Castle Doctrine in 27 states, New Hampshire next?

Twenty Seven states now have Castle Doctrine Laws, New Hampshire Legislatures have put the paperwork on the Governors desk to add our state to that list. Good news is there is already a majority of votes ready to over ride a veto. If he does not sign it one way or the other it will automatically become law Wednesday July 13, 2011 at 12:00 midnight.
This law will expand our rights to defend our homes and family (with deadly force) without having to flee first when possible. The law also expands this right to defend ourselves (wdf) when we are out in a public place.
Boston Hype, New Hampshire news

Does your state have such a law?

Here are some interesting stats ... fact sheet: guns save lives ... Eye opening stuff.

The sad part is you actually have to pass a law like this in the first place, to keep those who would punish people for defending themselves at arm's length.

The Dem. Governor Lynch indeed did veto the bill. ...surprise surprise... So it is in the Legislatures court now, do they have the balls to over ride the veto? We shall see.

It is sad that a law has to be passed saying that you have the right to protect your self from an attacker in a public place. One must be in imminent danger before a deadly weapon can be presented let alone used to protect ones self or others in your own home or on your property. Careful not to act to quickly you don't want to jeopardize the welfare of the attacker. ??!!? I'm not a pacifist or a tree huger and I never will be. Fuzzy bunnies are not my thing, Freedom and Liberty are.

Thank God I live in Arkansas.

Montana is pretty clear on who is at fault when a bad guy threatens somebody's life or wellbeing and gets shot... Idaho and Wyoming also don't seem to have a problem with the concept.

Thanks for posting.. interesting stuff. It is ironic that right next door in VT you don't even need a CC permit.. like Ak & Az, if you are a law abiding citizen, you can conceal carry a firearm without a permit. ..seems reasonable. That does seem to be the point of the 2nd amendment. I'm not sure how & why the rest of the states can get away with requiring a 'permit'.. to keep & bear arms.. Seems like an infringement to me.

I don't know of anyone.. in NH or anywhere else, if their family's lives were threatened, inside, outside, anywhere.. who wouldn't use deadly force if they had access. It seems to me that any prosecutor who went after someone who did so in self defense would have a tough row to hoe.

The NH Legislatures have initiated a bill to eliminate the permit system as well that will allow law abiding citizens the right to concealed carry. This bill has been tabled though until the 2012 session. There have been about 4 or 5 bills introduced this year in NH that in some way are 2nd amendment related issues. The NH Chiefs of Police ( a liberal biased org. wishing to keep their corner on people protection ) have been able to twist the Governors ear telling him all mayhem will result if these laws pass, despite evidence to the contrary. The proof is in the pudding ... many other states have these laws on the books and the law abiding citizens have NOT shifted to the dark side ... so to speak. The fact still remains that an armed society is a polite society. Violent crime drops significantly and petty crime tapers off as well. Track records prove this claim out leaving no doubt in the minds of even the people trying to prove otherwise ( unless they are refusing to remove the blinders ). The rank and file police force traditionally support the right of the people to protect themselves because the are well aware of the fact that hey cannot be every where all the time.

rydnseek wrote:

Thanks for posting.. interesting stuff. It is ironic that right next door in VT you don't even need a CC permit.. like Ak & Az, if you are a law abiding citizen, you can conceal carry a firearm without a permit. ..seems reasonable.

The history of concealed carry permits was states and cities saying "Just why would you want to HIDE the fact you're carrying a sidearm when it is perfectly legal and normal and accepted to OPENLY carry it?" The bad guys were the ones who generally had a reason to conceal a firearm. Possibly fuzzy logic even back then. But in Montana, open carry is legal, as is concealed carry without a permit - except in specified locations, of which there aren't a whole lot, in which case you do have to have a concealed carry permit. You can't carry concealed on a railroad, incidentally, hearkening back to the days of train robberies, perhaps?

Quote :

That does seem to be the point of the 2nd amendment. I'm not sure how & why the rest of the states can get away with requiring a 'permit'.. to keep & bear arms.. Seems like an infringement to me.

Could it be anything but?

What unalienable right could supersede the right to defend your life and liberty - if you're criminally deprived of your life, what use are the rest of your rights? The right to arms for self defense is part of our constitutional history all the way back to the Magna Carta and the the English Bill of Rights - and a host of lesser acts also mentioning or recognizing that right as being unalienable and firmly belonging to the individual.

And yet, SCOTUS has narrowly decided by 5/4 margins that the 2nd is actually a right belonging to individuals rather than a right belonging to government - but also not closing the door to continued infringement of that right. SCOTUS, incidentally, has also held numerous times that police only have a general duty to the public of deterrence and protection, not a specific duty to protect individuals even when they report being threatened or have a protection order. What SCOTUS hasn't said is: when the police can't be everywhere all the time, when they have no obligation to provide individual protection, and yet when they let stand some laws that prohibit that same woman threatened by her ex from carrying a handgun... how does she exercise her right to life and liberty when attacked by her much bigger and stronger ex? MMA style ground and pound?

Quote :

I don't know of anyone.. in NH or anywhere else, if their family's lives were threatened, inside, outside, anywhere.. who wouldn't use deadly force if they had access. It seems to me that any prosecutor who went after someone who did so in self defense would have a tough row to hoe.

The Anointed One, now working on gun control "under the radar" to use his words, voted repeatedly as a senator in favour of laws that would allow prosecution of victims who used a firearm in defense against their attacker. So there are legislators in favour of that, government attorneys in favour of that, and people who will sit on juries equally as indignant that you would actually shoot somebody in self defense. "Should have ran away" is one of the more frequent explanations - and why Castle Doctrine laws like this have started being passed to protect against that very sort of thing.

Anyways... off to Gray Creek to see if the Pass is open yet.