Cited by

R., Pub 302.02; see also Garand v. Town of Exeter, 159 N.H. 136, 141 (2009) (“The legislature is not presumed to waste words or enact redundant provisions and whenever possible, every word of a statute should be given effect.” (quotation omitted)).

The Hearing Officer and CLF mistakenly treat the terms “capacity need” and “shortfall” as synonymous, contrary to our principles of statutory construction and the plain meaning of the statute.4 See State v. Bakunczyk, 164 N.H. 77, 79 (2012) (“[W]hen the legislature uses two different words, it generally means two different things.”); Garand v. Town of Exeter, 159 N.H. 136, 141 (2009) (“[W]henever possible, every word of a statute should be given effect.” (quotation omitted)).

“While the title of a statute is not conclusive of its interpretation, it provides significant indication of the legislature’s intent in enacting the statute.” Garand v. Town of Exeter, 159 N.H. 136, 142 (2009) (quotation omitted).

RSA 641:6 (2016); see Garand v. Town of Exeter, 159 N.H. 136, 142 (2009) (“While the title of a statute is not conclusive of its interpretation, it provides significant indication of the legislature’s intent in enacting the statute.” (quotation omitted)).

“The legislature is not presumed to waste words or enact redundant provisions and whenever possible, every word of a statute should be given effect.” Garand v. Town of Exeter, 159 N.H. 136, 141 (2009) (quotation omitted).

“The legislature is not presumed to waste words or enact redundant provisions and whenever possible, every word of a statute should be given effect.” Garand v. Town of Exeter, 159 N.H. 136, 141 (2009) (quotation omitted).

“The legislature is not presumed to waste words or enact redundant provisions and whenever possible, every word of a statute should be given effect.” Garand v. Town of Exeter, 159 N.H. 136, 141 (2009) (quotation omitted).

Garand v. Town of Exeter, 159 N.H. 136, 141, 977 A.2d 540 (2009) (quotation omitted).

“The legislature is not presumed to waste words or enact redundant provisions and whenever possible, every word of a statute should be given effect.” Garand v. Town of Exeter, 159 N.H. 136, 141 (2009) (quotation omitted).

“The legislature is not presumed to waste words or enact redundant provisions and whenever possible, every word of a statute should be given effect.” Garand v. Town of Exeter, 159 N.H. 136, 141 (2009) (quotation omitted).

“An individual may also be unsuitable if he or she has a significant and unexplained arrest history.” Garand v. Town of Exeter, 159 N.H. 136, 141 (2009) (quotations omitted).

olice or the director’s designee to grant a license to carry a loaded pistol or revolver to a nonresident applicant if the following conditions are met: (1) the applicant “has good reason to fear injury to the applicant’s person or property or has any proper purpose”; and (2) the applicant “is a suitable person to be licensed.” RSA 159:6, I(a); see also RSA 159:4 (2014); Garand v. Town of Exeter, 159 N.H. 136, 141 (2009) (stating that under RSA 159:6, the licensing authority is required to deter

In order to grant a license pursuant to RSA 159:6, I(a), the fact finder must determine whether the applicant: (1) has either good reason to fear injury to his person or property, or any proper purpose; and (2) is “a suitable person to be licensed.” Garand v. Town of Exeter, 159 N.H. 136, 141 (2009).

Although a business failure is not among the specifically enumerated exclusions, the legislature made clear that the list was not exclusive by including the words “any similar action.” Garand v. Town of Exeter, 159 N.H. 136, 141 (2009) (“The legislature is not presumed to waste words...

Garand v. Town of Exeter, 159 N.H. 136, 145-46 (2009).

We will, however, construe all parts of the statute together to effectuate its overall purpose and to avoid an absurd or unjust result.” Garand v. Town of Exeter, 159 N.H. 136, 140-41 (2009) (quotation omitted).