HB125 "Firearms Freedom Act" passed in NH House

[Bruce for NH State Rep]

I was proud to be one of the 240 state representatives who voted "yea" on the motion of "ought to pass" on HB125 (motion passed 240-120).

 

[Admin]

 

[cavalri]

Fantastic! How long before it goes to the Senate and final passage?

 

[NHDaveK]

Thats great !
Thanks Bruce

 

[Brin747]

Bruce, you and your colleagues make us all proud to be NH citizens!

 

[Twigg]

I was proud to be one of the 240 state representatives who voted "yea" on the motion of "ought to pass" on HB125 (motion passed 240-120).

Thank you for your efforts and for stepping up !

I'm so happy I moved here !

 

[cockpitbob]

The 9th and 10th ammendments are 2 of my 3 most favorite. It's good to see legislators who are actually trying to "preserved, protect and defend" our Constitution.
THANKS!

 

[Lignum Vitea]

It's nice to know that there is actually a few decent freedom loving people in government.

 

[Bruce for NH State Rep]

It's nice to know that there is actually a few decent freedom loving people in government.

A few? Based on this vote, there are at least 240 of us in Concord.

Maybe more...

HB89: An act requiring the attorney general to join the lawsuit challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed the House last week, 267*-103. Anyone still feel like making the "New Hampshire is little more than North Massachusetts" argument?

* the magic veto-proof number.

 

[quinnt]

Awesome! What are the chances of HB125 becoming law?

 

[edhead35]

great news!

 

[KMS]

Live Free or Die....I'm glad we have Reps who care.

 

[Bruce for NH State Rep]

Awesome! What are the chances of HB125 becoming law?

Well, it was voted for by 2/3 of the members present (40 absent or not voting) this time around, which is what you need to override a veto. We'd have to wait to see how many people show up to try to override what would almost certainly be a Lynch veto.

 

[Gadsden]

Man, I gotta move up there..

 

[Coyote33]

On top of that, there are these two bills, which at first, I thought this post was referring to:

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...ills-both-have-hearings-in-the-next-two-weeks

 

[soloman02]

Are there any bills pending that make it so that you are immune to any and all civil suits if you are proven to have been justified in using lethal force as outlined in Chapter 627?

 

[PixelPusher]

Are there any bills pending that make it so that you are immune to any and all civil suits if you are proven to have been justified in using lethal force as outlined in Chapter 627?

There are two that I know of that address this.

HB567

HB207

 

[strangenh]

Are there any bills pending that make it so that you are immune to any and all civil suits if you are proven to have been justified in using lethal force as outlined in Chapter 627?

?? The law already says:

627:1 General Rule. – Conduct which is justifiable under this chapter constitutes a defense to any offense. The fact that such conduct is justifiable shall constitute a complete defense to any civil action based on such conduct.

 

[strangenh]

There are two that I know of that address this.

HB567

HB207

There is already civil immunity. Those take it further, make a "stand your ground... any place you have a right to be" type law of it, create a presumption of innocence in certain situations, and put the burden of proof on the state. These are major moves forward, but we already have a bar to civil suit if one is justified under the existing provisions of chapter 627.

 

[kevin9]

?? The law already says:

627:1 General Rule. – Conduct which is justifiable under this chapter constitutes a defense to any offense. The fact that such conduct is justifiable shall constitute a complete defense to any civil action based on such conduct.

As we MA residents know there's a notable difference between something be a defense and immunity from prosecution and lawsuit. The first, which is what NH law appears to provide now, may require that one go to trial to present that defense, with the associated costs, pain and suffering, whereas immunity prevents the trial from even happening.

 

[strangenh]

As we MA residents know there's a notable difference between something be a defense and immunity from prosecution and lawsuit. The first, which is what NH law appears to provide now, may require that one go to trial to present that defense, with the associated costs, pain and suffering, whereas immunity prevents the trial from even happening.

Uh, huh. And in what magical place other than court would justification be determined?

Also perhaps you should read the other post right under the one you quoted?

 

[kevin9]

Uh, huh. And in what magical place other than court would justification be determined?

Via the criminal justice system either by trial or if charges were not brought or charges where dropped.

The difference is that the "defense" approach means one can still be sued in civil court and have to go through some or all of the trial process to provide this defense even if the conduct was determined to be justified via the criminal justice system. That's the trial cost, pain and suffering I was referring to. On the other hand "immunity" means that civil proceedings cannot even start if the actions were shown to be justified via the criminal justice system.

 

[strangenh]

Via the criminal justice system either by trial or if charges were not brought or charges where dropped.

The difference is that the "defense" approach means one can still be sued in civil court and have to go through some or all of the trial process to provide this defense even if the conduct was determined to be justified via the criminal justice system. That's the trial cost, pain and suffering I was referring to. On the other hand "immunity" means that civil proceedings cannot even start if the actions were shown to be justified via the criminal justice system.

No, I disagree. In the scenario you paint, one should be able to file for summary judgment in the civil suit even under the current law given a finding in criminal proceedings. And under the new law, if charges were not brought, there would still be preliminary hearings in a civil case on the issue of justification. What is news about these bills is that they place some of the burden of proof on the state by creating a presumption in the self-defending person's favor under certain circumstances, and extend the reach and lack of duty to retreat to anywhere one has a right to be.

 

[KBCraig]

A defense is rebuttable during trial, while immunity means the first time it comes before a judge it gets tossed without delay.

 

[strangenh]

A defense is rebuttable during trial, while immunity means the first time it comes before a judge it gets tossed without delay.

Well, you're kind of barking up the wrong tree, too. You're right that the new bill makes things better, but you are off as to why.

1) What we have today under limited circumstances -- a "complete defense" to civil liability -- is grounds for summary judgment, by definition. That's civil only, but it's quite a decent barrier to any suit getting far.

2) What the new bills will give us is an immunity to suit or prosecution that is dependent on a finding of fact - so "immunity" is not really the core positive item; rather it is the other part that reverses the burden of proof. A criminal action or civil suit can still occur, but the state (or plaintiff) will have to start off with evidence rebutting the presumption that the person acted with justification. That's a real sea change.

 

[soloman02]

?? The law already says:

627:1 General Rule. – Conduct which is justifiable under this chapter constitutes a defense to any offense. The fact that such conduct is justifiable shall constitute a complete defense to any civil action based on such conduct.

I totally missed that. I was always so focused on what constitutes the proper use of deadly force that I neglected to look in there for other relevant items.

 

[kevin9]

Well, you're kind of barking up the wrong tree, too. You're right that the new bill makes things better, but you are off as to why.

1) What we have today under limited circumstances -- a "complete defense" to civil liability -- is grounds for summary judgment, by definition. That's civil only, but it's quite a decent barrier to any suit getting far.

2) What the new bills will give us is an immunity to suit or prosecution that is dependent on a finding of fact - so "immunity" is not really the core positive item; rather it is the other part that reverses the burden of proof. A criminal action or civil suit can still occur, but the state (or plaintiff) will have to start off with evidence rebutting the presumption that the person acted with justification. That's a real sea change.

I think we're both trying to say much the same thing, but using different terms. Violent agreement, gotta love it.