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bad news for gun proponents was the 14-4 defeat of the so-called Constitutional carry bill (HB451) which would have repealed the license requirement for carrying a concealed pistol or revolver, like Vermont.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