Thank you for writing me about this issue. There has been some misunderstanding and misinformation about HB 135.
Fortunately, HB 135 as amended does not take away one's right to self-defense or prohibit one from using deadly force in defense of another. If you are in a public place and know that you cannot retreat with 100% certainty of safety to yourself or a third party, you are justified in using deadly force. HB 135 as amended does, in fact, return us to the self defense standard that was law in New Hampshire for more than three decades. The current standard was enacted during the past biennium despite objection from most law enforcement agencies and the veto of Governor Lynch.
HB 135 does NOT:
Prevent anyone from owning or carrying guns.
Deny the right to defend one’s self, family or property from harm or robbery.
Prohibit the use of deadly force anywhere a person has a legal right to be.
Force anyone to turn and run from an attack.
Stop someone from brandishing a weapon to stop another person from being attacked.
Require a victim to prove to the police that they could retreat in complete safety.
Change the practices of responsible gun owners as they already think before they shoot.
I have include below the Committee report, the original text of the bill and the proposed amendment to the bill. Again, I thank you for your interest and your email. It is appreciated.
The NH House will likely take up HB135 during session, today.
Sincerely,
Shannon Chandley
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC SAFETY
HB 135, relative to physical force in defense of a person and relative to the definition of non-deadly force. MAJORITY: OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT. MINORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE. Rep. Steve Vaillancourt for the Majority of Criminal Justice and Public Safety: 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 of freedom 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 controversial 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. Vote 12-6.
Rep. Kyle J Tasker for the Minority of Criminal Justice and Public Safety: The minority feels this bill has no demonstrable merit and it would be foolish to change the law every two years without giving current law a chance to demonstrate results. This body is not so fickle as to remove a right once granted.
135 – AS INTRODUCED
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Thirteen
AN ACT
relative to physical force in defense of a person and relative to the definition of non-deadly force.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 Physical Force in Defense of a Person. Amend RSA 627:4, III to read as follows:
III. A person is not justified in using deadly force on another to defend himself or herself or a third person from deadly force by the other if he or she knows that he or she and the third person
can, with complete safety:
(a) Retreat from the encounter, except that he or she is not required to retreat if he or
she is within his or her dwelling[,] or its curtilage, [or anywhere he or she has a right to be,] and was not the initial aggressor; or
(b) Surrender property to a person asserting a claim of right thereto; or
(c) Comply with a demand that he or she abstain from performing an act which he or she is not obliged to perform; nor is the use of deadly force justifiable when, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, the person has provoked the use of force against himself or herself in the same encounter; or
(d) If he or she is a law enforcement officer or a private person assisting the officer at the officer's direction and was acting pursuant to RSA 627:5, the person need not retreat.
2 Justification; Definition of Non-deadly Force. Amend RSA 627:9, IV to read as follows:
IV. “Non-deadly force” means any assault or confinement which does not constitute deadly
force. [The act of producing or displaying a weapon shall constitute non-deadly force.]
3 Repeal. RSA 627:1-a, relative to civil immunity for the use of force, is repealed.
4 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.
