Wednesday, February 15, 2006

New Hampshire, Arizona and “Stand Your Ground”

Photobucket - LibertyTwo more states are getting into the game on changing the ability of the average citizen to defend him or herself.

New Hampshire needs a 'Shoot First' law This was somewhat of a surprise.
Currently, if you're publicly attacked, even in your vehicle, and shoot, you face legal troubles and possibly a criminal record. You may also be sued by the attacker or his family. This differs from in your home, where an intruder is always there illegally, and shooting him is nearly always lawful.

Self-defense is a constitutionally accepted reason to carry a weapon, so why does using one for self-defense carry such harsh penalties? Current law, which has been marred by inconsistent court decisions, expects a person to make an attempt to flee the scene before opening fire.
Turning your back on a rapist is not a good idea. Better to defend yourself.

That New Hampshire has these restrictions on self-defense is surprising - at least to me.

'Three-strikes,' self-defense bills advance Arizona seems to have a definite bias against self-defense.
Right now, Arizona is one of just two states that require someone who uses deadly force to prove he or she was justified. That presumption bothers Senate Majority Leader Tim Bee.

"It's extremely important that people in this country are considered innocent until proven guilty," said Bee, a Tucson Republican. He said the current statute puts people in the position of having to prove their innocence.
The Prosecuting Attorneys Advisory Council have their knickers in a twist. They like to be able to prosecute self-defense.

Self-defense legislation is moving forward in many states.

No comments: