NH No Retreat Legislation Revived

I thought this one was down for the count, but it looks like it's now going to the governor.

The gun owners lobby scored a surprising reversal Wednesday, winning final approval of a bill that lets anyone use deadly force when attacked in public -– even if retreating from an attacker is an option.

Under current law, deadly force can be used only if people are threatened in their home, or if in public they are the target of a deadly attack, a kidnapping or attempted rape. In other situations, retreat is required.

After a campaign by gun rights groups, House membersWednesday embraced expanding the deadly force law, on a vote of 193-134. Only five weeks ago, they had cast a lopsided measure against a similar bill.

The Senate already approved the bill, which goes now to Gov. John Lynch. The governor has "concerns"” about the bill, but has yet to decide if he'’ll sign or veto it, according to his communications director, Pamela Walsh.

No doubt the spineless Gov. Lynch will veto. He has "concerns." Then there are the morons:

Opposing the bill, Dover Democratic Rep. William Knowles said this would be an invitation for people to become vigilantes.

"This bill is unnecessary and creates the potential for people to use deadly force when they otherwise would not use deadly force or would have retreated from the incident," Knowles said.

Maybe Knowles should actually read legislation before commenting.

AN ACT relative to the use of deadly force to protect oneself.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 Physical Force in Defense of a Person. Amend RSA 627:4, II(d) to read as follows:

(d) Is likely to use any unlawful force in the commission of a felony against the actor within such actor's dwelling [or], its curtilage, or in any place where the actor has a right to be.

2 Physical Force in Defense of a Person. Amend RSA 627:4, III(a) to read as follows:

(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 in any place where he or she has a right to be, and was not the initial aggressor; or

3 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2007.

Sounds like their allowing the wild-west to me. Where does that state anywhere the allowance to do anything but defend ones self? I don't see anything even mildly like vigilantism allowed. Or maybe the writer is going overboard. That wouldn't be a surprise either. But then, Knowles and his ilk think that running away is the safest thing in all situations.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that Lynch will sign this.