Posted on 04/28/2006 7:01:09 AM PDT by neverdem
Associated Press
CONCORD, N.H. -- Gun owners and advocates carried the day in the House on Wednesday.
In a surprise turnaround, the House supported legislation it defeated last month that would give people more leeway to use guns to defend themselves in public places.
It also voted for a bill to bar the state from taking guns or ammunition from people during a state of emergency.
"Nothing should chip away at our freedom," argued Rep. Lynne Ober, R-Hudson. If weapons had been confiscated centuries ago, "we might have been singing God Save the Queen," she said.
A Senate-passed bill gave the House a second shot at expanding the right to use of deadly force. It passed, 193-134.
The bill would allow people to use guns or other weapons in self-defense anywhere where they have a right to be. It would remove the requirement that a person retreat when it's safe to do so.
Gov. John Lynch has serious concerns about the bill, according to his spokeswoman, Pamela Walsh. If the bill reaches him, Lynch would consult with the attorney general and police before deciding whether to veto it, she said.
Current law allows people to shoot intruders who threaten them in their homes. They also can shoot to protect themselves or another person from a deadly attack, kidnapping or attempted sexual assault. But people are required to retreat from other types of attacks in public when they can do so safely.
Attorney General Kelly Ayotte and the state's police chiefs opposed the change. They argued current law provides sufficient protection to people who act in self-defense.
"This bill is unnecessary and creates the potential that some people would resort to deadly force when they might otherwise have used non-deadly force or retreated with complete safety," Dover Rep. William Knowles, a Democrat, said.
"New Hampshire law is clear that you do not have to retreat unless you can do so with complete safety," said Wolfeboro Rep. Stanley Stevens, a Republican, arguing the legislation was not needed.
But supporters argued someone confronted by the threat of violence shouldn't have to decide whether it's safe to retreat or not.
"When you're confronted with force you need to be able to react immediately," Rep. Paul Mirski, R-Enfield, said.
"required to retreat" Part of the liberal code of ethics...
Leave it to an AP story. What was the vote in the Senate, and what vote do you need to overturn a veto in NH?
However, I suspect that this was mainly a result of misleading propaganda put out by the anti-self-defense activists, the familiar refrain from Florida and everywhere else about blood running in the streets and the like. I suspect that at least a few of the reps didn't understand the meaning and implications of the change in law, thinking that it was carte blanche to kill panhandlers or some such ridiculous notions encouraged by the anti-self-defense lobby. The law on the justification for the use of deadly defensive force still applies, and has not been changed one iota by this bill.
A two-thirds majority is needed to override a veto, but I suspect that if Lynch does veto, it will be political suicide for him. We now have three different pro-gun groups in the state, undoubtedly which are all already plotting to target the anti-self-defense reps on the Criminal Justice and Public Safety committee, and Lynch would make a nice juicy target to add to the mix.
Thanks for the links and info. Good luck NH!
No news stories on the vote are yet posted at either the FSP website or the NRAs, so we'll see. There are a couple of other places for me to check, so watch this space. Accordingly, FSP and FSW PorcuPing!
In the meantime, here's the final text of the bill [SB318] as it passed the NH House- I don't believe there were any significant alterations.
SB 318-FN – VERSION ADOPTED BY BOTH BODIES
2006 SESSION
06-2964
04/01
SENATE BILL 318-FN
AN ACT relative to the use of deadly force to protect oneself.
SPONSORS: Sen. Bragdon, Dist 11; Sen. Letourneau, Dist 19; Rep. Stepanek, Hills 6; Rep. Hinkle, Hills 19; Rep. Mooney, Hills 19; Rep. Soltani, Merr 8
COMMITTEE: Judiciary
ANALYSIS
This bill allows a person who is in any place where he or she has a right to be to use deadly force to protect oneself.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]
Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.
06-2964
04/01
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Six
AN ACT relative to the use of deadly force to protect oneself.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 Physical Force in Defense of a Person. Amend RSA 627:4, II(d) to read as follows:
(d) Is likely to use any unlawful force in the commission of a felony against the actor within such actor's dwelling [or], its curtilage, or in any place where the actor has a right to be.
2 Physical Force in Defense of a Person. Amend RSA 627:4, III(a) to read as follows:
(a) Retreat from the encounter, except that he or she is not required to retreat if he or she is within his or her dwelling [or], its curtilage, or in any place where he or she has a right to be, and was not the initial aggressor; or
3 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2007.
LBAO
06-2964
12/7/05
SB 318-FN - FISCAL NOTE
AN ACT relative to the use of deadly force to protect oneself.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Departments of Justice and Corrections and the Judicial Branch state this bill may increase state expenditures by an indeterminable amount in FY 2007 and each year thereafter. This bill will have no fiscal impact on state, county, and local revenue or county and local expenditures.
METHODOLOGY:
The Department of Justice states this bill would expand the right to use deadly force in self-defense, and concomitantly limit the situations in which the use of deadly force would not be justified. The Department believes expanding the situations in which the use of deadly force in self-defense is permissible creates the potential that New Hampshire residents will resort to the use of deadly force when they otherwise would have used non-deadly force or retreated from the situation. This could result in an increase in homicides. The Department would be responsible for overseeing the investigation of any such homicide, and if it was determined that the use of deadly force was not justified under statute, the prosecution. The oversight of a homicide investigation, leading to a determination of whether or not a person will be charged, would require approximately 290 hours of attorney time, 20 hours of secretarial time, and 245 hours of victim/witness advocate time. The prosecution of a homicide would require approximately 1,660 hours of attorney time, 100 to 150 hours of paralegal time, 140 hours of victim/witness advocate time, and 50 hours of secretarial time. There could also be costs incurred for expert witnesses, deposition of witnesses, travel and lodging for out-of-state witnesses, and miscellaneous expenses for the preparation of trial exhibits.
The Department of Corrections states the number of individuals that will be affected by this legislation cannot be predicted. The average annual cost of incarcerating an individual in the general prison population was $28,143 in FY 2005.
The Judicial Branch states this bill extends the place where deadly force may be used to any place where one has a right to be. The Branch is unable to determine the fiscal impact at this time, but estimates any impact will be minimal and not exceed $10,000.
LBAO
06-2964
12/7/05
The Judicial Council states this legislation does not establish a criminal act or penalty, and will have no impact on indigent defense fund expenditures
I wish Democrats would say this more often about their own desperate legislative frenzies.
Vital Pro-Gun Legislation Sent To Governor's Desk In New Hampshire!
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Please Call Governor Lynch Today and Ask For His Support!
The New Hampshire House of Representatives passed two important pieces of pro-gun legislation sponsored by State Senator Peter E. Bragdon (R-11).
SB 318, would reform "Castle Doctrine" laws so that: (1) a person would have the right to meet force with force to protect himself or herself and family members regardless of their location, and (2) there would be no "duty to retreat" from any place a person may lawfully be.
SB 348, known as "Emergency Powers" legislation, would prohibit state and local law enforcement agencies or their agents from confiscating firearms from law-abiding citizens or prohibiting the transport, sale, carrying, and use of firearms during declared state emergencies, except in the course of enforcing laws against criminal possession or use of firearms.
Please contact Governor John Lynch (D) today and respectfully ask him to choose your personal protection over partisan politics by signing SB 318 and SB 348. You can reach Governor Lynch by phone at (603) 271-2121 or via email at www.egov.nh.gov/governor/goveforms/comments.asp.
It is unreasonable for victims of a crime to have to worry about being arrested or prosecuted if they use force to defend themselves or their family!
Citizens throughout New Hampshire are counting on you to contact Governor Lynch TODAY!
For further contact information on your legislators, please use the "Write Your Representatives" feature found at http://www.nraila.org/.
Thanks for the ping. August 15th will be my first full year in NH. I love it here!
Hello. I'm on your NY ping list, which is great, but if you have a NH list can you add me? I've lived here in NH for almost a year now!
Thanks,
Good to have you here.
~Corey
How do you expand upon "deadly force?"
Bury'em with the second shot. :)
I have no plans to start a new list. Maybe the FRee State project can help you out.
"Live FRee or Die; Death Is Not The Worst of Evils." Good luck!
thanks for the kind words
Governor Lynch in his comments, Said he had concern about the bill and needed to talk to the Attorney Generals office and police to see if he would veto the bill. The DA office and Police have been out spoken against this bill. I think he always had the intention to veto the bill. I have email Governor Lynch several time and asked him not to veto the bill(s). Have not got any reply back and don't think I will.
Governor Lynch in his comments, Said he had concern about the bill(s) and needed to talk to the Attorney Generals office and police to see if he would veto the bill(s). The DA office and Police have been out spoken against this bill(s). I think he always had the intention to veto the bill(s). I have email Governor Lynch several time and asked him not to veto the bill(s). Have not got any reply back and don't think I will.
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.