Bill restricts use of deadly force in N.H.

Joined
Mar 5, 2013
Messages
94
Likes
5
Location
Sanford, ME
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
Bill restricts use of deadly force in N.H. | SeacoastOnline.com

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — A New Hampshire Senate panel is holding a hearing on a bill that would take away using deadly force as a first option for someone defending themselves or others in a public place if they could safely retreat from the threat.
Republicans pushed the current law through two years ago over a governor's veto and law enforcement's objections. The law allows people to use deadly force to defend themselves any place they have a right to be without having a duty to retreat.
The Senate Judiciary Committee is holding a hearing Tuesday on whether New Hampshire should return to the old law based on the Castle Doctrine, which says a person does not have to retreat from intruders at home before using deadly force.
 
Tuesday will be the NH State Senate Committee Hearing on H.B. 135 (4/23/2013)

On Tuesday, April 23, the NH Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hear House Bill 135. GraniteGrok has a good list of who to contact to resist HB 135
GraniteGrok said:
contact members of the Senate Judiciary Committee TODAY and let them know that HB 135 is a big step in the wrong direction for New Hampshire, and will put you and your loved ones at risk. Ask committee members whether they plan to vote for the rights of law-abiding citizens or criminals.

Senate Judiciary Committee:

Senator Sharon Carson, Chairman (R-14)
(603)271-1403
[email protected]

Senator Bette Lasky, Vice Chairman (D-13)
(603)271-4151
[email protected]

Senator David Boutin (R-16)
(603)271-3092
[email protected]

Senator Sam Cataldo (R-6)
(603)271-4063
[email protected]

Senator Donna Soucy (D-18)
(603)271-4151
[email protected]
 
One reply

I will not support the repeal of stand your ground. The fight to have the right to defend yourself was a long one and all the doom and gloom arguments against its passage have not come to pass.
We have the right to protect ourselves, as well as to carry a gun. I will continue to fight legislation that tries to interfere with both of these rights.
Regards,
Sharon
Senator Sharon Carson
Senate District #14
 
Sam Cataldo will vote against it. It talked with him about 3 weeks ago and he is confident it won't make it out of committee, especially since the (R) control a majority of the Judiciary Committee seats.
 
Rep Bartlett up now. Supports bill. "gun violence taking over . No one ever prosecuted for defending the self."

- - - Updated - - -

Merrimack rep up. Previously mugged, opposed to hb135. "as a mother my responsibility to protect my children"
 
James Luther judge, opposed. Victim cannot calculate in heat of moment. Not good governance to repeal after a year and a half. Stand your ground has not been used as a defense yet. 80 percent of cc being issued now are women.
 
Rep Bartlett up now. Supports bill. "gun violence taking over . No one ever prosecuted for defending the self."

- - - Updated - - -

Merrimack rep up. Previously mugged, opposed to hb135. "as a mother my responsibility to protect my children"

That is the biggest fricken lie out there it drives me nuts, the reason no one is "prosecuted" is because they are generally plea bargained down because the cost to fight the state is out of reach for all but the uber elite
 
when you are forced to retreat you will look weak. just turn your back on a dog and it will chase you, but stand your ground and 99% of dogs will back down.
 
Here's a letter from my (Democrat) state senator. Other states would do well to have Republicans with these principles!

By Sen. Jeff Woodburn

A philosophy is a handy thing to have in politics -- like guard rails for decision-making. Some of my recent votes have surprised and upset some of my Democratic friends. During the State Senate campaign, I promised to be independent and practical and work with everyone to protect rural values, culture and our unique way of life.

But my votes – against repealing the one-year old “Stand-your-ground” self-protection law and increasing the speed limits on the northern section of Interstate 93 from 65 mph to 70 – were based upon my small “d” democrat philosophy. I love democracy, strive for liberty and have an egalitarian chip on my shoulder.

Simply put, I trust people – individually and collectively. I’m for empowering people to make personal decisions about things -- things like marriage, abortion, gun control and using marijuana for medicinal purposes. By and large, people are the best stewards of their own lives and when their opinions are bound together they create a legitimate, credible government. Its purpose is not ideological – or always right, but simply to keep the democratic process working. A casual observer of history knows that most governments used discrimination, poverty and violence to enforce an undemocratic balance. So, on issues of personal liberty and political process, my philosophy is firm.

I believe in using government power to do big things -- protect liberty, equality, and do what is beyond the scope of an individual. Government action won wars, freed slaves, educated illiterate children, invested in GI’s to build the strongest economy in the world – and I believe that it must invest in rural areas, like the North Country to improve our economy. The greatest challenge is to restrain the instinct to grow and demand more change than the people want.

I’m shaped by many experiences – growing up in a rural area, serving as a town moderator, enjoying local history and being engaged across the community as small business owner, teacher and newspaper reporter – but it is my years as a writer and civics teacher that honed and cemented my iconoclastic philosophy

Teaching 50-freshmen high school students civics twice a year instilled a bottom-up, grassroots approach to public decision-making. The genius of our system is that it nearly perfectly balances our natural instincts to expand individual rights with our equally strong trust in the collective wisdom of the majority. Further, there is a strong historical concern that the powerful few will abuse the powerless many, and that widely distributed power is the best protection against an abusive, discriminatory government. The most difficult part about teaching civics is that nothing in young people’s lives emulates this philosophy

I oppose repealing the Stand-your-ground bill that provides slightly more power to the person confronted with violence. This law was enacted last year and was according to its critics going to lead to mayhem; but newly empowered people did exactly what they did before – acted responsibly. There is arrogance to think in an instance as personal as when someone is confronted with a serious bodily threat – that state law will influence behavior. It goes much deeper than that to one’s personal character, temperament and circumstances.

I supported raising the speed limit on northern parts of I-93 because I believed laws need to be credible, legitimate and live in the hearts and minds of our people, not on a sign on the road. When the vast majority of the people disobey a law in plain view of the police -- something is wrong. Eventually, it weakens the authority and credibility of the state. The 85-percentile rule sets speed limits based upon the rate where the vast majority of the drivers drive. The speed limit reflects established behaviors. It confirms my democratic notion. If the speed limit signs were removed, most people would behave as they presently do – operating their vehicle in a manner that is safe for themselves and other motorists, which happens to be 5-miles over the current speed limit. My big government friends call this anarchy – I call it democracy and wise, practical public policy.
 
Jen Coffey from SAS ! The current law not saying you can shoot someone if they are using non-deadly force. Who defines what I can get away from. If this bill passes there is again a duty to retreat, and there should not be. Every few minutes a woman is raped, this bill would take away her protection. Women afraid if bill passes. Crime not to do with stand your ground, it is due to economics.

- - - Updated - - -

Ag's office. Surprise surprise, they support the bill.
 
O
Here's a letter from my (Democrat) state senator. Other states would do well to have Republicans with these principles!

By Sen. Jeff Woodburn

A philosophy is a handy thing to have in politics -- like guard rails for decision-making. Some of my recent votes have surprised and upset some of my Democratic friends. During the State Senate campaign, I promised to be independent and practical and work with everyone to protect rural values, culture and our unique way of life.

But my votes – against repealing the one-year old “Stand-your-ground” self-protection law and increasing the speed limits on the northern section of Interstate 93 from 65 mph to 70 – were based upon my small “d” democrat philosophy. I love democracy, strive for liberty and have an egalitarian chip on my shoulder.

Simply put, I trust people – individually and collectively. I’m for empowering people to make personal decisions about things -- things like marriage, abortion, gun control and using marijuana for medicinal purposes. By and large, people are the best stewards of their own lives and when their opinions are bound together they create a legitimate, credible government. Its purpose is not ideological – or always right, but simply to keep the democratic process working. A casual observer of history knows that most governments used discrimination, poverty and violence to enforce an undemocratic balance. So, on issues of personal liberty and political process, my philosophy is firm.

I believe in using government power to do big things -- protect liberty, equality, and do what is beyond the scope of an individual. Government action won wars, freed slaves, educated illiterate children, invested in GI’s to build the strongest economy in the world – and I believe that it must invest in rural areas, like the North Country to improve our economy. The greatest challenge is to restrain the instinct to grow and demand more change than the people want.

I’m shaped by many experiences – growing up in a rural area, serving as a town moderator, enjoying local history and being engaged across the community as small business owner, teacher and newspaper reporter – but it is my years as a writer and civics teacher that honed and cemented my iconoclastic philosophy

Teaching 50-freshmen high school students civics twice a year instilled a bottom-up, grassroots approach to public decision-making. The genius of our system is that it nearly perfectly balances our natural instincts to expand individual rights with our equally strong trust in the collective wisdom of the majority. Further, there is a strong historical concern that the powerful few will abuse the powerless many, and that widely distributed power is the best protection against an abusive, discriminatory government. The most difficult part about teaching civics is that nothing in young people’s lives emulates this philosophy

I oppose repealing the Stand-your-ground bill that provides slightly more power to the person confronted with violence. This law was enacted last year and was according to its critics going to lead to mayhem; but newly empowered people did exactly what they did before – acted responsibly. There is arrogance to think in an instance as personal as when someone is confronted with a serious bodily threat – that state law will influence behavior. It goes much deeper than that to one’s personal character, temperament and circumstances.

I supported raising the speed limit on northern parts of I-93 because I believed laws need to be credible, legitimate and live in the hearts and minds of our people, not on a sign on the road. When the vast majority of the people disobey a law in plain view of the police -- something is wrong. Eventually, it weakens the authority and credibility of the state. The 85-percentile rule sets speed limits based upon the rate where the vast majority of the drivers drive. The speed limit reflects established behaviors. It confirms my democratic notion. If the speed limit signs were removed, most people would behave as they presently do – operating their vehicle in a manner that is safe for themselves and other motorists, which happens to be 5-miles over the current speed limit. My big government friends call this anarchy – I call it democracy and wise, practical public policy.

I can respect someone like him even though I don't agree with him on everything.
 
Self defense is an affirmative defense if you are prosecuted. SYG will be used by criminals. If you are prosecuted defense of yourself or another is a defense. Prosecutors don't bring up cases that shouldn't be. Have faith in law enforcement. I can't make this crap up......
 
Baldasaro says repealing law is a lawyers dream. They made a lot of money defending ppeople . People went into debt under first law defending themselves. Cases may not see court but are plea bargained, and people lose their2A rights.

- - - Updated - - -

Repealing puts burden on individual , not the state.
 
Rep Tim barkin. Feels current law goes too far. Feels bill will make people safer. Feels his constitutional duty was to vote to bill. Represents Durham and did not receive many emails on this bill.
 
Last edited:
Please dear god let new hampshire not become northern mass... I one day hope to buy a nice plot of land up in that wonderful state....

I just cannot understand the logic behind these "no self help" laws, how can anyone justify retreating from your house to saftey and calling the police. I just dont get it. The only thing i can see as a no no is shooting somone who is just on your property, it would seem harder to justify unless they were shooting at you.
 
Ryan Heath nh association of COP . Alton chief. We already knew they support this. He thanks Shurtleff.
He opposed SYG. Too many "unbelievable scenario" only need to retreat if in complete safety. Balance between self defense and sanctity of life. Not their attackers but possible bystanders. In a public place if defend the self, you cannot account for every round. Even with a credible threat if you move into engage, they are not"trained" to account for every round. Law enforcement goes through regular training. Majority of handgun owners are not trained, even if they are good shots. Burden of proof is on state that you could retreat in complete safety.
 
Back
Top Bottom