Politics & Government
'Stand Your Ground' on Shaky Ground?
Al Baldasaro: 'Every citizen has a constitutional right to defend themselves and this blatant attempt at political correctness is a disservice to our constituents.'
Early lopsided votes on various amendments suggested Democrats in the majority of the New Hampshire House would muscle through a bill to repeal the state's "stand your ground" law, which Republicans enacted last session. Boy, was the conventional wisdom off target on this one.
After a heated two-hour debate Wednesday, the bill narrowly passed: 189 to 184.
The bill now goes to the state Senate. Regardless of the outcome, critics promised it would be a 2014 campaign issue.
Find out what's happening in Londonderrywith free, real-time updates from Patch.
Republicans promised a good floor fight. They delivered. Rep. Al Baldasaro (R-Londonderry) called the passage "saddening," but not surprising.
Speaking from the House floor, he argued people should retain every right to defend themselves. "Gun groups will not forget this in 2014," Baldasaro said in the debate before the vote. "I'm asking you to please vote red so none of our residents have to shed any blood when they retreat."
Find out what's happening in Londonderrywith free, real-time updates from Patch.
State Rep. Lenette Peterson (R-Merrimack) said House Bill 135 "is declaring open season on women in New Hampshire."
Rep. Jane Cormier (R-Alton) urged lawmakers to oppose the bill in order to preserve the basic right of self defense. "This bill empowers nobody but the criminals," she said.
House Majority Leader Steve Shurtleff (D-Penacook) said the bill does nothing to take away a person's right to defend themselves – a point argued in a blog post this week by Rep. Jan Schmidt (D-Nashua).
"This bill has nothing to do with the Castle Doctrine," Shurtleff said.
Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R-Manchester), supporting the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee's majority to recommend passage, described the bill as a compromise. The bill, as amended, eliminates two of the three sections of the bill as introduced. The bill does not prevent anyone from owning or carrying guns, it "simply takes us back to the practice that was in effect for more than three decades (and was never challenged in court) which affirms that a person is not justified in using deadly force on another if he or she can retreat from the encounter," according to Vaillancourt. "Note that nothing about the bill prevents one from using deadly force if retreat is not deemed possible."
Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.