NH Self-Defense Bill Defeated in House

I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised at this, but I am pretty irritated about it.

The House yesterday defeated a bill that would have protected a person who used justifiable deadly force from facing civil penalities.

By a 194-138, members voted to reject the civil suit immunity language that sponsor Rep. Howard Dickinson, R-Conway, had hoped to salvage from an overall deadly force bill.

Opponents of the effort said state law already provides immunity if an Attorney General'’s investigation finds that the use of deadly force was justified.

The House split the bill in two. The first section expanding legal use of deadly force failed 290-36. It would have allowed the use of deadly force anytime a person was threatened with unlawful force in any place he had a legal right to be.

Dickinson said he realized after introducing HB 1354 that current law provides a person plenty of opportunity to protect self and family, so he went along with the move to kill the first section of the bill.

Rep. Stanley Steven, R-Wolfeboro, said that the second part of HB 1354 bill establishing immunity is already in state law. "“Lack of criminal charges is an absolute immunity"” from lawsuits, he said.

Dickinson argued that without specific language in the law, one could still have to hire a lawyer to handle at least the initial phases of a lawsuit.

"“This gets you immunity to start with so you don'’t have to go to court in the first place, and if do your entire court costs are taken care of,"” he said.

I suppose I'll have to say something to my local, hammer-head, uhh, representative. He voted against.

I love that contention on the lack of criminal charges being absolute immunity. Obviously it's not if they can drag you into court even for the first part of the suit.

I'm especially angry that they overwhelmingly voted against the right to self-defense for a person wherever they have a legal right to be. I still don't agree that there is sufficient protections already provided.