Silverstein v. Town of Alexandria

Summary

The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Cary Silverstein’s application for a concealed-weapons license by the Town of Alexandria. The court held that the district court properly upheld the denial based on lack of suitability and that the incomplete appellate record supported assuming the trial court’s findings were supported by the evidence. The court declined to reach separate issues concerning the licensing delay and residency evidence.

Holdings

1. An appeal under RSA 159:6-c is limited to whether the petitioner is entitled to a concealed-weapons license; alleged violations of the licensing provisions by the licensing authority must be pursued through the separate statutory appeal avenue to superior court.
2. The district court must hear evidence and independently determine whether the petitioner is entitled to a license; on further appeal, an inadequate record requires the Supreme Court to presume that the evidence supports the district court's findings and to review only for errors of law.
3. Although the licensing authority bears the ultimate burden of proving that a license denial was justified at the district court hearing, the applicant bears the initial burden of establishing suitability before the licensing authority. Considering the applicant's failure to provide requested information does not impermissibly shift the ultimate burden of proof.
4. The Supreme Court found no error of law in the district court's decision upholding the license denial because the incomplete record contained evidence of a significant and unexplained arrest history and the applicant's failure to provide requested information.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Silverstein could challenge the chief's nearly ten-month delay in acting on his application in an appeal under RSA 159:6-c.
2. Whether the district court improperly considered evidence concerning Silverstein's residency and other after-acquired evidence when reviewing the license denial.
3. Whether the district court improperly shifted the ultimate burden of proof from the licensing authority to Silverstein.
4. Whether the incomplete appellate record required affirmance of the district court's decision upholding the license denial.

Disposition

affirmed