I had heard this was going to be voted on today. Does anyone know the status of SB 88? In commitee Senator Luther got an amendment added that said, “A person is not justified in using deadly force on another to defend himself or herself or a third person from deadly force that he or she provoked.” Although I'm sure the intentions were in good faith, but unless they define what "provoked" means the bill would not be enacted with the original intent of the law. I was hoping this would get changed before the vote scheduled for today. Anyone heard anything?
-
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 Senate Bill 88 - Castle Doctrine
- Thread starter Airwolfe1
- Start date
New Hampshire: Castle Doctrine Legislation Sabotaged in Senate Judiciary Committee
Senate Bill 88, introduced by state Senator David Boutin (R-16) would remove the duty to retreat and allow law-abiding citizens to use force, including deadly force, against an attacker in their home and any place outside of their home.
However last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee agreed to an amendment, offered by Senator Jim Luther (R-12), which could inadvertently put a victim’s life in jeopardy. The amendment approved by the committee states: “A person is not justified in using deadly force on another to defend himself or herself or a third person from deadly force that he or she provoked.” Clearly, the term “provoked” is too broad and sets the stage for victims having to defend themselves for a second time in the courtroom.
Please contact your state Senator today and urge him or her to restore the fundamental right to self-defense by voting “NO” on the Luther amendment to Senate Bill 88. For contact information for your state Senator or help identifying your state Senator, please click here.
This alert is posted to www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6510
Senate Bill 88, introduced by state Senator David Boutin (R-16) would remove the duty to retreat and allow law-abiding citizens to use force, including deadly force, against an attacker in their home and any place outside of their home.
However last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee agreed to an amendment, offered by Senator Jim Luther (R-12), which could inadvertently put a victim’s life in jeopardy. The amendment approved by the committee states: “A person is not justified in using deadly force on another to defend himself or herself or a third person from deadly force that he or she provoked.” Clearly, the term “provoked” is too broad and sets the stage for victims having to defend themselves for a second time in the courtroom.
Please contact your state Senator today and urge him or her to restore the fundamental right to self-defense by voting “NO” on the Luther amendment to Senate Bill 88. For contact information for your state Senator or help identifying your state Senator, please click here.
This alert is posted to www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6510
Here's the final version as amended on 03/30/11 1310s.
So if you accidently bump into the 300lb MMA athlete and spill your coffee on him and he starts beating the crap out of you, did you provoke it? That's my only gripe about this, how do you determine what is "Provoked"?
I'm also pleased that if you feel threatened you can brandish as a means to de-escalate and not be charged with crimminal threatening. Of course if you do brandish, this should not be interpretted as not needing to call 911 to report it.
So if you accidently bump into the 300lb MMA athlete and spill your coffee on him and he starts beating the crap out of you, did you provoke it? That's my only gripe about this, how do you determine what is "Provoked"?
I'm also pleased that if you feel threatened you can brandish as a means to de-escalate and not be charged with crimminal threatening. Of course if you do brandish, this should not be interpretted as not needing to call 911 to report it.
Twigg
NES Member
Sounds clear enough for me. One needs to be cautious when defining things within the boundaries of the law. We could wind up with "laws" definiing what we are permitted to do - much like the laws do in Massachusetts.
The last thing I want to hear from anyone in NH gubbermint is "I can find no law to permit this."
![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
Looks like they removed that amendment,received this from NRA-ILA this morning.
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6535
"The NRA is pleased to report that the Committee Amendment was voted down on the Senate floor and SB 88 was passed by a vote of 17 to 7 on March 30. SB 88 will now move to the state House of Representatives for their consideration.
Introduced by state Senator David Boutin (R-16), SB 88 would remove the duty to retreat and allow law-abiding citizens to use force, including deadly force, against an attacker in their home and any place outside of their home"
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6535
"The NRA is pleased to report that the Committee Amendment was voted down on the Senate floor and SB 88 was passed by a vote of 17 to 7 on March 30. SB 88 will now move to the state House of Representatives for their consideration.
Introduced by state Senator David Boutin (R-16), SB 88 would remove the duty to retreat and allow law-abiding citizens to use force, including deadly force, against an attacker in their home and any place outside of their home"
Last edited:
Glad to see this one played out like it did. It still amazes me that good, common sense can prevail in a state legislature. In California (where I lived before moving here), a bill like this would have been amended into eliminating Castle Doctrine entirely, passed the same day and then signed before you woke up in the morning.
strangenh
NES Member
Interesting. SB88 flat out deletes the duty to retreat. The added language was extra-stupid because it introduced new terms that are not currently defined or tested in court (currently the RSAs use the phrase, "was not the initial aggressor" -- not "provoked"). Why someone would want to "fix" the bill with new language instead of just using "was not the initial aggressor" which has been in NH law... forever... is beyond me - unless of course they were indeed trying to torpedo it.
The other thing SB88 does is try to clean up self-defense law where one draws but doesn't fire... but there the original bill itself uses terms that DO NOT EXIST ANYWHERE IN THE RSAs, without defining them ("brandish" simply is nowhere in the RSAs).
On the other hand, HB210 simply tweaks our existing law by adding "or in any place where he or she has a right to be or reasonably believed he or she had a right to be" to the already well-defined exception to the duty to retreat in RSA 627:4. Slam dunk.
I hope they find a way to merge them or clean them up, because tossing around whole new legal terms has consequences. HB210 is clean and ready to rock without being a test case generator.
The other thing SB88 does is try to clean up self-defense law where one draws but doesn't fire... but there the original bill itself uses terms that DO NOT EXIST ANYWHERE IN THE RSAs, without defining them ("brandish" simply is nowhere in the RSAs).
On the other hand, HB210 simply tweaks our existing law by adding "or in any place where he or she has a right to be or reasonably believed he or she had a right to be" to the already well-defined exception to the duty to retreat in RSA 627:4. Slam dunk.
I hope they find a way to merge them or clean them up, because tossing around whole new legal terms has consequences. HB210 is clean and ready to rock without being a test case generator.
strangenh
NES Member
Hunh. Reading SB88 more, I'm not really sure what the point of most of it is, except as a compromise to ensure the removal of the duty to retreat passes. Got to say I like HB210 a lot better.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2010
- Messages
- 513
- Likes
- 74
One thing I miss about California is the ability for folks to identify sarcasm mixed with a bit of humor. Also, I've got to say, New Hampshire has the worst and most inconsiderate drivers I have ever been around. It's "Live free or die", not, "Live free and kill everyone else around you".
Just moved here from the LA area, and i must agree. People love to pull out infront of me randomly at full speed :-(
That said, i went to a gun show here locally, and dear jebus my wallet hated me after..
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2010
- Messages
- 513
- Likes
- 74
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2010
- Messages
- 513
- Likes
- 74
Quote from the minority report on this page; http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/caljourns/calendars/2011/houcal2011_43.html
While explaining 'concerns' about SB88 they included something interesting about their concept of inalienable rights, among other issues, " it eliminates a source of income for municipalities that places a very small burden on those paying the fees; "
Not to mention the fact that their primary concern is probably the loss of revenue taken from individuals exercising their constitutional rights, they think that you should have to pay to exercise your constitutional rights. Not a bad thing to keep in mind when deciding who gets your vote during the next election.
And, as far as them suggesting that amatuers don't have the training necessary to know when/how to handle a gun or weapon and shouldn't be allowed the option to retreat rather than having a DUTY to retreat, since when do you need training to exercise your right to self-defense? Again, not a bad thing to remember...
While explaining 'concerns' about SB88 they included something interesting about their concept of inalienable rights, among other issues, " it eliminates a source of income for municipalities that places a very small burden on those paying the fees; "
Not to mention the fact that their primary concern is probably the loss of revenue taken from individuals exercising their constitutional rights, they think that you should have to pay to exercise your constitutional rights. Not a bad thing to keep in mind when deciding who gets your vote during the next election.
And, as far as them suggesting that amatuers don't have the training necessary to know when/how to handle a gun or weapon and shouldn't be allowed the option to retreat rather than having a DUTY to retreat, since when do you need training to exercise your right to self-defense? Again, not a bad thing to remember...
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2010
- Messages
- 513
- Likes
- 74
Looks like SB88 has passed the House. And, it appears to have been done with greater than a 2/3 majority.
From this point, does the bill need to go back to the senate for a confirmation vote before going to the governor since amendments were added?
From this point, does the bill need to go back to the senate for a confirmation vote before going to the governor since amendments were added?
Yes, it came out of committee of conference without HB330 attached (CCC) and passed/adopted by both Senate and House.
Next step is to Gov. Lynch for a veto, and then back to the House/Senate for a veto override vote since it passed with a super majority in both senate/house.
Next step would be to get HB 330 passed next session and to quickly remove Gov Lynch from office so they don't need to play Veto lottery every time.
Next step is to Gov. Lynch for a veto, and then back to the House/Senate for a veto override vote since it passed with a super majority in both senate/house.
Next step would be to get HB 330 passed next session and to quickly remove Gov Lynch from office so they don't need to play Veto lottery every time.
Hmmmmmm.....maybe we can get that changed though.
So Lynch vetoed the Bill. It passed both houses by a super majority. What happens now? Do our legislators have to vote on it to override the Veto or does it just become law anyway because it already passed both houses with a super majority?What happens next?
What happens now.... is the townspeople march upon the capital with pitch forks demanding the ouster of the official for continuing to clearly act in a manner inconsistent of the people's wishes which he serves.
....
Oh ya, reality... sorry I was whisked away in a dream land of white horses and princesses..
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
Veto override vote in a special session. More tax payer dollars wasted and more delay.
