Plaintiff Garand was denied a license to carry a concealed weapon under RSA 159:6 by the Exeter Police Chief. In the letter of denial, the Chief cited a seven-year history of arrests, violent behavior (including threatening to kill an officer) and drug use. Instead of filing an appeal with the District Court as specified in RSA 159:6-c, the plaintiff filed a petition with the Superior Court citing a different section of the statute. After the Superior Court dismissed the petition, the plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.
RSA 159:6-c provides that “[a]ny person whose application for a license to carry a concealed pistol or revolver has been denied pursuant to RSA 159:6 or whose license … has been suspended or revoked pursuant to RSA 159:6-b may within 30 days thereafter, petition the district or municipal court in the jurisdiction in which such person resides to determine whether the petitioner is entitled to a license.” However, the plaintiff filed his petition under a different section, RSA 159:6-e, which states that “[a]ny person aggrieved by a violation of the licensing sections of this statute may petition the superior court of the county in which the alleged violation occurred for injunctive relief.”
The Supreme Court held that petitions to the Superior Court under RSA 159:6-e are only available for alleged violations of the “ministerial” procedural requirements of the licensing provisions, such as the time frame within which a licensing decision must be made and the form of a notification of denial. If the Superior Court found that any of those provisions had been violated, it could issue an injunction requiring the police chief to follow proper procedure. This is an example of the Superior Court’s “original” jurisdiction. However, the Court found that the statute does not grant the Superior Court any direct “appellate” jurisdiction in this situation to pass judgment on the police chief’s decision to grant or deny a license. The only way to appeal a license denial is through an appeal to the District Court.
Furthermore, even if the Chief had violated procedural requirements of the licensing provisions, the Superior Court could not have ordered the license to be issued. The most the Superior Court could have done was to issue an injunction to require the Chief to follow the procedural requirements. The plaintiff would have had to file separately in District Court to appeal the merits of the decision.