Watching the news last night and then reading the Concord Monitor today. Certain people in the NH legislature (D) are looking to go back to the previous law of Duty to retreat in the face of danger versus the new Stand your ground law. In a split second decision only I can decide which is more prudent at the time not some politician making feel good laws. All these ideas are nothing more than knee jerk reactions and will do nothing to actually stop the madness. :nono:
NH to re-visit stand your ground law.
- Thread starter fxstchawg
- Start date
Nightmare45
NRA LIFE MEMBER
With or without a stand your ground law, you enter my property by kicking door down, you had best have a body bag with you.
Just another attempt to control guns. If you have an obligation to retreat, they will then insist you could have run when you actually needed your gun, and try to prosecute on that basis. Then of course, if you have a 'must run' obligation, there's no need for private carry. After that, they will also claim there is no need for shooting anyone in your home because you should have run out and let the bad guy have whatever / whomever was too slow to get out, and then have called the PO'lice!
A pox upon them for their cowardice and stupidity! May anyone who proposes such nonsense be the victim of a 'home invasion'.
A pox upon them for their cowardice and stupidity! May anyone who proposes such nonsense be the victim of a 'home invasion'.
I have sent my opinions to the NH State House. I recieved replies from both Carol Shea Porter, and Kelly Ayotte. Both replies thanked me for being a concerned citizen, however they both said that they were not interested in my point of view, that they will ramrod the laws though, that we the "citizens", will never get to vote on. And these losers claim to be serving the people. I call ******** on serving citizens by telling them what's good for them. I know what's good for my family, and myself.
BC1
,
I think people miss the intent on duty to retreat. The law does not say one can't defend themseles it says they must attempt to withdraw if they can do so with complete safety to self and others before an attack commences. The law is enacted with the hope that situations won't escalate to violence. However, once they do there is no longer a duty to retreat and one may stand their ground. For example, if walking to the car and approached by someone suspicious you would move away and avoid them (which is smart anyway). Once that person signals intent to harm the gloves can come off. These laws don't mean you must run for your life. Duty to retreat is limited based on the situation. For example, a crippled person, cardiac patient, the elderly or a parent with a child can't retreat. Surprise attacks leave no room for retreat and the victim may immediately defend themselves. Nothing in duty to retreat laws apply within one's one home or property. The duty to retreat does not exist on your own property.
.
Given a choice most normal people would rather not shoot someone unless it was a last resort. Those who do usually regret it later... in the form of life-ruining repurcussions such as large legal bills. After all, you won't bet your future on a "court appointed" attorney so consider you may need many tens of thousands of dollars for defense. The NRA in it's personal protection courses teaches retreat unless you can't. When I trained at LFI, Mas Ayoob recommended retreat unless there is no option. George Zimmerman didn't retreat and stand-your-ground provisions did not keep himfrom being prosecuted. Given the chance to do it again I bet he wouldn't be the neighborhood watch guy.
.
Given a choice most normal people would rather not shoot someone unless it was a last resort. Those who do usually regret it later... in the form of life-ruining repurcussions such as large legal bills. After all, you won't bet your future on a "court appointed" attorney so consider you may need many tens of thousands of dollars for defense. The NRA in it's personal protection courses teaches retreat unless you can't. When I trained at LFI, Mas Ayoob recommended retreat unless there is no option. George Zimmerman didn't retreat and stand-your-ground provisions did not keep himfrom being prosecuted. Given the chance to do it again I bet he wouldn't be the neighborhood watch guy.
I'll make the call
As I stated, I'll make the call when the time arrives. The thought of being prosecuted makes me sick, but the thought of being dead doesn't give me the warm and fuzzies either. Lawmakers that work in a secure building and are allowed to carry have no right to make laws restricting citizens from defending themselves. If a threat comes into my building, I need to run to my car to get a gun. Once outside, I have no right to re-enter the building to save lives, as I have already reached safety. If I were to go back in and kill the bad guy, I'd be prosecuted, and once convicted, I would likely be sued by the family of the bad guy. I'd lose the case, because I was convicted in criminal court. I will stand my ground regardless.
As I stated, I'll make the call when the time arrives. The thought of being prosecuted makes me sick, but the thought of being dead doesn't give me the warm and fuzzies either. Lawmakers that work in a secure building and are allowed to carry have no right to make laws restricting citizens from defending themselves. If a threat comes into my building, I need to run to my car to get a gun. Once outside, I have no right to re-enter the building to save lives, as I have already reached safety. If I were to go back in and kill the bad guy, I'd be prosecuted, and once convicted, I would likely be sued by the family of the bad guy. I'd lose the case, because I was convicted in criminal court. I will stand my ground regardless.
BC1
,
What you just described was a retreat followed by an active re-engagement, not standing your ground. If you got away don't return and engage the fight. This is not considered to be standing your ground or any form of self defense. This will be considered a second incident that you initiated. Stand your ground laws don't say you can't defend yourself. They're merely an attempt to keep you from paticipating in an escalation that later turns deadly. Once attacked you may stand your ground legally.
Please rethink this strategy.
NH House has voted to repeal the Stand your ground law. Very close in numbers. Lets hope it does not pass in the Senate. When it was voted in 2011 over the veto of Lynch we did not get the wild west shoot outs that all were concerend about. Not one instance has come in the last year> but once again instead of waiting and letting the laws that are in place work and if they need to be changed only after the facts are presented. The left like to go and change them again to make us feel safe just because the right passed something that they do not agree with. In a situation that might occur (hope that it never does) I will be the one to decide if I could have retreated. If I can safely %100 percent then yes but anything less than that the gloves come off and I refuse to let someone after the fact say well you could've- would've- should've done this.
Curious why this has become an issue now. There have been no incidents in NH that I am aware of. Why now? I guess the reason is obvious. They don't really want gun control. Their ultimate aim is no guns at all in the hands of civilians. Email your state senator and ask them to not vote for this bill. Yiogo
It's the wack job in the corner office. She was the one who got the gun ban rule in the state house several years ago. She is trouble all around.
