Posted on 08/17/2011 1:57:16 PM PDT by marktwain
When the New Hampshire Legislature reconvenes this fall to take up the governor’s vetoes, one of the bills that appears almost certain to be overridden is SB 88, which would broaden an individual’s right to use deadly force to defend oneself in public.
The House of Representatives approved the final version of the bill, 283-89, while the Senate followed suit on a 19-5 vote – both comfortably beyond the two-thirds majorities lawmakers need to override Gov. John Lynch’s veto.
Just because they can, however, doesn’t mean they should. This bill is as unnecessary as it is unwise, and we urge our lawmakers to sustain the governor’s veto when it comes time to vote.
Currently, state law permits residents to use deadly force only if threatened on their property. Otherwise, they are required to pursue other options before turning to deadly force. In other words, the use of deadly force should be an absolute last resort.
Under the bill introduced this session by Sen. David Boutin, R-Hooksett, residents would be permitted to use deadly force whenever they felt their lives were in jeopardy, whether it was in their home or “anywhere he or she has a right to be.”
The bill also deletes the minimum mandatory sentencing requirement for felony convictions involving a firearm and removes the act of displaying a weapon from the definition of “deadly force.”
But it was that expansion of the so-called Castle Doctrine that raised the objections of the governor, who successfully vetoed similar legislation in 2006 with the support of dozens of law enforcement organizations, including the New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of Police, New Hampshire Sheriffs’ Association, New Hampshire State Police and then-Attorney General Kelly Ayotte, now a U.S. senator.
“SB 88, like the earlier bill, is a dramatic and unwarranted change in New Hampshire law that would legalize the inappropriate use of deadly force and jeopardize public safety,” Lynch wrote in his veto message.
“It would allow the use of deadly force on street corners, in shopping malls, public parks, and in retail stores. Drug dealers and other felons who brandish weapons will be further emboldened to use their weapons, while prosecution of those criminals will be made even more difficult because of this bill’s expansion of the right to use deadly force.”
Not surprisingly, supporters of the bill have tried to cast it as a Second Amendment issue. They suggest that not being able to use a firearm to defend oneself if one’s life is threatened is, in the words of House Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt, R-Salem, “absurd.” And when framed that way, it would be hard to argue.
But the issue raised by this bill is much more nuanced than that. Specifically, what constitutes “when one’s life is threatened”?
In some cases, the answer to that question isn’t particularly complicated, such as if someone were to pull a gun on you in a dimly lit parking lot.
But what if someone you cut off in traffic were to pull up behind you at a red light and start walking menacingly toward your car? Would you be within your rights to reach for a gun in the glove compartment and shoot him on the spot?
What is needed is a law that strikes the appropriate balance: one that permits the use of deadly force in those extreme situations when retreating or trying to diffuse the situation through peaceful means aren’t possible.
The state already has one of those on the books. Sustain the veto.
Well, duh...
And, what is wrong with this premise? The concerns about people engaged in illicit activities (i.e., drug dealing) being more likely to use their firearms on street corners or in malls is a red herring. There are no protections for using deadly force while engaged in an illicit activity.
So much for Live Free or Die.
Liberals just hate when a person defends themselves. It means we are taking personal responsibility and not depending on them to protect us (which they can’t do). They need us to be co-dependent on them. They need us to need them. When we don’t, it frightens them. They don’t want others to get this feeling of self reliance. It would destroy their voting base if people could depend on themselves.
b
There is no government in the world that can guarantee that you will ONLY be attacked on your own property!!
LOL!
“Drug dealers and other felons who brandish weapons will be further emboldened to use their weapons, while prosecution of those criminals will be made even more difficult because of this bill’s expansion of the right to use deadly force.”
You can’t make this stuff up!
Hypothetically, you should only use deadly force if he continued to advance after you produced your weapon.
But under current rules, where mere display of a gun is "deadly force"; sure, why not?
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
-C. S. Lewis
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.