elmajiko420]

great job in knowing the laws that give you your rights! i love this

[vampzim]

@babyface10725 He denied it. I took it to supreme court and won. Just went back to the district court yesterday and was granted, but wont be able to pick up the gun until tomorrow. I have a court order, so I expect no issues picking it up.

[babyface10725]

So Uh? Did You Get Your Firearm Back? If i was to bet i would say No! but whats the verdict.? The Judge took the moition under advisement, But he didnt rule on the motion.

[nick10463]

Very good job.

[NoSpinIsraeli]

Nice statement. Damn commies trying to force their tyranny on you. Don't let them get away with it!

[vampzim]

Very well done on the captions.