• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

New Hampster bill would ease law on showing a gun

Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
1,200
Likes
34
Location
Harrison, Maine
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
A Senate measure would allow the display of a gun in order to warn away a potential attack.

CONCORD, N.H. - Displaying a gun to warn a potential attacker away would not be considered a crime under a bill to soften New Hampshire's law on deadly force.


The Senate votes Wednesday on the bill that would make it legal to respond to a threat by displaying a gun. It is more limited than an earlier bill that would have expanded the use of deadly force, which was vetoed by Gov. John Lynch in 2006. That proposal would have allowed the use of deadly force in public whenever someone felt threatened.

Lynch's office was noncommittal about the new version Friday.

"The governor will be reviewing the bill and talking with the attorney general's office and law enforcement about it," spokesman Colin Manning said.

Current law requires people in public places to try to retreat to safety before resorting to deadly force in self defense. Deadly force is permitted to protect against certain crimes and when an intruder enters the person's home.

The Senate Judiciary Committee recommends passing the bill.

READ MORE
 
Idiotic article by a reporter trying to make partisan hay out of clover, and a couple of daft responses already. The bill does nothing more than clarify what should be an obvious exception to the state's brandishing law. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2010/HB0160.html

House has passed the exception 189-166, and the senate subcommittee gave it an OTP 5-0. It's bipartisan, it's going to pass, and if the governor vetoes this very limited bill, it'll just be that many more votes against him in the election.
 
Bump. Governor signed this law. It goes into effect Jan 1, 2011.

Well, that's ONE he didn't veto.
 
Interesting. While one could have justifiably discharged a gun when presented with a reasonable threat of serious bodily injury or death, it's now legal to NOT discharge the gun. Sad that a new law was required to defend deterrence, given that most defensive gun uses entail no gun discharge. But then again, I guess that's the point...

All-in-all, that's great!

But the next question is, what does case-law tell us, if anything, about potentail applications of this new law? The law is fine, but how has NH defined, in ruling on actual cases, a reasonabe person's interpretation of threat of serious bodily injury?
 
I read somewhere the three categories the person must fall in and display:

Before you shoot, Ability, opportunity, and jeopardy, the bad guy/gal must have them all to avoid legal jeopardy.

Ability: 6'4" 300lb vs. 150lb shrimp.
Opportunity: means that the circumstances are such that the other person would be able to use his ability against you.
Jeopardy: means that the other person's actions or words provide you with a reasonably-perceived belief that he intends to kill you or cripple you.

shrimp shows firearm and big man retreats
 
I read somewhere the three categories the person must fall in and display:

Before you shoot, Ability, opportunity, and jeopardy, the bad guy/gal must have them all to avoid legal jeopardy.

Ability: 6'4" 300lb vs. 150lb shrimp.
Opportunity: means that the circumstances are such that the other person would be able to use his ability against you.
Jeopardy: means that the other person's actions or words provide you with a reasonably-perceived belief that he intends to kill you or cripple you.

shrimp shows firearm and big man retreats


Instead of posting something you "read somewhere," go read the Law regarding the use of force in NH, specifically 627:4.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/RSA/html/LXII/627/627-mrg.htm
 
Back
Top Bottom