The liberal mentality is simply unfathomable. Now in New Hampshire, a law has been proposed that would require any woman who chooses to defend herself or her children from an attacker to prove she was unable to escape. Of course the law applies to both men and women, but just imagine a woman walking her baby down the street and two teens suddenly coming up to her and demanding money from her.
Yes, that situation just occurred in Georgia this week. When informed that she had no money, the two teens then shot the woman and then shot the baby in the face. If the woman had a concealed carry license and a firearm, she might have been able to save her baby's life and stop the teens.
But should this law pass, in New Hampshire, the woman would have faced the additional burden of having to decide if she could "retreat" out of danger before she could use her concealed firearm.
Now this might--possibly--be considered--remotely--reasonable if there was an epidemic of New Hampshire citizens killing people on the street out of irrational fear . . . or even if it happened once . . . but this has not been a problem. Yep, that's right, once more a liberal legislator is proposing passing a law to outlaw something that never happens . . . and has the potential to endanger women and their children by causing them to hesitate at a critical moment.
Second Amendment SistersOnce again the liberal obsessive fear of their fellow citizens and of hypothetical situations has them trying to outlaw rational behavior and endangering the lives of the very people they, in their fevered little brains, are supposed to be trying to protect.
Concord, NH - HB135 is not a bill of equality.
It looks to change a law that has not caused anyone harm. It looks to change the playing field to be in favor of the criminal and lessen the rights’ of women to not be victimized.
The prime sponsor was quoted as saying it is OK for women to defend themselves at home, but not on the street. We bear the burden to try and run from our assailants. If we do not, if we choose instead to protect ourselves or our children, in the court of law we have to prove we could not get away. The prosecution has no burden to prove otherwise.
Faced with a criminal intent on rape, robbery or kidnapping our children WE are faced with the choice to do what we must to save ourselves or our loved ones, knowing that we will be the ones in court. Being victimized a second time by the judiciary system that tells us we have to prove we could not escape.
[continued at webpage linked above]
This is the antithesis of the "Castle Docrine" which many states (I would say "rational states") now have made law, which places the burden of proof on the state and the criminal that the use of a firearm for self-defense was not justified.
How irrational can one be. New Hampshire State Representative Merr Shurtleff has inadvertently granted us an example of just how irrational the average liberal legislator is and just how far liberals will go if they are allowed free reign.
Liberal-land is a looney-bin in which the law-abiding citizen is the enemy and the criminal the victim. Here is the exact wording of the proposed bill:
1 Physical Force in Defense of a Person. Amend RSA 627:4, III to read as follows:Here we have a perfect example of liberal think. The citizen is the criminal. The citizen must evaluate the situation and figure out, not only if their reaction is justified, but if, in the eyes of the court or a jury, they could possibly escape the situation by surrendering their private property and run away.
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 person has provoked the use of force against himself or herself in the same encounter; or
(d) If he or she is a law enforcement officer or a private person assisting the officer at the officer's direction and was acting pursuant to RSA 627:5, the person need not retreat.
In the first place, the point at which either requirement can be met has long since passed before most people who conceal-carry firearms are prepared to deploy their gun. That thought process is drummed into the minds of everyone who obtains a CCL. The use of a firearm is a last-resort action that all CCL holders hope they never reach.
In the second place, this law places an additional burden on a person who is already faced with a life-or-death decision . . . A citizen would have to ask himself or herself, "Will the courts or district attorney believe that I couldn't have escaped if I use my weapon?"
The hesitation this law would impose on victims, however brief, could cost them their lives.
Of course, the chances of this bill becoming law are minuscule. In a state like New Hampshire, which is one of the few open-carry states, such a bill is unlikely to attract many supporters, but it is another example of how liberalism turns the world on its head and places the burden of proof on the victim rather than the criminal. It places any victim of a violent crime at greater risk, while solving no problem.
Again, this bill addresses a non-existent problem.
It does, however, show us why we can never give an inch to the gun-grabbers. It demonstrates to what lengths they will go to strip us of our inherent, endowed rights.
It shows just how dangerous liberals are to their fellow citizens.
Long Live Our American Republic!!!!