NH Committee Passes Repeal of SYG

List with names and phone numbers:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/downloads/Members.xls

Fields and Valliancourt voted for the repeal...
-Design

Good News, Bad News For Gun Proponents

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2013 AT 04:50PM
As is often the case in life, there's some good news and some bad news today for the many people concerned about House Bill 135, the so-called stand your ground bill, and four other pieces of gun legislation considered by the Criminal Justice Committee.

As scorekeeper might deem it three for six--three wins; three losses for all concerned.

Good news for opponents of the bill is that two of the three sections have been deleted.

Bad news is that by a 12-6 vote, the House Criminal Justice Committee voted to pass the stripped down version of the bill.

Other good news for gun proponents is the 14-4 failure of Rep. Delmar Burridge's bill (HB290) which would have prohibited unlicensed persons from openly carrying a pistol or revolver in a public building.

Other good news for gun proponents is the 18-0 defeat of a bill (HB396) which would have established a committee to study requiring safety training or instruction prior to the purchase or acquisition of a firearm. We all felt this was simply not the role of government

Other bad news for gun proponents was the 14-4 defeat of the so-called Constitutional carry bill (HB451) which would have repealed the license requirement for carrying a concealed pistol or revolver, like Vermont.

Also, the committee was unanimous (18-0) in defeating the bill (HB609) which would have armed teachers. As I noted during the discussion, even the Union Leader came out against this idea, so the issue was never really in doubt.

Of course, any or all of the five bills could and probably will be debated on the House floor, but I wouldn't bet in favor of overturning the bipartisan committee recommendations.

You'll be reading this in all the media...if you haven't already, but what you will get first here is the official explanation of the House Bill 135 as it will appear in the House calendar, probably not next week but the week after.

The reason it's available here is because I wrote it; the amendment was mine. I'm sure many diehard conservatives will be livid with me, but try looking at it this way. This bill was going to pass the House anyway (the Senate, as always, is another matter). With this compromise, we eliminated two of the problematic sections of the bill.

I know, I know...no amount of compromise would satisfy those who wish to allege their rights are being taken away, but a compelling argument can be made (was made in fact and will be again) that we lived with this version of the bill for 34 years with no problems WHATSOEVER.

Note that I insisted that the section of the bill regarding the Ward Bird case be stripped out. That was part of the compromise.

Here's what you'll read here before any place else. Oh yes, all Democrats voted for the bill. Dennis Fields and I were the two Republicans voting for it. The two absent Reps (Republican Mark Warden and Democrat Tim Robertson) most likely would have followed party lines, so the vote would have been 13-7. As the author of the "blurb", I will be required to defend the position on the floor, and I am prepared to do that. This is a good compromise; not perfect but good.

House Bill 135

Ought To Pass As Amended

Vote 12-6

Rep. Steve Vaillancourt for the Majority of Criminal Justice: This bill, which has been a focus of much attention and a lengthy hearing in Reps Hall, came to the committee with three sections. The committee, in an attempt to reach compromise which balances rights and freedoms with safety interests of society, always a delicate balance, accepted an amendment which eliminates two of the three sections of the bill. All that remains is section one which repeals what is widely referred to as the stand your ground provision which was passed last year. This bill does not prevent anyone from owning or carrying guns. It simply takes us back to the practice that was in effect for more than three decades (and was never challenged in court) which affirms that a person is not justified in using deadly force on another if he or she can retreat from the encounter. Note that nothing about the bill prevents one from using deadly force if retreat is not deemed possible. Also note that the person is not required to retreat if the incident occurs on his or her private property. Thus, the castle doctrine is left intact. The committee believes a legitimate difference can and should be drawn between actions in defense of one’s home and actions in common or public areas. The committee amendment removes the controvertial section (two), referred to by some as the “brandishing” section in recognition of the Ward Bird case. In other words, what Ward Bird did in the famous case would still be legal because it was in regard to his own property. The committee, in concurrence with the sponsor, also removed section three which would have repealed a statute relative to civil immunity for the use of force. In other words, civil immunity will remain for those using force. Many reasons were stated for retaining section one of the bill, the most salient being that ours would be a safer society if people are not encouraged to use guns on the street as a first resort. Some committee members thought of times when they ran into problems on the street, problems which were resolved but could well have escalated had they or those around them attempted to draw weapons. The majority understands that some will not be happy with passage of even a single section of this bill, but the amendment should be seen as a compromise that most should be able to live with.

This is copied from Rep. Vaillancourts blog.
 
Not that it hasn't been said, but to everyone that says "I'll just move", NH laws will be the same as Mass laws no doubt. Bring the fight to them or even in Alaska you will have asinine gun laws.
 
Another fine solution looking for a problem.

On the bright side, there will be an electoral response to this.

I really wish people would stop ramming there fists down eachother's throat with government, it doesn't end well regardless of which party holds power. Democrats, elected and those doing the electing would be wise to consider that whatever powers, mandate and overreach you give "your guys" in power remains with the office when they are swept out.

So, the cycle continues and government expands to none of our benefit.
 
I love the MA apologists coming out of the wood work to further their cry-baby excuses as to why they live in a cesspool, with little to no knowledge of what is actually going on.
 
I'm considering moving back to NH because of the c*** known as Martha Coakley and her decision to not value life, liberty, or the value of protecting a persons family (Anthony McKay, as an example). IF some a**h*** attacks my family, and I defend my family, IDGAF if you have a badge on you.....get the **** off my property. I saved my kids, I don't need you to "verify it", and I don't need some ****ing c*** to validate it.

Any questions? Or do you want to test my "protect my family" conviction?....? Because if you're coming at me to arrest me for defending my family, you're not my friend............end of story
 
Last edited:
In 10 years or less NH will have similar gun laws that MA does. It really hurts to say it, but watching how the elections have been playing out in NH for the last decade, it is clearly going in the direction.

We have a constitutionally guaranteed right to rebellion against tyrannical government. I tend to think NH might use that right before we got that bad. Maybe...
 
Hey Design,

If you're not too busy next time you are at a house meeting would you be so kind as to tell Rep. Vallaincourt he can kiss my ass?

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
I grew up in NH in the 80-90's and that state has taken a down turn. I now live in MA and used to look to NH as the land of the free, but that was been slipping away. Remember the old bumper stickers "Welcome to NH, now get out."? Too many Ma**h***s settled in southern NH and brought their liberal beliefs up with them. I still can't believe the state voted for Obama. One of the posters is correct, MA style gun laws will hit NH, unless NH can get their stuff straight and return to their conservative roots.
 
Here's what I wrote to that politician Vaillancourt. I was so pissed writing that I couldn't hardly spell correctly, so it took a while to get it out. I borrowed cekim's point above about a solution looking for a problem.

It'd probably be a good idea to let him know what you think as well.

Mr. Vaillancourt,

I appreciate your attempts to compromise on the Stand Your Ground law which recently passed out of your committee.

However, I must express my displeasure at such compromise.

As a husband and father, I could not fathom forcing my wife and children to "run and hope for the best" if they were hiking in the woods and encountered a thug intent on rape and murder.

Your compromise puts their lives in greater danger.

I am very disappointed in your compromise between liberty protected by the documents you SWORE AN OATH to defend, and so-called public safety. Who's safety are you talking about? Because you sure as hell aren't talking about the safety of my wife and children.

Compromise means giving up something, and what you give up voting this out of committee is freedom and liberty so recently won for law abiding citizens of New Hampshire.

Listen to your constituents. Listen to your fellow New Hampshire residents. I ask that you please reconsider your position. Repealing the Stand Your Ground law is a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. All it does is drive NH closer to being North Mass.

Your fellow NH Resident,
noddaduma
Brookline, NH
 
Last edited:
No amount of compromise would satisfy those who wish to allege their rights are being taken away ? Are you implying they are not ? What some call "compromise" I call rolling over and pissing on yourself. Don't expect my support in the future.
List with names and phone numbers:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/downloads/Members.xls

Fields and Valliancourt voted for the repeal...
-Design

Good News, Bad News For Gun Proponents

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2013 AT 04:50PM
As is often the case in life, there's some good news and some bad news today for the many people concerned about House Bill 135, the so-called stand your ground bill, and four other pieces of gun legislation considered by the Criminal Justice Committee.

As scorekeeper might deem it three for six--three wins; three losses for all concerned.

Good news for opponents of the bill is that two of the three sections have been deleted.

Bad news is that by a 12-6 vote, the House Criminal Justice Committee voted to pass the stripped down version of the bill.

Other good news for gun proponents is the 14-4 failure of Rep. Delmar Burridge's bill (HB290) which would have prohibited unlicensed persons from openly carrying a pistol or revolver in a public building.

Other good news for gun proponents is the 18-0 defeat of a bill (HB396) which would have established a committee to study requiring safety training or instruction prior to the purchase or acquisition of a firearm. We all felt this was simply not the role of government

Other bad news for gun proponents was the 14-4 defeat of the so-called Constitutional carry bill (HB451) which would have repealed the license requirement for carrying a concealed pistol or revolver, like Vermont.

Also, the committee was unanimous (18-0) in defeating the bill (HB609) which would have armed teachers. As I noted during the discussion, even the Union Leader came out against this idea, so the issue was never really in doubt.

Of course, any or all of the five bills could and probably will be debated on the House floor, but I wouldn't bet in favor of overturning the bipartisan committee recommendations.

You'll be reading this in all the media...if you haven't already, but what you will get first here is the official explanation of the House Bill 135 as it will appear in the House calendar, probably not next week but the week after.

The reason it's available here is because I wrote it; the amendment was mine. I'm sure many diehard conservatives will be livid with me, but try looking at it this way. This bill was going to pass the House anyway (the Senate, as always, is another matter). With this compromise, we eliminated two of the problematic sections of the bill.

I know, I know...no amount of compromise would satisfy those who wish to allege their rights are being taken away, but a compelling argument can be made (was made in fact and will be again) that we lived with this version of the bill for 34 years with no problems WHATSOEVER.

Note that I insisted that the section of the bill regarding the Ward Bird case be stripped out. That was part of the compromise.

Here's what you'll read here before any place else. Oh yes, all Democrats voted for the bill. Dennis Fields and I were the two Republicans voting for it. The two absent Reps (Republican Mark Warden and Democrat Tim Robertson) most likely would have followed party lines, so the vote would have been 13-7. As the author of the "blurb", I will be required to defend the position on the floor, and I am prepared to do that. This is a good compromise; not perfect but good.

House Bill 135

Ought To Pass As Amended

Vote 12-6

Rep. Steve Vaillancourt for the Majority of Criminal Justice: This bill, which has been a focus of much attention and a lengthy hearing in Reps Hall, came to the committee with three sections. The committee, in an attempt to reach compromise which balances rights and freedoms with safety interests of society, always a delicate balance, accepted an amendment which eliminates two of the three sections of the bill. All that remains is section one which repeals what is widely referred to as the stand your ground provision which was passed last year. This bill does not prevent anyone from owning or carrying guns. It simply takes us back to the practice that was in effect for more than three decades (and was never challenged in court) which affirms that a person is not justified in using deadly force on another if he or she can retreat from the encounter. Note that nothing about the bill prevents one from using deadly force if retreat is not deemed possible. Also note that the person is not required to retreat if the incident occurs on his or her private property. Thus, the castle doctrine is left intact. The committee believes a legitimate difference can and should be drawn between actions in defense of one’s home and actions in common or public areas. The committee amendment removes the controvertial section (two), referred to by some as the “brandishing” section in recognition of the Ward Bird case. In other words, what Ward Bird did in the famous case would still be legal because it was in regard to his own property. The committee, in concurrence with the sponsor, also removed section three which would have repealed a statute relative to civil immunity for the use of force. In other words, civil immunity will remain for those using force. Many reasons were stated for retaining section one of the bill, the most salient being that ours would be a safer society if people are not encouraged to use guns on the street as a first resort. Some committee members thought of times when they ran into problems on the street, problems which were resolved but could well have escalated had they or those around them attempted to draw weapons. The majority understands that some will not be happy with passage of even a single section of this bill, but the amendment should be seen as a compromise that most should be able to live with.

This is copied from Rep. Vaillancourts blog.
 
Whoa.....you think because there was a bad vote in committee that MA is now some sort of utopia?

It makes it easier to justify living in MA when "NH ain't much better" regardless of how untrue that actually is.

Srsly, you guys can keep it, I will post pictures of all the good shit I will be doing next year when move up there.
 
I can still shoot people on my property without fear of losing my right to carry for being deemed "unsuitable" even thought I haven't been charged with a crime

Hell, I can take the dog out in the yard or answer the door to collect GS cookies with a .45 plainly visible on my hip and not worry about having my civil rights stripped for being unsuitable. New Hampshire is not a libertarian haven nor is it clearly the "best" of the 50 (not 57!!) options, but it is a damn sight better than MA.
 
I think there are a lot of states out there, that at any moment could go south. NH is obviously much better than MA as far as gun laws, could it stay that way forever? I wouldn't be too sure.
 
MA laws are traveling at mach 10 towards tyranny and NH has had a minor setback in committee no less and he figures staying in MA is better

First off, I NEVER said MA is better than NH. And I would NEVER say that staying in MA is better (unless NY or CA is the other option).

I simply stated that NH is moving towards the liberal side based on election results over the past decade. And if you take into consideration the people migrating from MA into NH recently, it looks even worse. It always seems the liberal leave their home state and move to another for the "freedoms" they desire, but then vote the same way they used to vote in their previous state. Why? Because they are mostly morons.

I feel NE as a whole may be lost along with the west coast. The only place for us to go to is the midwest/south.

I feel a new civil war is coming. Not only because of gun rights, but also the sharp divide in politics. And the Red states will have all the guns :)
 
I think there are a lot of states out there, that at any moment could go south. NH is obviously much better than MA as far as gun laws, could it stay that way forever? I wouldn't be too sure.

There is a lot more then gun laws, I wouldn't be so narrow minded. I will likely save 3-5k a year in taxes even with a doubling in property taxes of what I pay now.
 
I think there are a lot of states out there, that at any moment could go south. NH is obviously much better than MA as far as gun laws, could it stay that way forever? I wouldn't be too sure.
If push comes to shove I think the people of NH with the Bill Of Rights on their side will keep it that way. Ma. has already exposed their buttocks to their masters.
 
I think there are a lot of states out there, that at any moment could go south. NH is obviously much better than MA as far as gun laws, could it stay that way forever? I wouldn't be too sure.

There is NOWHERE where you are "safe." That is life. Busybodies come in all flavors and there seems to be an endless supply.

All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing is a truth that is geographically universal.
 
There is a lot more then gun laws, I wouldn't be so narrow minded. I will likely save 3-5k a year in taxes even with a doubling in property taxes of what I pay now.

Well that is why I said only gun laws.

There is NOWHERE where you are "safe." That is life. Busybodies come in all flavors and there seems to be an endless supply.

All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing is a truth that is geographically universal.

Very true.

- - - Updated - - -

Not to mention I got this in my back yard.... Na, na, na.na nah!View attachment 56791

Point proven. [laugh]
 
There is NOWHERE where you are "safe." That is life. Busybodies come in all flavors and there seems to be an endless supply.

All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing is a truth that is geographically universal.
Not to mention thes is another fine law punishing victims of violent crimes.
 
Design,

I am crushed that you of all people would compromise on firearm rights. The times I have spoke with you, you seemed to be a intelligent man and voice for our right to self-defense. You putting this bill forward saddens me. Just last Saturday, not even a week, you broke bread with some of us. It was NEVER mentioned when I asked you what the chances were for these bills that you were going to write this amended bill. Why? Also, I see that you are a member of the NH Firearms Coalition. To be fair to the members of this coalition, you should permanently resign your officer post there, seeing that you have compromised and the NHFC mantra is " the only no compromise firearms organization in NH".
I also don't understand why you would write that bill seeing that this bill still would need to make it through the Senate, where the Republicants still have a slim majority. Did you have "inside information" that would conclude you to think HB135 would be voted to pass by the Senate?


EDIT:I reread design's post and Vaillancourt's blog. With that being said, I am truly sorry Mr. Hoell for my pointed remarks aimed at you. It was, in fact, reading comprehension fail on my part.
 
Last edited:
Design,

I am crushed that you of all people would compromise on firearm rights. The times I have spoke with you, you seemed to be a intelligent man and voice for our right to self-defense. You putting this bill forward saddens me. Just last Saturday, not even a week, you broke bread with some of us. It was NEVER mentioned when I asked you what the chances were for these bills that you were going to write this amended bill. Why? Also, I see that you are a member of the NH Firearms Coalition. To be fair to the members of this coalition, you should permanently resign your officer post there, seeing that you have compromised and the NHFC mantra is " the only no compromise firearms organization in NH".
I also don't understand why you would write that bill seeing that this bill still would need to make it through the Senate, where the Republicants still have a slim majority. Did you have "inside information" that would conclude you to think HB135 would be voted to pass by the Senate?

This ! +1
 
Design,

I am crushed that you of all people would compromise on firearm rights. The times I have spoke with you, you seemed to be a intelligent man and voice for our right to self-defense. You putting this bill forward saddens me. Just last Saturday, not even a week, you broke bread with some of us. It was NEVER mentioned when I asked you what the chances were for these bills that you were going to write this amended bill. Why? Also, I see that you are a member of the NH Firearms Coalition. To be fair to the members of this coalition, you should permanently resign your officer post there, seeing that you have compromised and the NHFC mantra is " the only no compromise firearms organization in NH".
I also don't understand why you would write that bill seeing that this bill still would need to make it through the Senate, where the Republicants still have a slim majority. Did you have "inside information" that would conclude you to think HB135 would be voted to pass by the Senate?

He was quoting vallaincourt
 
Back
Top Bottom