• 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.

NH: Public Hearing to REMOVE the right to self-defense (01/22/13)

shemdogg

shemdogg

Joined
Feb 1, 2009
Messages
538
Likes
129
Location
Plaistow, LFOD
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC SAFETY, Room 204, Legislative Office Building behind the NH State House

Please share !!

TUESDAY, JANUARY 22
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC SAFETY, Room 204, LOB
1:30 p.m. HB 135, relative to physical force in defense of a person and relative to the definition of non-deadly force.

Representative Stephen Shurtleff says it is OK for you to want to protect yourself or your children as long as you are at home....criminals on the street have a great right to life than you and yours!

The Second Amendment Sisters will be there....will you?

Can't be there...send them your message:

[email protected]
 
When making a thread like this, it would be nice if you posted a link or some kind of source that way every person that reads it doesn't get sent on a research mission. It's frustrating.
 
The recent court case involving Chicago ruled that the right to self protection extends beyond the home! Send the douche bag a copy of the decision!
 
Be sure to sign the blue sheet opposing this bill. Take photographs of the blue sheet and post so we know what reps sign-in in favor of this bill. Those reps need to be exposed.
Design
 
Guys, please hold the line here, I am working my ass off to be able to move by the end of the year. NH makes it easy, don't let them have an inch.
 
SR556 said:
How do we know it's to further restrict the use of deadly force?
Click to expand...

Because the text of the bill tells us so:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2013/HB0135.html

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.
Click to expand...

Current law that will be affected if this thing passes:

627:1-a Civil Immunity. – A person who uses force in self-protection or in the protection of other persons pursuant to RSA 627:4, in the protection of premises and property pursuant to RSA 627:7 and 627:8, in law enforcement pursuant to RSA 627:5, or in the care or welfare of a minor pursuant to RSA 627:6, is justified in using such force and shall be immune from civil liability for personal injuries sustained by a perpetrator which were caused by the acts or omissions of the person as a result of the use of force. In a civil action initiated by or on behalf of a perpetrator against the person, the court shall award the person reasonable attorney's fees, and costs, including but not limited to, expert witness fees, court costs, and compensation for loss of income.
Click to expand...

627:4 Physical Force in Defense of a Person. –
I. A person is justified in using non-deadly force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful, non-deadly force by such other person, and he may use a degree of such force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose. However, such force is not justifiable if:
(a) With a purpose to cause physical harm to another person, he provoked the use of unlawful, non-deadly force by such other person; or
(b) He was the initial aggressor, unless after such aggression he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so, but the latter notwithstanding continues the use or threat of unlawful, non-deadly force; or
(c) The force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not authorized by law.
II. A person is justified in using deadly force upon another person when he reasonably believes that such other person:
(a) Is about to use unlawful, deadly force against the actor or a third person;
(b) Is likely to use any unlawful force against a person present while committing or attempting to commit a burglary;
(c) Is committing or about to commit kidnapping or a forcible sex offense; or
(d) Is likely to use any unlawful force in the commission of a felony against the actor within such actor's dwelling or its curtilage.
II-a. A person who responds to a threat which would be considered by a reasonable person as likely to cause serious bodily injury or death to the person or to another by displaying a firearm or other means of self-defense with the intent to warn away the person making the threat shall not have committed a criminal act.
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, 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.
Click to expand...
 
This is from the NRA ILA to help:

NRA ILA EMAIL ALERT said:
On Tuesday, January 22 at 1:30 p.m., the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee will hear House Bill 135. This misguided legislation, introduced by state Representative Stephen Shurtleff (D- Merrimack 11), drastically infringes on your inherent right to self-defense by repealing important self-defense provisions enacted in 2011.

In 2011, Senate Bill 88 restored the right to self-defense in New Hampshire with broad bipartisan support and established that law-abiding citizens have the right to defend themselves and a third party from assault wherever they have the legal right to be. However, HB 135, if passed and enacted, would eradicate the aforementioned protections for law-abiding citizens acting in self-defense.

HB 135 would make the following changes to New Hampshire’s current self-defense laws:

1) Eliminates the provision that allows a person to use deadly force anywhere he or she has a legal right to be. This limits an individual’s ability to defend themselves or third party from assault to their own place of residence.

2) Amends the definition of non-deadly force by removing the provision that specifies the act of producing or displaying a weapon is considered non-deadly force. Thus, drawing or exhibiting your firearm to intimidate a perpetrator could be considered deadly force.

3) Repeals the provision granting civil immunity for the use of force in certain circumstances. The elimination of this provision removes legal protections for law abiding citizens acting in self-defense.
This legislation is a step in the wrong direction for New Hampshire. HB 135 severely encroaches on your inherent right to self-defense and will render law-abiding citizens and their loved ones defenseless victims.

Please contact members of the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee TODAY and urge them to reject this imprudent legislation that will put you and your loved ones at risk. Contact information can be found below:
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 603-271-3184
Click to expand...
 
hey if you're in the area early

Protect Voter Registration & Oppose HB 119
Tuesday
11:00am
ELECTION LAW COMITTEE, Room 308, Legislative Office Building behind the NH State House, Concord, NH

Claiming DOMICILE must be equivalent to claiming RESIDENCY.

Otherwise, non-Residents will be able to vote in New Hampshire state and local elections without being subject to the laws that govern state residents, including local and state taxes and fees.

They will have Representation without Taxation.

Giving the vote to out-of-state Residents will eliminate NH state sovereignty. State and local self-government will for all practical purposes cease to exist in New Hampshire.

https://www.facebook.com/events/412795638795606/?ref=2
Click to expand...
 
I'm also not up there yet - by end of the year, I hope. Neither rep (Brown from Sugar Hill, and Floterial Bailey from Monroe) is on the committee. Given I'm still an out-of-stater, will I even be heard? Is it worth the time to contact them, let alone the committee?
 
Emailed to the committee this very brief message:

My name is <name> and I am a resident of <town>, NH. I am writing to urge you to REJECT House Bill 135 and all other legislation that seeks to infringe upon the right of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves from life-threatening attack in ANY place they legally have a right to be. Efforts like these are misguided at best and immoral at worst, do nothing to impede criminals, and only make lawful citizens more unsafe.

Sincerely,
<name>
 
I added a little bit, to my email, with some wording taken from the NRA ILA alert. :



Regarding the scheduled Jan 22 hearing on House Bill 135:


My name is < > and I am a resident of < >, NH.

I am writing to urge you to REJECT House Bill 135 and all other legislation that seeks to infringe upon the right of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves from life-threatening attack in ANY place they legally have a right to be.

Efforts like these are misguided at best and immoral at worst, do nothing to impede criminals, and only make lawful citizens more unsafe.

This misguided legislation ( House Bill 135) , introduced by state Representative Stephen Shurtleff (D- Merrimack 11), drastically infringes on our inherent right to self-defense by repealing important self-defense provisions enacted in 2011.

In 2011, Senate Bill 88 restored the right to self-defense in New Hampshire with broad bipartisan support and established that law-abiding citizens have the right to defend themselves and a third party from assault wherever they have the legal right to be. However, HB 135, if passed and enacted, would eradicate the aforementioned protections for law-abiding citizens acting in self-defense.

I sincerely ask that you please vote against this bill, and to work to kill this in committee. I assume the record of voting in this Jan 22 hearing will be a public record available for review, correct ?

Sincerely,
< >
 
Email to the committee sent.


Dear committee members,

It has come to my attention that HB135 is scheduled for debate tomorrow, Tuesday January 22, 2013. This bill is a step backwards and would only encourage rapists and other miscreants to go after women and other easy prey since they would have to run away before they could fight back. It also removed the civil lawsuit immunity section of Chapter 627. Now that immunity from civil suit only applies if a district attorney has determined that a person was justified in using deadly force. If they were not justified, they would be facing criminal charges and be subject to lawsuit in civil court.

Keep in mind, unlike Massachusetts, legislators in NH are not a protected class and these laws apply to YOU as well as me. So remember that, because if a crazed person or persons decided to perform a home invasion against you and you wound of kill him in self defense, him or his next of kin can BANKRUPT you in legal fees through the civil courts if this is not ruled inexpedient to legislate.

I happen to agree with the brandishing aspect of the law as written but I can see where it can cause contention. So, if you think the brandishing part of the law should be changed, tell Rep. Shurtleff to file a bill that affects only that portion of the law. The other two parts mentioned here are vital to ensuring a law abiding citizen is not turned into a felon for defending themselves and is not bankrupted by criminals.

Criminals should fear me because I can legally defend myself. I should not have to fear them because the law prevents me from defending myself. England has done that to their citizens. There is a reason this state is called NEW Hampshire, because we believe in individual rights and responsibility.

This bill, HB135 should be voted ITL. I'm a registered voter, I vote, and I belong to a site that sees 28,000 NH visitors a month. I can provide good publicity on how the members of this committee vote or bad. What kind of publicity I publish is entirely in your hands.

Best regards,

soloman02
 
we need people to get on the state house grounds around noon with signs. From this point forward we need every effort to take our rights to first be met with protest as we work to exhaust every civil form of resistance we have until they try and take that away. Use the system in every way we can. Once that fails break the glass, read Art 10 of the NH Constitution then pray.
 
I was hoping to make it today but just found out that I need to be be at work for a presentation at a board meeting...why didn't I know about this presentation yesterday...[angry]...I swear, there are people in this company that couldn't organize a one man parade.

I did email off a letter this morning though...This will be in my thoughts all day.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Pennsylvania Court Upholds Right of Young People to Carry Guns in Public
Replies
6
Views
204
Coyote33
Coyote33
Californians Arming Up for Self-Defense as Illegals Flood into Cities
Replies
23
Views
431
mothybee
mothybee
SWAT team responding to Arkansas shopping mall, police ask public to avoid the area: Officials called it “an incident that is active"
Replies
5
Views
219
TJ4
T
How to Remove a Mark IV 22/45 Barrel
Replies
9
Views
386
Supermoto
Supermoto
Fact Check: Brady Campaign Falsely Claims Guns ‘Are Rarely Used Successfully in Self-Defense’
Replies
0
Views
37
Reptile
Reptile
Back
Top Bottom