Thursday, October 21, 2010

New Hampshire Gun Story

No evidence why he shouldn't get the gun back? How about the title of this post as a good reason.

The New Hampshire Supreme Court says the state has the burden of showing why a seized firearm should not be returned to its owner.

A district court judge refused to return a Glock handgun to Richard Pessetto of Grafton. Pessetto was given a suspended sentence for having a loaded firearm in his vehicle without a license. Raymond police seized the gun during a motor vehicle stop in May 2008.

The judge ordered Pessetto to file a form used when a person tries to get back weapons after a domestic violence or stalking protective order expires. Pessetto said he's never been the subject of such an order.

Prosecutors offered no evidence why he shouldn't get the gun back.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comemnt.


  1. I see no evidence why he shouldn't get his gun back. Just a some nonsense malum prohibitum.

  2. That's a tough one. On the one hand, it's seized property, on the other hand, it was a gun involved in a crime. I'd have to defer to the local laws on this one, but it sounds like there's no prohibition of its return in this situation, so anything other than doing so is simply enforcement of personal opinions rather than adherence to law.

  3. There oughtta be a law. How about the "one strike you're out" law. Any gun infraction, big or small, you forfeit your gun rights.

    Think about it. Wouldn't that clean up a lot of the trouble?

  4. How about we apply "one strike" to actual criminals? That would clean up even more trouble.

    You rob a liquor store? Life in prison. Drive by? Life. Break into a house? Life. Seems to make more sense than putting them back on the streets only to commit more crimes.