Gov. Lynch vetoes SB-88

Yesterday, Gov. Lynch vetoed SB-88 which would have been a important self defense bill to NH citizens. It's a little disappointing, but kind of expected considering Lynch's history :banghead:. I haven't heard why he vetoed it, but I'm sure it's a reason we would all be to differ with. A veto over ride is expected in September.

Jon

A ******* democrap. What can you expect? There are more than enough votes in both houses to over ride and tell him to stuff his Masshole politics up his ass and move back there where he belongs. The one pos left in NH state politics.

Gunslinger said:

A ******* democrap. What can you expect? There are more than enough votes in both houses to over ride and tell him to stuff his Masshole politics up his ass and move back there where he belongs. The one pos left in NH state politics.

Click to expand...

Yeah, NH managed to elect a strong republican majority in both houses, but kept Lynch in there by a strong margin, which makes no sense, but politics is unpredictable.

So the Senate voted yesterday to over-ride Lynch's veto :banana: and SB-88 still has to be voted on by the state house, which should pass easily.

jrd929 said:

So the Senate voted yesterday to over-ride Lynch's veto :banana: and SB-88 still has to be voted on by the state house, which should pass easily.

Click to expand...

Change that to "house HAS voted to override the governor's veto!" Enjoy being the 29th state with this law, 60 days from now!

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=7079

Now, you all need to get cracking on that Constitutional Carry law. You all might give us some ammunition (pun intended) to pass it down here in Tennessee.

Nascar24Glock said:

Now, you all need to get cracking on that Constitutional Carry law. You all might give us some ammunition (pun intended) to pass it down here in Tennessee.

Click to expand...

The ONLY way that will ever happen here is if the NRA keeps their nose out of it. They derailed it once already.

We do not need the NRA here, thank you very much!

nhsig220 said:

The ONLY way that will ever happen here is if the NRA keeps their nose out of it. They derailed it once already.

We do not need the NRA here, thank you very much!

Click to expand...

Does anybody really need the NRA?

nhsig220 said:

The ONLY way that will ever happen here is if the NRA keeps their nose out of it. They derailed it once already.

We do not need the NRA here, thank you very much!

Click to expand...

There's no $$$ in Constitutional Carry, which is why the NRA isn't too fond of it. They derailed open carry in Florida too....

My membership is up this year and I'm torn about what to do. Anti-gunners love to see their membership numbers go down so they can exploit it, but their compromise is doing us a disservice.


Regarding SB88, I was wondering if I could get a little clarity since I'm not a lawyer and don't speak legalese very well.

III. A person is not justified in using deadly force on another to defend himself or herself or a third person from deadly force by the other if he or she knows that he or she and the third person can, with complete safety:

(a) Retreat from the encounter, except that he or she is not required to retreat if he or she is within his or her dwelling [or], its curtilage, or anywhere he or she has a right to be, and was not the initial aggressor; or

(b) Surrender property to a person asserting a claim of right thereto; or

(c) Comply with a demand that he or she abstain from performing an act which he or she is not obliged to perform; nor is the use of deadly force justifiable when, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, the [actor] person has provoked the use of force against himself or herself in the same encounter[.]; or


So (a) establishes what is commonly referred to as "Castle Doctrine" or "Stand Your Ground?"

Does (b) mean you are obligated to hand over your property (e.g. during a robbery) before using deadly force and does the first part of (c) mean you must submit to something like performing a sex act if demanded in order to "comply" and hopefully avoid harm?

Connecticut has very similar, if not almost identical language except for the "anywhere he or she has a right to be" part so this is of interest to me in CT as well. I also enjoy visiting NH.

Forgive my questions if they seem silly, but again, I'm not a lawyer.


Thanks so much.

Carry On!

Freiheit417 said:

There's no $$$ in Constitutional Carry, which is why the NRA isn't too fond of it. They derailed open carry in Florida too....

Click to expand...

I say keep your membership. From what I've seen it's he said/she said on the constitutional carry bill in NH.

NRA did not derail the OC bill in Fl. The Fl retail federation did, along with all Democrats and at least 8 neocons in the Fl senate. Before the OC bill was gutted, the NRA did say general OC AND accidental exposure protection of CCers was a goal. After it was gutted, they pretended that accidental exposure was the only reason they wanted OC.

77zach said:

I say keep your membership. From what I've seen it's he said/she said on the constitutional carry bill in NH.

NRA did not derail the OC bill in Fl. The Fl retail federation did, along with all Democrats and at least 8 neocons in the Fl senate. Before the OC bill was gutted, the NRA did say general OC AND accidental exposure protection of CCers was a goal. After it was gutted, they pretended that accidental exposure was the only reason they wanted OC.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the additional insight you provided for the FL and NH bills. From what I read elsewhere on the forum, others seemed to blame the NRA and their "local affiliates" for the defeat. I suppose there's always three sides to a story. It's just not always easy to decide which one is correct.