New Hampshire Democrats pass Protect Criminals act

Good day all. This headline is a bit misleading, but only a bit. Yesterday, the New Hampshire House of Representatives passed HB 135 and sent it to the State Senate. This bill is designed to repeal the “Stand Your Ground law that was passed in 2011.

The vote was surprisingly close, considering the house went Democrat in the 2012 election. The vote was 186 Democrats and three Republicans favoring repeal; 167 Republicans and 17 Democrats opposed repeal. I have a feeling those three “Republicans” are going to see some primary challengers next year. The bill now moves on to the State Senate which is held by the Republicans.

The reason “Claimed” by the ProgNazis for repealing it was that it “Virtually legalized murder.” In a commentary by the Concord Monitor:

The New Hampshire House passed by a 189 – 184 vote on Wednesday, March 27 a bill (HB 135) to repeal the controversial Stand Your Ground law which had been in place since 2011. Passage of this bill gives new momentum to those supporting new gun safety regulations.

Suppose two people argue, and one shoots and kills the other. If there are no witnesses, the shooter can be acquitted simply by claiming that he felt threatened. The dead man can’t dispute that claim. Murders in Florida had increased 8 percent following passage of its Stand Your Ground law.

The Concord Monitor is a hard left newspaper, and I use the term “News” advisedly. They have long toed the ProgNazi line and have supported every single move to suppress the constitutional rights of individual Americans. On the other side is the Manchester Union Leader, a newspaper that makes no bones about where they stand. (Unlike Progressive Liberals who lie through their teeth) They reported on the actual debate. Here are some of the details.

The House Wednesday narrowly voted to repeal the controversial “stand your ground” law passed by the Republican-dominated Legislature last year over the veto of former Gov. John Lynch.

The 189-184 roll call sends the bill to the state Senate, where the GOP holds a 13-11 majority and its fate is uncertain. The House then voted against reconsidering the bill, 198-175.

Current law allows for the use of deadly force if a victim “reasonably believes” deadly force is about to be used against him. Such force can be used wherever the victim encounters a perceived attacker.

Now I haven’t heard of to many, or in fact any uses of the Stand your ground defense in the two years the law has been in effect. As to the Concord Monitor’s claim that murders in Florida increased 8%, the provide no citations. In fact, everything I’ve heard or seen has indicated that crime in areas that protect the rights of the people has actually dropped. Getting back to the Union Leader story:

In more than 90 minutes of debate, House Majority Leader Steve Shurtleff, D-Penacook, said repeal foes released “a big black cloud of misinformation and disinformation” about the bill.

He said it is a “lie” that one cannot use deadly force to protect himself in his home.

“This bill has nothing to do with the ‘Castle Doctrine’ and you still have the right to use force, including deadly force, to protect it,” said Shurtleff.

“This bill is simply the (law) that was in effect in the State of New Hampshire from 1977 to 2011,” he said. “If you’re in a confrontation and you know with 100 percent certainty you can retreat, you should,” Shurtleff said. “If you’re not, you can use deadly force.

Now Comrade Shurtleff has missed the point of the Stand your ground laws. The whole point is, why should I be forced to retreat from an area I have every legal right to be in when confronted by a criminal? The classic case right now is the George Zimmerman case in Florida. Without revisiting the whole thing, Zimmerman was attacked by Trevayne Martin and nearly beaten to death when he drew and fired his legally carried pistol. Martin was killed instead. To continue the Union Leader story:

But Rep. J.R. Hoell, R-Dunbarton, said that while the bill allows one to defend himself with deadly force in his home, but not unquestionably in public, “The vast majority of the attacks are in the public domain.”

Rep. Debra DeSimone, R-Atkinson, said the repeal bill removes “my freedom to protect myself and my children on a public street and gives that freedom only to the perpetrator.”

Rep. Al Baldasaro, R-Londonderry, said, “Our friends (the Democrats) take over the majority and the next thing you know we’re under attack on our gun rights again. It’s got to stop.”

The Democrats did have the help from some RINO’s.

But Rep. Steve Vaillancourt, R-Manchester, asked the House whether it is better to “shoot first and ask questions later, or live like civilized human beings?”

Obviously, Representative Vaillancourt utterly misses the point of the law. Criminals aren’t civilized people, they are criminals. They don’t care about the law, that’s why they are criminals. If two people start arguing, and one of them is carrying a gun and draws it, guess what? It isn’t justified under the Stand your ground laws anywhere. You have to be “In fear of your life or for the lives of others.”

At a public hearing in January, bill sponsor Shurtleff acknowledged New Hampshire has had no such cases during the year the law has been in place, but said he wants to be proactive.

In other words, he wants to make it safer for criminals to rob, rape and murder people. The response from some of the female members of the House echoes my belief that the ProgNazi’s like women to be victims.

Rep. Lenette Peterson, R-Merrimack, who described herself as a victim of a mugging, said that without a stand-your-ground law, “women have no way to defend themselves.”

She called the bill a gateway to “open season on women in New Hampshire.”

“I’m too old to run anymore and I shouldn’t have to,” said Rep. Jane Cormier, R-Alton.

“I’m a strong women and I am not a victim and I will not be a victim,” Cormier said. “This bill empowers nobody but the criminals.”

So tell me again which party is engaging in a “War on Women?”

But Rep. Philip Ginsberg, D-Durham, said that if the repeal is passed, when attacked, “We can do one of two things,” use deadly force “without consideration of whether retreat is possible” or consider “whether I can resolve this without deadly force and I am certain that I can do so.

“Do we want a society in which the first thought is to say that I will use my weapon to shoot this person or will I in that instant see if I am certain that I can retreat safely?” asked Ginsberg.

You can see a general theme here. The Progressive Liberal Democrats, aka ProgNazi’s, are terrified of people have any way to defend themselves. They are horrified that a person would do anything but submit to the two legged vermin walking around out there ((The Knockout Game)).

Rep. Leon Rideout, R-Lancaster, said he opposed repeal “for the women in my life. I believe they should have all means of defense against their attackers and that should not be limited to inside a House.”

On the street, he said, “Why should my first thought be, ‘Can I run away from this jerk?’

“The only people this bill affects is law-abiding citizens,” Rideout said, adding that it will be “a lawyer’s dream.

This is absolutely correct. I, for one, can’t outrun anyone. Even in school, I was the slowest one around. Last year, there was a shooting down the street from my home. It was NOT a Stand your ground case. The victim was apparently targeted ((Shooting victim was specifically targeted)). I remember the chaos from that event. I don’t know if the suspect was ever caught or not ((Suspect still on the loose)).

After the vote, Chandler said, “Retreat is not something responsible New Hampshire citizens should be forced to do when faced with a deadly threat. Our right to self defense and defense of other innocent victims should not be limited to the walls in which we reside. Claims that current law would result in increased violence are unfounded. Our citizens should not be asked to risk life and limb in retreat simply because there are a handful of thugs who might try and abuse this law. I’m deeply disappointed that the House would vote to restrict the rights of our people and give the benefit of doubt to violent attackers. It’s simply unconscionable.

“How high does the cliff have to be to ensure a safe retreat?” Chandler asked. “Two feet? Four feet? Six feet? Do we really expect this decision to be made while under the threat of violence?”

Baldasaro, speaking for the conservative House Republican Alliance, said, “We are saddened but not surprised by the passage of HB135, which removes a person’s right to defend oneself. The passage of this politically motivated bill strips away the rights of citizens to stand their ground and protect themselves, others and their property if threatened where ever they have a right to be.”

I’m not surprised. The ProgNazi’s have been ramping up their totalitarian plans and having an armed population can’t be tolerated. Anything that allows the average law abiding citizen any means of stopping the Progressive Liberal Elites from controlling every aspect of a person’s life ((Three Cheers for the Nanny State)) is to be blocked. The Democrats primary goal is full civilian disarmament. Actually disarming the criminals? That is not a priority. Arming the criminals has been a priority until recently for this administration ((The ATF Gun Walking Scandal)). Well commiecrats, I will NOT allow you to enslave me or take my rights away. I am NOT alone in this thinking and we will resist you.

The good news is this bill has to go through the Senate and that is still controlled by the Republicans. With any luck, this constitutional abortion will be tossed out into the trash where it belongs.

Thatisall

~The Angry Webmaster~

(1 votes, average: 1.00 out of 5)

Loading...