senate overrides lynch's veto

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll...S_01/709089717


Senate overturns Gov. Lynch's veto of deadly force bill

By JENNIFER KEEFE
jkeefe@fosters.com
Thursday, September 8, 2011

DOVER — After several weeks of making public his staunch opposition to a bill that allows residents to use deadly force in self-defense with civil immunity, Gov. John Lynch lost his battle Wednesday.

The bill was one of six Lynch vetoed last session that were up for override votes Wednesday on the state Senate floor. Only two vetoes were upheld after a lengthy day debating.

Lynch saw victories in the 17-7 veto of SB 129, the so-called "Voter ID" bill that would have required voters to show a photo identification before being allowed to cast ballots at the polls, and in the 15-9 veto of SB 154, which would have repealed the state's participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a cap and trade program for carbon dioxide emissions.

Controversy surrounding SB 154 has focused on the level of oversight and control over the credits paid to the 10-state cooperative if polluters don't meet targets for carbon dioxide emissions.

Along with SB 88, Senate members voted to override Lynch's previous vetoes of SB 3, which makes comprehensive changes to the retirement system and was included in the state budget passed in July; SB 57, which ends an interest rate cap on title loans; and SB 91, which prohibits municipalities from requiring automatic fire suppression sprinklers in certain dwellings.

One of the bills of the group that has gained attention as of late is SB 88; Lynch has been vocal in his opposition of the bill and received support from law enforcement officials around the state who warned the current law was sufficient and changing the law may make certain cases more difficult to prosecute as certain criminal acts would be justified under the new law.

"I believe the new law will work for the average citizen, but it could also work for the criminal element — people who are using force and then hiding behind the new law," said Dover Police Chief Anthony Colarusso recently.

In response to the Senate's override of his veto, Lynch said, "Law enforcement officials from across New Hampshire stood united in warning about the dangers of this bill and how it would compromise public safety by emboldening gangs and criminal activity.

"Yet lawmakers disregarded the warnings of law enforcement that this bill could compromise public safety. I am disappointed that lawmakers did not listen to the men and women who protect the citizens of New Hampshire every day."

The bill's prime sponsor, David Boutin, R-Hooksett, said the bill simply gives people the right to stand their ground and defend themselves, and argues such a provision has actually been shown to reduce crime.

Another bill that has come under the spotlight is SB 129. House Speaker Bill O'Brien released a statement following the bill's veto expressing his disappointment the move hadn't come to pass Wednesday.

"This session, the House passed this provision overwhelmingly because we believe that New Hampshire's lax voter registration and balloting laws need to be improved," O'Brien said. "The Supreme Court has consistently held that requiring a photo ID is not a barrier to our constitutional right to vote. SB 129 even goes a step further to safeguard that right by making voter IDs available to those who don't have one through provisional ballots, which are effectively in use in 44 other states."

All bills that received veto override votes will now head to the House for an up-or-down vote that will determine their final fate.

The House confirmed it yesterday and it will be in effect in 60 days!

I think I like pretty much all of this.

I'm impartial to this.

I think it's a great deterrent. Maybe some of the "amateur" will think twice about trying something now.

It's kinda sad that we need a law explicitly condoning self-defense. Should just be "implied consent" to kick someone's ass if they try something. Actions do have consequences after all; sometimes they're fatal.

Well I don't think we really "needed" the law.. I know numerous people who have been in "self-defense" scenarios that worked out just fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ɹǝʍoןandɹǝʍoן

Well I don't think we really "needed" the law.. I know numerous people who have been in "self-defense" scenarios that worked out just fine.

---

It's worked out badly for others though. The law clarifies things so less involvement with the lawyers is needed and the playing field is a little more level.

Agreed, I guess. It seems as though the whole brandishing part may become widely misused.

This law removes the civil liability element from the equation - There is still the criminal liability. My read on this law is to cut down on the number of law suits that are filed when someone picks a fight with the wrong person and gets their ass handed to them...

Yeap. I wouldn't be surprised to see a few teething problems at first. In the long run, I think it will be a good thing.