Who in NH can legally bear weapons near school? Can any citizen of NH legally carry any knife, gun (black powder or modern) or any weapon on a sidewalk next to a any school in NH? I know on duty police officers can carry weapons, and there are exceptions for people who have authorization to give presentations and other exceptional circumstances. I'm not interested in an affirmative defense. I want to know if there is a way to transport a weapon in a school zone for an adult under everyday circumstances that allows the weapon to be accessible as opposed to locked in the trunk and disassembled. Is there any adult of the private sector who can gain the "privilege" of the second amendment within a school zone? According to the article on school zones by USCCA we are led to believe there is no federal law prohibiting licensed gun owners from exercising the 2nd amendment right. I don't know if there are other federal restrictions like if such a person can carry openly or concealed, if the restriction applies more strictly to muskets and other black-powder-only weapons, if knives are still illegal to carry normally on a sidewalk near the school, etc. Also, the article doesn't clarify if NH has any laws against bearing arms on or near schools. Another way to ask the question is what can a person with a concealed carry permit carry everyday, and how can it be carried, on a walk along a public sidewalk next to a school?
New Hampshire is a "constitutional carry" state. The term "constitutional carry" is not a legal term but, rather, a catchphrase used to describe states that have adopted, either by statute or state constitution, that no permit is required to carry a gun either openly displayed or concealed. The phrase comes from a belief among many that the constitution is a permit to carry. New Hampshire passed its constitutional carry statute in 2017. Prior to this date it was permitted to carry a gun openly (not concealed) without a permit and had been legal to do so since the founding of the state. The Federal government originally passed The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 which prohibited the carrying of a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school. This act was found unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1995 (United States v. Lopez). Subsequently, the Federal government amended the law by adding the language, "...a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce..." This law has not been overturned and is still active. Here are two of the several exceptions to the Federal restriction: The individual is licensed to carry a firearm by the State in which the school zone is located The gun is unloaded and locked in a container There are other exceptions related to law enforcement officers, permission of the school, etc. These exceptions are independent; if one is licensed there is no need to unload the firearm and lock it in a container. The first exception listed, an individual licensed to carry a firearm by the State, generates a fair amount of controversy. Many states license individuals to carry concealed firearms within their borders by recognizing, or granting reciprocity, to the licensee's home state's firearms license. Many people believe this is a grant of a license by the State to the individual to carry a firearm. The ATF disagrees with this position and has taken a position that only licenses issued by the State in which the school is located are valid as it relates to the Federal school gun safety act. Further reading on this particular issue can be found in the paper, "Federalism Implications of Non-Recognition of Licensure Reciprocity Under the Gun-Free School Zones Act." The New Hampshire legislature has been working on a bill (as of June, 2019) prohibiting the carrying of firearms on school property. Governor Chris Sununu has previously indicated he would veto a series of gun-control bills headed to his desk via a spokesperson's statment, "the governor is not looking to make any changes to existing gun laws." The bill as written, prohibits the possession of firearms on school property, it does not prohibit firearm possession near school property. (The bill does appear to allow a firearm in an automobile being used to pick up or drop off a student at school.) The bottom-line for firearms around schools in New Hampshire: There is no state requirement to be licensed to carry a firearm openly or concealed There is no state prohibition from carrying firearms near a school There is a Federal prohibition from carrying a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school without a license There is no Federal requirement that a firearm carried near a school be concealed You can expect to be interviewed by law enforcement if you are openly-carrying firearms near a school. It is perfectly legal for law enforcement to approach you and engage in a voluntary interview. You can expect many such engagements if you make it a practice to openly carry firearms near a school. You can make people nervous if you are openly-carrying firearms generally, and you will absolutely make people nervous if you openly-carry firearms near a school.* New Hampshire still issues Pistol and Revolver licenses and one should have such a license if carrying a firearm within a school zone. As it relates to knives, New Hampshire is very liberal as its laws apply to knives. There are few, if any, restrictions on knives. In 2010, New Hampshire passed a law removing some of the restrictions on the types of knives that could be carried. *I do not have a specific citation to provide regarding the expectations of a law-enforcement interview when openly-carrying a firearm near a school. This statement comes from my experience as one who is licensed to teach concealed carry courses and firearms laws in Louisiana and Arizona. I am not an attorney and I am not licensed teach the laws of New Hampshire. I recommend speaking with a competent attorney who specializes in firearms law in New Hampshire to learn what is legal and, just as importantly, what is reasonable.
One widely-used book on the topic is Brown's Boundary Control and Legal Principles. I have the 4th edition published in 1995, and the relevant chapter is 8, "Locating Easements and Reversions". The law varies from state to state. In New England, it is likely for interstate, US, and state highways, the state will own the roadbed in fee. Smaller roads are likely owned by the adjoining private owners, with the public holding a right-of-way that allows the government to build and maintain a road; the adjoinders are restricted from using the right-of-way in any manner that would interfere with the transportation use. The meaning of "right-of-way line" depends on context, but is likely to be the line between the pubic's right of way and the portion of the adjoining private property that is exclusively under the control of the private property owner. If the public records do not reveal the width of the road, there is likely to be a statute that states a default width of the road. This is discussed, for Vermont, in The History and Law of Vermont Town Roads by Paul Gillies
In the US, it depends on the jurisdiction because each state has its own homicide statutes: but, the defining elements don't differ a lot. Drawing on Washington state law, the first question is whether you intended to kill a person (it doesn't have to be a specific person). If you did, you have committed first-degree murder. It is first-degree murder, because it requires a certain amount of advance planning to kill with a drone. It does not matter that the drone houses the gun that killed the person and a program determines when the gun fires (the "it was the drone, not me" defense gets you nowhere: otherwise, you could always claim "It wasn't me, it was my gun / knife / fist".) If instead this is a badly-designed pig-slaughtering drone, then it could be manslaughter in the first degree, if the act was reckless, or manslaughter in the second degree, if the act was with criminal negligence. To determine which it is, you look at the definitions: A person is reckless or acts recklessly when he or she knows of and disregards a substantial risk that a wrongful act may occur and his or her disregard of such substantial risk is a gross deviation from conduct that a reasonable person would exercise in the same situation. versus A person is criminally negligent or acts with criminal negligence when he or she fails to be aware of a substantial risk that a wrongful act may occur and his or her failure to be aware of such substantial risk constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the same situation. So it would depend on whether you decided that safeguards which would prevent shooting people were too much bother (you know there is a risk and set aside that concern), or it didn't occur to you that a flying gun might hurt a person.
You can basically take pictures of anything from your property if it is "public" (i.e. easily visible from your property). People on the road are in public, and have no reasonable expectation of privacy. The basic restrictions on photography are (1) you cannot trespass (you aren't), and (2) you cannot take pictures of certain government operations (e.g. airport border crossing – certain aspects of government prohibition may require lawsuit to rein in government policy that is at odds with the 1st Amendment; also secret military installations, for which there is specific law, 18 USC 795). Commercial exploitation of people who you photograph is strongly protected in California, and that is it.
JeffUK has quoted the relevant law. However the question then becomes "what is an 'offensive weapon'", and "what is a lawful excuse?". Almost anything can be classified as an offensive weapon if you can use it as a weapon. See https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q338.htm A lawful excuse is something like "I am going to play baseball, which is why I have a baseball bat". It is emphatically not "I want it for self defence". Specifically, https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offensive-weapons-knives-bladed-and-pointed-articles cites Patterson v Block [1984] 81 LSG 2458 – carrying a weapon for defence can still amount to intent to cause injury So the answer to the OP's original question: Is it legal for a private citizen to carry any kind of weapon for self defence purposes in the UK? is "No".
The general rule is that "public records" must be disclosed unless they are by definition not public records. This study summarizes US public records law on a state by state basis, if the issue is about the US. Taking Massachusetts as an example, the law defines public record here, so if the item is not a public record, it is not required to disclose the item. Clause 26 has a long list of exceptions such as (j) the names and addresses of any persons contained in, or referred to in, any applications for any licenses to carry or possess firearms issued pursuant to chapter one hundred and forty or any firearms identification cards issued pursuant to said chapter one hundred and forty and the names and addresses on sales or transfers of any firearms, rifles, shotguns, or machine guns or ammunition therefor, as defined in said chapter one hundred and forty and the names and addresses on said licenses or cards ... (o) the home address and home telephone number of an employee of the judicial branch, an unelected employee of the general court, an agency, executive office, department, board, commission, bureau, division or authority of the commonwealth, or of a political subdivision thereof or of an authority established by the general court to serve a public purpose, in the custody of a government agency which maintains records identifying persons as falling within those categories; provided that the information may be disclosed to an employee organization under chapter 150E, a nonprofit organization for retired public employees under chapter 180, or a criminal justice agency as defined in section 167 of chapter 6. (p) the name, home address and home telephone number of a family member of a commonwealth employee, contained in a record in the custody of a government agency which maintains records identifying persons as falling within the categories listed in subclause (o). If the information is not legally a public record, there is no obligation to disclose. There is a general requirement via statute, regulation and court rulings requiring the government to protect personal information, such as this. You can get a list of sources on that topic here. This does not mean that the government body in question can be forced to redact that information, but it is at least possible that there is a (slim) legal basis for requiring them to protect your privacy.
Who in the fraternity would be prosecuted if this became an issue? A lot of people could be held liable for this, including people who are not even in the fraternity. Anyone who has knowledge of the machine or the fact that it was possible for minors to access alcohol through it could technically be held liable if a prosecutor wanted to make that case. Presumably the building is owned by someone else and just leased out to fraternity members, and they very well could be held liable for sale to minors also. Would the machine be safer if it just accepted cash (so that no electronic paper trail was created), with a big warning sign WINK WINK that anyone under the age of 21 was strictly prohibited from purchasing from it? No. Payment method is irrelevant here. There are a number of states that legally allow vending machines to sell alcohol, but vendors are required to verify the age of any person accessing them and ensure that those cards aren't being used by people not authorized. What you describe is an extremely relaxed environment where admittedly no one is attempting to verify identities. The "accepting cash" scenario is no different than a liquor store selling alcohol to anyone that comes in just because they're willing to pay with cash instead of a credit card. Sales to minors laws are not "as long as you warn them, you're safe" laws. They require vendors to actively check IDs and ensure that alcohol is not landing in the hands of minors. Accepting cash just to erase the evidence doesn't meet that burden. There are a lot of legal troubles with the situation that could get a lot of people charged with multiple offenses. That you have underage fraternity members living there suggests you should not have alcohol readily accessible in the house at all, as most state laws expressly forbid providing access to alcohol, not just serving or selling. Them being there provides access to it, even if it's just a case in the fridge with a note on it. Not to mention, you technically cannot sell alcohol, as I highly doubt your fraternity has a liquor license to be able to do so. There's a big difference between asking everyone to pitch in to buy the case versus actively selling individual cans through a vending machine. The vending machine itself is violating liquor laws in your state merely by existing.
I think the Washington law and order is fairly clear: you must stay home unless you are engaged in certain allowed activities. The underlying law, RCW 43.06.220(h) empowers issuing an order prohibiting "Such other activities as he or she reasonably believes should be prohibited to help preserve and maintain life, health, property or the public peace". Therefore I can walk my dog. When I do, there are a lot of people also out walking their dogs, so that provides a letter-of-the-law permitted exception to the stay-at-home order. Nothing in the order specifically addresses the situation where you pause your dog-walk to talk to a neighbor (the "appropriate social distancing" sub-rule only applies to recreational departures from your home). It is well-established that the central legal issue is what the "compelling government interest" is, and whether these restrictions fail on grounds of narrow-tailoring or least-restrictiveness. The failure to include "go to your brother's place for lunch, provided you follow appropriate social distancing guidelines" as a permitted activity is a candidate for not being least-restrictive. The problem is that the courts will not engage in an infinite regress of second-guessings about whether certain measures are "truly necessary". There is a SCOTUS challenge where the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld that's state's order, but a SCOTUS order requires the state to reply to a petition by Monday. The "status quo" is that these orders are legal, until someone constructs a compelling argument that they are not, and that matter is then resolved in favor of petitioner by SCOTUS (which has not happened). So far, governors have prevailed at the state level.