PPP Poll: LaMontagne Closing Gap Against Ayotte In NH-SEN Primary

TPM ^ | 9/13/10 | Jill Rayfield

[mvpel]

I heartily DISapprove of Ayotte’s work to defeat “castle doctrine” bills in New Hampshire.

Is stating the fact that Ayotte actively worked to defeat the right to self-defense in public places considered a “smear” in your book?

You can’t cope with the message, so you attack the messenger. Lame.

[andy58-in-nh]

As I promised yesterday, I asked Ovide Lamontagne about the 2nd Amendment issue and here's what he told me:

Ovide said that the controversy appears to stem from his interest in promoting a bill that would impose higher penalties on people who used weapons of any type in the commission of a felony. What the legislative committee came back with was a "Guns-Free School Zone" type of bill, which was not what he wanted or asked for. They ended up working to change it and got the legislation through in a form he could support. Ovide further described the NHFC's charge as a "smear campaign" and that his 2nd Amendment credentials are rock-solid.

On that note, I shook his hand and wished him good luck. ;-)

[Crichton]

andy, thanks for getting Ovide's take on this. Not sure I'm crazy about a using weapons in commission of crime penalty, either.

There was a state rep in my area who always voted conservative but could never get any legislation passed or have any real impact because he didn't "play the game". Well, finally he did get something passed -- a nanny state bill to put up traffic cameras to automatically nail people with tickets and feed the government coffers. People just lose their heads over some issues. Oh, he was eventually defeated in a GOP primary, and I cried not a tear.

[andy58-in-nh]

I really dislike traffic cameras, too, even if they catch the occasional red-light runner who really deserves it. The abuse potential is just way too high, especially in a time of revenue shortfalls.

As to elevated penalties for felonious weapons usage, I think it can be justified on the ground that we ought not penalize people for peaceful weapons possession, particularly for self-defense purposes. I oppose all gun control, period. So to be consistent, I feel I must support efforts to punish the misuse of such weapons in order to promote personal responsibility as a primary interest, with the state's interest in maintaining peace and safety coming second.

[mvpel]

As to elevated penalties for felonious weapons usage, I think it can be justified on the ground that we ought not penalize people for peaceful weapons possession, particularly for self-defense purposes.

But you will wind up penalizing people for peaceful weapons possession and self-defense, when two plain-clothes liquor board agents accuse a young man who they were following down a deserted street in the middle of the night of "criminal threatening" because he demanded to know why they were following him, while holding a self-defense knife by his side... for example.

http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20091112-NEWS-911129979

[andy58-in-nh]

I'm familiar with that case and I do find it very troubling. But isn't the matter one of lawful jurisdiction and probable cause? I have to question why two such agents had any right to follow a person who they had no reason to suspect of criminal behavior, much less behavior that fell within their enforcement responsibilities.

[mvpel]

If the knife law with its first-draft penalty enhancements had passed, and that guy had been carrying the wrong kind of knife, he’d have been facing a mandatory doubled sentence. There’s the problem with penalty enhancements.

[andy58-in-nh]

Thankfully, that was not the case. But again, it goes back to the problem of: exactly what sort of “crime” was committed here? The officers were not threatened, nor were they in reasonable fear of being harmed, and nonetheless exceeded the parameters of their duties in pursuing a man who was basically minding his own business. If anyone had a right to feel threatened it was the alleged “perpetrator”, who could not know that the people following him were police officers and whose fear under the circumstances was that of a reasonable man. What am I missing here?

[mvpel]

You’re not missing anything.

The point I’m trying to make is that the law can be used to stomp innocent people who took reasonable actions - as it was in this knife case - and there’s significant danger in adding cleats to the stompin’ boot by stacking up a list of feel-good penalty enhancements for weapon, motive, time of day, or whatever.

Hopefully we can bring Ovide around to this point of view eventually.