The state Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the police were justified in revoking the concealed gun license of a Dover man, punished for using his loaded pistol as a story prop in front of a city employee.

Edward Bleiler, a 71-year-old retired bulldozer salesman, had argued that the state statute allowing the police to take away his license infringed upon his constitutional right to bear arms. His lawyers had argued that the statute, which allows a license revocation or suspension for "just cause," was too vague. The license had allowed him to carry an unconcealed, loaded gun in public.

The state's high court rejected Bleiler's arguments, ruling that the right to bear arms can be restricted and regulated.

"RSA 159:6-b does not prohibit carrying weapons; it merely regulates the manner of carrying them," wrote Senior Associate Justice Linda Dalianis in her opinion.

"Moreover, 'the statute has a reasonable purpose - it protects the public by preventing an individual from having on hand a (loaded) deadly weapon of which the public is unaware,' " Dalianis wrote, drawing from a ruling in an Arizona court. Associate Justices James Duggan, Richard Galway and Gary Hicks concurred with the decision.

"The reality is that his right to bear arms was not infringed upon," Simons said. Though Bleiler lost his license, he may carry a visible gun in public and keep a gun at his home.

The dispute over Bleiler's gun began March 16, 2006, when he went to the city attorney's office to talk about the contracts of city employees. To illustrate a story about past run-ins with the mafia, Bleiler pulled his .38 caliber revolver from his pocket and put it on a desk in the office. The city attorney reported the incident to the police, and, two weeks later, then-Police Chief William Fenniman revoked Bleiler's license.

Bleiler, who did not return phone calls yesterday, called Fenniman's act unconstitutional. The Dover District Court in April 2006 struck down Bleiler's appeal, prompting him to appeal to the state Supreme Court.

Bleiler's lawyer, Richard Lehmann, said he is considering taking the case to a federal court. Lehmann said he was confused as to why the justices chose not to apply strict scrutiny, a standard that presumes a law to be unconstitutional, to evaluate the statute. That standard is normally applied to evaluate a restriction on a fundamental right, Lehmann said.

"I'm curious as to how in the future a citizen who reads the constitution is going to know whether the rights explained . . . are going to be subject to the highest level of scrutiny, or whether the court is just going to defer to the Legislature on a lesser standard," Lehmann said.

Only one standard of scrutiny is more exacting that strict scrutiny: super-strict scrutiny, used in free speech cases to evaluate prior restraints, which are government restrictions on the distribution of materials.

Lehmann added that because of the court's refusal to use strict scrutiny, courts may be able to apply less stringent standards - reasonableness or rationality - to evaluate claims of violations of other fundamental rights, such as the right of people to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure and the right to free speech.

In their opinion, the justices used a standard of reasonableness, which courts have traditionally used to evaluate other gun control laws, Dalianis wrote. Courts have tended to apply strict scrutiny when courts have deemed legislation "immediately suspect," she wrote. "Gun control legislation, by contrast, 'with its legislative motivation of public safety . . . is not inherently suspicious,' " Dalianis wrote, citing a University of California-Los Angeles study on strict scrutiny cases.

The attorney who represented Fenniman, Christopher Boldt, said that the court struck the right balance.

"You have not only the rights of the gun owner, but you have the rights of the public at large," he said.

Fenniman did not return a call left at his office yesterday.

Police chiefs around the state had been following the case to see if the court would clarify when they could take away or deny a gun license. In her opinion, Dalianis turned to existing statutes to decide whether the police had "just cause" to take away Bleiler's license.

She noted that the statutes allow concealed weapon licenses for specific "proper purposes": hunting, target shooting and self-defense.

"The phrase 'just cause' adequately warns licensees that their licenses may be revoked if they use their weapons for improper purposes or are unsuitable to have such licenses," Dalianis wrote.

Lebanon Police Chief Jim Alexander said he agreed with the decision but had hoped the court did more to clarify the statutes. Alexander said he denied a license last year to a man who was a member of a criminal gang, only to see the man, who had never been convicted on a felony, win the license in a court appeal.

"Right now, what the chiefs are accused of is that we're just being really subjective in how we're denying them," Alexander said.

------ End of article

By WALTER ALARKON

Monitor staff