Scott L. Bach & a. v. New Hampshire Department of Safety, 169 N.H. 87

Scott L. Bach (New Jersey resident) previously held a New Hampshire nonresident concealed‑carry license; he did not renew after it expired in 2013.
In July 2013, New Hampshire Department of Safety adopted administrative rules requiring nonresident applicants for concealed‑carry licenses to provide proof of a “resident state license.”
The rules also require standard applicant information and permit the Department to run background checks to assess "suitability" under RSA 159:6.
Petitioners (Bach and ANJRPC) sued for declaratory relief, arguing the rules are invalid because RSA 159:6 does not require nonresidents to produce resident‑state permits; they also raised constitutional claims.
Superior Court granted summary judgment for the Department; petitioners appealed. The Supreme Court reviewed de novo and addressed the statutory (ultra vires) claim first.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Saf‑C rules requiring nonresidents to produce a resident‑state license exceed agency authority / are ultra vires (i.e., modify RSA 159:6)	Rules import other states’ requirements (e.g., NJ "justifiable need") and thus add to/alter RSA 159:6’s two statutory criteria (proper purpose; suitability)	Rules are consistent with RSA 159:6 because they address information gaps about nonresidents’ suitability and ensure ongoing eligibility	Held ultra vires: rules impermissibly add requirements by effectively incorporating other states’ standards and therefore are invalid
Whether the ultra vires claim was preserved for appeal	Petitioners argued in trial court that the rules "add to, detract from, or modify" RSA 159:6 and that RSA 159:6 contains no resident‑license prerequisite	Department contended petitioners did not preserve an "ultra vires" argument because they didn’t use the label in the petition	Preserved: court found petitioners sufficiently alerted trial court to the legal basis, so appellate review was appropriate
Equal protection challenge to the rules	Petitioners argued the rules unfairly discriminate against nonresidents and residents of states with stricter or prohibitory licensing regimes	Department argued equal protection claim fails under state and federal standards	Not reached: Court resolved case on statutory (ultra vires) grounds and did not address equal protection

Garand v. Town of Exeter, 159 N.H. 136 (discusses the two determinations under RSA 159:6: proper purpose and suitability)
Appeal of Mays, 161 N.H. 470 (administrative rules may not add to, detract from, or modify statute they implement)
Formula Dev. Corp. v. Town of Chester, 156 N.H. 177 (administrative rules that conflict with statute are ultra vires)
Bleiler v. Chief, Dover Police Dep’t, 155 N.H. 693 (statutory scheme requires permits to carry loaded, concealed weapons under RSA 159 series)
Silverstein v. Town of Alexandria, 150 N.H. 679 (applicant bears burden to demonstrate initial suitability under RSA 159:6)