Posted on 04/27/2006 10:56:50 AM PDT by Living Free in NH
CONCORD – The gun owners lobby scored a surprising reversal Wednesday, winning final approval of a bill that lets anyone use deadly force when attacked in public – even if retreating from an attacker is an option.
Under current law, deadly force can be used only if people are threatened in their home, or if in public they are the target of a deadly attack, a kidnapping or attempted rape. In other situations, retreat is required.
After a campaign by gun rights groups, House membersWednesday embraced expanding the deadly force law, on a vote of 193-134. Only five weeks ago, they had cast a lopsided measure against a similar bill.
The Senate already approved the bill, which goes now to Gov. John Lynch. The governor has “concerns” about the bill, but has yet to decide if he’ll sign or veto it, according to his communications director, Pamela Walsh.
The deadly force law was hotly debated.
“This only permits a New Hampshire citizen the right to defend themselves in a place they have a right to be. Law abiding citizens have that right,” said Farmington Republican Rep. Sam Cataldo.
Opposing the bill, Dover Democratic Rep. William Knowles said this would be an invitation for people to become vigilantes.
“This bill is unnecessary and creates the potential for people to use deadly force when they otherwise would not use deadly force or would have retreated from the incident,” Knowles said.
The House vote came after national and state gun rights groups lodged a letter and e-mail writing campaign.
“The Legislature got the message that people don’t have to retreat from criminals. Law-abiding people should be able to defend themselves,” said Alan Rice, treasurer of the New Hampshire Firearms Coalition.
The National Rifle Association did its own mailings and phone banks, targeting certain lawmakers late last week.
Attorney General Kelly Ayotte and the lobby of police chiefs opposed the bill.
The bill, submitted by Milford Republican Sen. Peter Bragdon, had looked dead in both legislative chambers, only to re-emerge with the help of House and Senate Republican leaders, who solidly support it.
Kingston Republican Rep. David Welch said he doesn’t believe the change will lead to many gun or knife fights that would not otherwise occur.
“The response of most people is to avoid a deadly conflict if they can, and I think that won’t change,” said Welch who supported the bill.
On a related matter, the House passed and sent to Lynch’s desk a bill to prevent the confiscation of guns or ammunition from people during a state of emergency.
“Nothing should chip away at our freedom,” Hudson Republican Rep. Lynne Ober said.
“If weapons had been confiscated centuries ago, we might have been singing ‘God Save the Queen.’”
Maybe it'll convince a few scumbags to leave folks alone, or they'll get their head blown off...
It is always kind of difficult to retreat if you are in a wheelchair,other wise disabled,or elderly...
This is great news ..imagine government giving back your God given right to defend yourself and your loved ones from deadly criminals.
How the heck did government manage to take this right away in the first place...?
This pleases me.
“If weapons had been confiscated centuries ago, we might have been singing ‘God Save the Queen.’”
Nice to hear this from a Representative!
I would like to read the text of this bill.I will look it up tonight. Let me say as a long time member of the NRA, that I think this is a very bad idea if this is as far reaching as it appears to be. People get into fights all the time. Where I currently live its is legal to have a gun in one's car. I can only imagine the mischief that is going to occur in the hit of the moment.
I didnt see any qualification in this bill that this is against deadly criminals only. Fights happen all the time. I am not sure its a good idea that if you are belted in the bar parking lot you have a right to kill them.
"even if retreating from an attacker is an option." Is it just me???
I support 2nd Amendment rights, and I think that deadly force should be legal anytime someone invades one's home.
But I do not support people firing in public places when their lives are not in immediate danger.
We just had a sentencing here in MA of a "yewt" who fired on the street during an argument, missed his target, and ended up paralyzing a 5-year old girl who was sitting on her own porch.
It's getting so it's downright dangerous to rape somebody these days. Former President Clinton has weighed in, claiming that Constitutional rights to assembly are being hindred.
"I am not sure its a good idea that if you are belted in the bar parking lot you have a right to kill them."
If unprovoked, they have the right to receive whatever they get... IMHO
I guess you haven't heard of the similar laws in other states that haven't resulted in mass killings. You sound like a liberal saying he is a conservative. A long standing member of NRA should have no problem with complete freedom to defend oneself from idiots. If someone doesn't want to get shot let them keep their hands to themselves and not get into fights with strangers.
>>>>"How the heck did government manage to take this right away in the first place...?"<<<<
I really don't care what the Govt says concerning this issue, I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6, this argument is very one sided and punctuated by numerous projectiles going ballistic and the threat is treated to a very quick acting form of lead poisoning.
Some things should just never be treated as Political issues.
TT
TT
We have the right not to have to cower in our homes. We reserve the right to meet force with force. We should never be forced by law to give in to the adult version of nothing more than a bully.
If a would-be carjacker, mugger, attacker knows he could lose his life over such an act he may think twice about doing it.
I just hope something horrible doesn't come out of this. I am sure some of us remember how stupid and invincible we felt we were 18 0r 19. I am just saying one day someone's son here could get in a stupid fight over a girl in a parking lot throw the first punch and get killed over it. I can think of lot of other situations where this might happen. The common law doctrine of self defense has developed over the centuries for a reason. That is past common experience.
I think that the responsibility to retreat, except in your own home, comes from the common law, and dates back 500 years or so.
Well put!
If we confiscate them now, we may be soon be saying "Allah is Great"
I would agree with you but it's also not good that people feel they have the right to belt you either. Perhaps some will think twice if they know there is a chance of repercussion. Don't get me wrong, I don't want people getting shot over incidents like you described but a person can die from getting belted also.
j
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.