Pro-Gun New Hampshire

[Posted Thursday, September 8, 2011, at 1:10 p.m.]   Various Chiefs of Police and other law enforcement representatives have gone on a public tour with the Governor proclaiming how important the “Duty to Retreat” is to New Hampshire’s self defense law as it applies to honest citizens under RSA 627:4. Given that they feel that way, we propose adding it to the self defense requirements for law enforcement found under RSA 627:5.  (Note that this applies only to a law enforcement officer's self defense, not to making an arrest.)  We have taken the exact language that they support and just modified it to fit law enforcement.  Here is how it reads:

[Posted Wednesday, September 7, 2011, at 3:20 p.m.]  This afternoon, the New Hampshire state senate voted 17 to 7 -- more than the required 16 to 8 -- to override Governor Lynch's veto of SB88.  The House, which votes next week, is expected to override the veto by an even larger margin.

Yesterday, the governor held a press conference, supported by state Attorney General Delaney, Manchester Police Chief Mara, and other senior law enforcement officials, claiming that SB88 would empower criminals.  Two hours later, another press conference, sponsored by pro-gun activists, strongly opposed these ideas.  Prominent among the speakers were Reps. Jenn Coffey and Ken Kreis, both Senior Advisors of Pro-Gun New Hampshire, and Pro-Gun New Hampshire General Counsel Evan Nappen, who reiterated the points made in his recent article -- http://pgnh.org/the_dummy_s_guide_to_the_duty_to_retreat -- and was quoted in three New Hampshire newspapers:

By Evan F. Nappen, Attorney at Law 

[Posted Monday, September 5, 2011, at 11:40 a.m.]

Will the passage of New Hampshire Senate Bill 88 (SB88), which includes the “stand your ground” exception to the “duty to retreat,” be good or bad for New Hampshire?  Governor Lynch, Manchester Police Chief Mara, and other law enforcement representatives say limiting the “duty to retreat” will be bad, and that it will empower criminals and gang members to get away with committing violent crimes.  Republican leaders say it will be good for honest citizens who will no longer have to consider retreating when faced with criminal violence as long as that person is “anywhere he or she has a right to be.”  Who is correct?  Throughout the debate, no one has discussed RSA 627:4, the state law that explains the “duty to retreat.”  Both sides have made claims as to SB88’s potential effect, but what is the truth? What follows is RSA 627:4 with SB88’s changes.  (Section I, which concerns only non-deadly force, isn’t shown. The new language that SB88 adds is in bold italics, and the old language that SB88 cuts is in [square brackets].)

[Posted Friday, July 15, 2011, at 9:15 a.m.]  After a lengthy -- and tragic -- series of legislative efforts, SB88 finally made it to the governor's desk.  Unfortunately, Governor Lynch demonstrated his anti-gun bias, and vetoed the bill.  It is too early to say whether our state legislature will work to overturn the governor's veto.  Note that the Union Leader has published an editorial on the veto, at http://unionleader.com/article/20110715/OPINION01/707159995 .

 

[Posted Friday, June 24, 2011, at 9:50 a.m.]

by State Representative Ken Kreis, Sr.

Editor's note: Representative Kreis is an Advisor of Pro-Gun New Hampshire, Inc., and was the House Chair of the recent Committee of Conference on SB88.  Background material on this article may be found in our previous articles: http://pgnh.org/senator_boutin_are_the_rumors_true , http://pgnh.org/who_ultimately_killed_constitutional_carry_answer_senator_boutin , http://pgnh.org/nra_and_its_nh_state_affiliate_go_nh_kill_constitutional_carry , and http://pgnh.org/house_passes_huge_pro_gun_bill_by_a_veto_proof_majority .  The editor added the emphasis (bold/underline) in paragraph No. 4.

To all,

It has come to my attention that Sen. Boutin attempted to get the several New Hampshire gun groups to the table together to try and move HB330 (the Constitutional Carry bill) out of the Senate. In speaking with the Senator today, he had indicated to me that at least two of the groups voiced their opinion to not show up due to information concerning the killing of Constitutional Carry in NH as posted on at least one website.  

I was distressed by this and attempted to discuss it with the Senator – but he took a different tone and was gone.

Please allow me to discuss a few items from my perspective: