NH Senate Bill 88 - Castle Doctrine

Union Leader gets it WRONG!

"It allowed the use of deadly force anywhere one had the legal right to be, not just in one’s home or on one’s own property."
http://unionleader.com/article/20110715/OPINION01/707159995

NO NO NO NO NO!

It is ALREADY legal to use deadly force to protect yourself from deadly force anywhere you have a right to be! All this bill did was remove the duty to attempt retreat (if safe to do so). That's IT. It is ALREADY legal to defend yourself with deadly force and it has been since the state began.
 
SB88 passed both chambers with a veto proof majority as it was. Having a governor that sees that, and decides to be an asshat and veto it anyway, is the problem.

They will override unless anything super drastic happens.

The bigger thing is getting HB330 (2011/1s) passed veto proof and maybe adding "pointing" to SB88. Those are the BIG WINS for NH, and for the rest of the country too!
 
Last edited:
SB88 passed both chambers with a veto proof majority as it was. Having a governor that sees that, and decides to be an asshat and veto it anyway, is the problem.

Lynch only veto'd it in order to get the backing of the LEO organizations in the next election. He knew better than anybody that this law woud eventually pass.

It was purely a political move.
 
SB88 passed both chambers with a veto proof majority as it was. Having a governor that sees that, and decides to be an asshat and veto it anyway, is the problem.

They will override unless anything super drastic happens.

The bigger thing is getting HB330 (2011/1s) passed veto proof and maybe adding "pointing" to SB88. Those are the BIG WINS for NH, and for the rest of the country too!

Wait, if it was "veto proof", then why do they have to override it?




Lynch only veto'd it in order to get the backing of the LEO organizations in the next election. He knew better than anybody that this law woud eventually pass.

It was purely a political move.

OK. Why would LEO organizations be against this? Which organizations? How is this corrected?
 
Wait, if it was "veto proof", then why do they have to override it?
The procedure is this:

The legislative branch passes a bill. The executive signs it or repeals it. The legislature may then try to override the veto. To do so, they have to have another vote on the bill that passes with a 2/3rds majority in both houses. If less than 2/3rd of either house vote in favor, the override fails and the veto stands.

The fact that the bill passed both houses the first time around with a 2/3rds majority doesn't mean you can shortcut the override vote.
 
So then why bother saying it was "veto proof" in the first place?
It indicates that if it goes to a vote for an override, that it has a high likelihood of passing. The phrase "veto proof" is a bit of a misnomer. But chances are that a bill that passed with more than 2/3rds majority in both houses is going to get overridden if vetoed.
 
Oh. I thought by "veto proof", it meant what it said, and that it was ineligible for a veto and would just proceed forward. Thanks for 'splainin'.
 
As I do not live in the area, but I am considering it as a place to retire, I do not get "localized" news. So, does anyone know what the status of SB88 is?
I've tried to look it up.... I've googled it and all I get is past articles referring me here and other sites.
So, can anyone help with information???
Thanks
 
OK. Why would LEO organizations be against this? Which organizations? How is this corrected?

People defending themselves interferes with their ability to "empire build". There is no "cause celebre" for cranking up the police budget if a homeowner simply blows away a home invader. It also promotes an armed citzenry- and CLEOs would rather have their guys deal with everyone as unarmed sheep whenever possible. Some of it is just an image thing with these CLEOs. They wrongly believe that their agency is the tip of the spear against criminals, but that's often times a bunch of s**t. The community itself, the people in it- the potential victims, have the most ability to stop crime. These jerkwad CLEOs don't like it when the citizens upstage them.

I'll also add that it tends to be the brass/command types that are against the armed citizen more than the rank and file, although there are obviously exceptions to every rule.

-Mike
 
Just read the most recent in the concord monitor this morning. Hopefully, even though Lynch vetoed it, the vote to overturn his veto later this year will pass it.

It's funny, the AG stated that after Florida passed a similar law, the number of justifiable homicides tripled, citing this as one of the reasons he supports the veto. He states "We have seen states pass this law and we have seen it result in an increase in violence and an increase in the deaths of our citizens..."

What he seems to be ignoring, is that violence does NOT necessarily mean crime. What is happening IMO, is people are standing up and defending themselves, and one of the increases in 'deaths of out citizens' is probably criminals that are getting shot by would-be victims.

Nice to know that our Governor and Attorney General (and Chief Mara, cause we don't want him to be left out) have 'our best interests' in their hearts [rolleyes]
 
A page right out of Mayor Daley's book. Tour the city with an armed escort to show how safe it is. With a side of implicit intimidation.
 
... The Senate is set to vote to override Gov. John Lynch's veto of SB 88 on Sept. 7. The Senate bill passed the House by a vote of 283-89 and the Senate by 19-5 — both above the two-thirds majority required for an override. ...

...“Now they can't just start shooting. This (bill) allows them to just start shooting and that's what I'm afraid of,” added Mara, who is supported by Manchester Mayor Ted Gatsas, a Republican.

The comments by the chief and governor are idiotic at best, dangerous at worst. These are not the people needed to run NH!

Sept 7th - Let's get it done!
 
Last edited:
Since to Police Chief Assoc. and the Sheriff's Assoc., Don't support the law abiding citizens of New Hampshire, Maybe it is time that we don't support them or thier depts. Then tell the officers and Deputies why.
I bet a lot of the depts. use club ranges to train and qualify? Well if the clubs have any "Balls" they will tell the depts sorry no longer welcome here and this is why.

They will get the message real fast. The next step at every election or town meeting vote "no" on all police budgets.
They don't make the law, they answer to us.

I love this idea.
 

From the above link:

“Flashing a gun is clearly going to escalate the situation,” stressed New Boston Police Chief Chris Krajenka.

Krajenka’s concern is that in his small community there are limited police officers, and if a member of his force responds to a situation where two people have guns, it may be difficult to determine who is acting in self-defense and who is the criminal. With a backup police officer 20 minutes away, that could be serious, he said.

Krajenka is the guy who stole the guns from Jim at MFL. See:

New Boston Police Chief illegally takes firearms and

Petition calls for New Boston police chief's ouster

I totally agree with this:

Some of it is just an image thing with these CLEOs. They wrongly believe that their agency is the tip of the spear against criminals, but that's often times a bunch of s**t. The community itself, the people in it- the potential victims, have the most ability to stop crime. These jerkwad CLEOs don't like it when the citizens upstage them.

Krajenka's statement that in "...a situation where two people have guns, it may be difficult to determine who is acting in self-defense and who is the criminal" is way off base. It may work that way in the movies, but it's not real life. By the time his officer shows up, it's over.

I have friends who are police officers, and I understand that they have a difficult job to do. I respect the good ones, but Krajenka clearly has an overblown sense of his own importance.

It would be great to implement this in several New England states:

Since to Police Chief Assoc. and the Sheriff's Assoc., Don't support the law abiding citizens of New Hampshire, Maybe it is time that we don't support them or thier depts. Then tell the officers and Deputies why.
I bet a lot of the depts. use club ranges to train and qualify? Well if the clubs have any "Balls" they will tell the depts sorry no longer welcome here and this is why.
They will get the message real fast. The next step at every election or town meeting vote "no" on all police budgets.
They don't make the law, they answer to us.
 
There's a person on the UL comments suggesting this bill would give a trespasser the right to stand their ground and shoot a threatened homeowner. Not at all.
1) a trespasser has no right to be there once they have been told to leave - they must attempt retreat if safe to do so, even if criminally threatened
2) if they are the initial aggressor, they are totally outside the scope of these protections no matter what happens

I.e., in the Ward Bird case, SB88 would have done nothing to permit the trespasser any newly-legal violent actions.
 
Since to Police Chief Assoc. and the Sheriff's Assoc., Don't support the law abiding citizens of New Hampshire, Maybe it is time that we don't support them or thier depts. Then tell the officers and Deputies why.
I bet a lot of the depts. use club ranges to train and qualify? Well if the clubs have any "Balls" they will tell the depts sorry no longer welcome here and this is why.
They will get the message real fast. The next step at every election or town meeting vote "no" on all police budgets.
They don't make the law, they answer to us.

Add on some cameras in the station while you are at it: http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...rs-in-public?p=2018605&viewfull=1#post2018605
 
“Flashing a gun is clearly going to escalate the situation,” stressed New Boston Police Chief Chris Krajenka.

Lol in what world is that? Clearly going to DE-escalate the situation I would think unless they have a death wish... and in that case wish granted also.. so all +++ [smile]


annoys the crap out of me that the NRA fuxed up this bill... so close to constitutional carry.. and look at all the fighting, would of been nice to take care of all of it at once, instead of doing it all over again. [angry]
 
You need to somehow tie Krajenka's "advice" on this to his THEFT of firearms. Then make it quite clear to the press that the THIEF is the one advising on this matter. The people only need to see the truth, and they can figure out the rest for themselves!
 
Back
Top Bottom