Lynch vetoes bill to expand deadly force in NH

[jpak]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2011/07/13/lynch_vetoes_bill_to_expand_deadly_force_in_nh/

New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch vetoed a bill Wednesday that would expand a person's right to use deadly force in self-defense without first attempting to retreat.

The Democratic governor blocked a similar bill in 2006, but the Republican-controlled Legislature passed the current measure by enough votes that it could overturn the veto. His actions five years ago were supported by law enforcement, including then-Attorney General Kelly Ayotte, a Republican and now U.S. senator, who called it a threat to public safety.

Associations representing police chiefs and sheriffs urged the governor to veto the latest bill for many of the same reasons. In his veto message, Lynch cited opposition by law enforcement as a reason to reject the bill.

"(The bill) would unleash the potential for increasing deadly violence in our communities," he said. "It would allow the use of deadly force on street corners, in shopping malls, public parks and in retail stores. Drug dealers and other felons who brandish weapons will be further emboldened to use their weapons, while prosecution of those criminals will be made more difficult because of this bill's expansion of the right to use deadly force."

<more>

[Bluerthanblue]

1. I'm so glad to hear this-

:thumbsup:

[PavePusher]

7. Why?

Why should Citizens have a requirement to retreat before criminals?

[jpak]

2. The unrec squad is in high pout!

:D

[RSillsbee]

36. You act llike that doesn't happen every time you post NT

[rrneck]

3. The message to real people:

You are required by law to concede the field when the bad guys move in.

What the bad guys hear: Your job just got easier because people are required by law to run away and structure their lives accordingly.

The Meta message in practical terms: Democrats don't trust voters to properly defend themselves.

What millions of voters hear Democrats say: Fuck you. My constituency lives in gated communities.

What Republicans hear: Do you solemnly swear to faithfully execute the office...

[jpak]

4. Message to Republicans - you suck assholes

yup

:rofl:

[spin]

5. One good thing about your response is that

it displays the level of your intelligence.

[jpak]

8. Well, am I right or wrong?

:D

[rrneck]

15. Sheeeeiiiit.

You don't offer anything to be right or wrong about. That's the point. Asinine cheerleading some partisan ideology so you can avoid having to make sense. Some use disembodied moral outrage, others use bigoted slander, still others use emotional extortion. You have yet to rise to that standard.

[SteveM]

90. Best analysis yet of our "fellow Democrat."

Yeah, there does seem to be some redeeming value for some anti-gunners, but p-p-h-h-e-e-W-W-W! this laugh-a-minute disposition seems to suggest inauthenticity, other agendas, personal gratification, whatever.

[spin]

26. While I am not fond of Republicans, your insult is a bit strong.

I would be seriously upset if a Republican said the same thing about Democrats.

Perhaps such insults contribute to the problem we currently have in this nation where we can't seem to ever reach solutions to the problems we face.

You can have honest disagreements with people over issues and still have polite discussions that can lead to understanding.

For example, you and I disagree over the gun control issue and probably will never change our individual viewpoints on the subject yet I would never insult you in such a manner. Insults serve little purpose and discourage serious discussion.

I'm sure there are many Republican lurkers who visit the Gungeon to see just what progressive Democrats have to say about firearms. If we seem reasonable, we may attract some of them to visit other forums where they might realize that Democrats hold many of the same views that they do on other subjects. We may convert a few of them or at least get them to consider voting for a Democrat in the future.

I believe the reason that we no longer have a viable middle class in this nation is due to the policies that the Republicans have implemented during and after the Reagan era. We would be living in a far better country today if Al Gore would have become President. Bill Clinton blamed the loss of the close election between Gore and Bush on Gore's views on gun control.

While you undoubtedly disagree, it is my view that the people on the liberal side of our party who push for draconian gun laws have managed to drive off a lot of support for our party. I have often heard gun owners say, "It will be a cold day in hell when I vote for a Democrat as they are all gun grabbers."

One thing for sure, insulting Republicans in the manner you did will never get them to vote for Democrats.

[jpak]

30. I disagree - Republicans suck ass

They are not polite

They ruined this country

and they are hell bent into turning what is left into Gun Toting Shoot All Urban Thugs Mad Max NRA Amerika

yup

[spin]

31. Out of curiosity, do you consider yourself polite?

:rofl:

[jpak]

33. Not when it comes to asshole Republicans that suck ass

and luvs them some stupid Castle Law

yup

[eqfan592]

49. You think they are stupid. Why?

I mean seriously, can you put together a serious, intelligent argument against the Castle Doctrine? I've yet to see you do such a thing, in spite of your constant, spittle filled rage fests against it.

[jpak]

51. Yes, they are

and the Castle Doctrine - legalized murder

It allows people to shoot and kill for crimes against property - even when it's not your own property

and get away with it

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Shocking_911_tape_Man_kills_next_1116.html

The GOP/NRA sucks

yup

[eqfan592]

59. I knew you just couldn't do it.

You couldn't actually formulate a solid argument, and instead fell back on the bull shit hyperbole that you are so fond of.

Tell me something, are you of the mindset that a person has no right to protect their property, or in the case of the story you cited, the property of a neighbor that has given prior permission? You seem to think that "property" is something that sits outside of reality, and is not worth defending. Perhaps you would feel differently if that property that was being taken, like maybe your car, was something you relied on to survive, and you had no means of effectively replacing it.

People should have a right to confront a criminal in the act of stealing/damaging their property. This mindset that the criminals rights somehow outweighs the rights of their victims is little else but disgusting, and THAT is what really "sucks."

[jpak]

62. Vigilante philosophy - kill to prevent the theft of your neighbor's DVD player

and get away with it

it's GOP/NRA

it sucks

yup

[eqfan592]

65. You keep using the word "vigilante."

[Hoopla Phil]

67. "vigilante" has a definition. You might want to look it up. You are using it

incorrectly and making yourself look foolish.

yeep

[PavePusher]

96. I already gave him a dictionary.

Additional remonstration won't help.

Ignorance can be cured, but stupid is a terminal disease.

[eqfan592]

32. Thanks for continuing to demonstrate your immaturity. Nt

[jpak]

34. Republicans suck

Yes, they do

yup!

[eqfan592]

47. What is this, 2nd grade?

I mean seriously, jpak, this is just sad on your part.

[jpak]

52. I will not defend or support stupid GOP gun laws

others? Not so much

that is more than just sad

it sucks

yup

[eqfan592]

60. Nobody is asking you to defend or support laws you don't believe in.

But you can do so without behaving like a 2nd grader.

[jpak]

63. I just happen to think the GOP fools that passed this stupid bill are assholes

and i am not adverse to state this

yup

[eqfan592]

68. Amazing, I feel the same about people who feel that criminals have more rights than their victims.

:hi:

[jpak]

72. What horseshit - Amazing!

Can people in NH defend themselves against criminals without a stupid GOP/Free Stater/Teabagger Castle Law?

clue

YUP

:hi:

[eqfan592]

75. Can they do so without first being required to retreat...

...and without risk of bullshit civil suits after the fact?

Nope

So yes, amazing horseshit indeed, only it's on your part. ;)

[ileus]

92. It's your gunless duty to get robbed,raped,murdered...that's how you show politeness

[TheCowsCameHome]

64. No, it's the gungeon.

Striking similarity, though.

[Hoopla Phil]

69. Only when the anti's post.

yup

[eqfan592]

70. You would know, wouldn't you?

;)

[TheCowsCameHome]

82. Yep

No doubt, once the regulars showed up.

[jpak]

74. Only in the Gungeon are people offended by the phrase "Republicans suck"

:hi:

[Hoyt]

77. That strikes me as odd too.

[eqfan592]

79. It would me, as well, if it were true.

I'm not offended by it, but when that is all somebody has to offer as debate, it's a bit childish to say the least.

[spin]

87. I have no problem with your saying "Republicans suck" ...

It may be somewhat immature and childish but it is a common insult. I do become offended when you say "Message to Republicans - you suck assholes" as you did in post #4. That is a big escalation and a far more intense insult.

The term "sucks" appears in the Urban Dictionary.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sucks

I find no listing for "you suck assholes." Therefore it is not a common term or insult. It also was a reply to another poster who had made a valid point on how voters view those Democrats who support draconian gun control. If anything you made his point.

[SteveM]

91. Actuallly, there may be other explanations...

Some noted print media editorial cartoonists who are virulently anti-gun receive payments from the NRA for redistribution in NRA journals/publications. Perhaps we have some entrepreneurial action going here?

Or

Some posters who appear anti-gun are really pro 2nd Amendment, but are trying to portray a Democratic web site as anti-gun, thus a broader political agenda.

[eqfan592]

46. No, what is ruining this country...

...are people who don't bother to ever read legislation for themselves before railing against it based on superficial reasons. Such people are present in both parties, sadly.

[jpak]

56. Democratic Gov. Lynch read this POS GOP/Free Stater/Teabagger gun law and vetoed it - why?

Cuz it sucked

yup

[eqfan592]

78. Yup, I'm sure that's EXACTLY why, jpak.

:sarcasm:

[DonP]

48. I often wonder is your last sentence isn't his real objective?

The more he can paint Dems as unreasoning assholes on the subject of the 2nd amendment the more he may like it.

His goal actually seems to make the party and at least some of its members, look like a cartoon or parody of itself.

If you recall, during the NRA convention he was also the only one posting speeches as quickly as they were made too.

[spin]

58. Interesting point. (n/t)

[krispos42]

43. You are and they do. Just not on this issue.

I'm sure Republicans like ketchup on their french fries. So do I.


It still makes them a bunch of nation-destroying fanatics.

[rrneck]

6. Brilliant.

Just brilliant.

Yours is such a sterling contribution to understanding of the issue.

[gravity556]

45. Vulgar, childish and poorly constructed.

There should be a comma in there somewhere, yup.

As for duty to retreat, no thanks. I can't run away (seriously damaged back and knee) and I'm not inclined to fist fight and risk further injuries or death, so it's pepper spray, 911 and a G19.

Fortunately, I live in AZ-no duty to retreat, castle doctrine and laws preventing the criminal or his family from filing a lawsuit due to injuries or death sustained by said criminal while in the course of a crime.

[jpak]

54. Arizona has one of the highest gun death rates in the nation - does it not?

Does Arizona execute people for burglary?

Castle Lawyers can be judge, jury and executioner

and get away with it

yup

[eqfan592]

61. People in Arizona can defend themselves against criminals...

...that have broken into their home and/or are attempting to steal/destroy their property.

There, fixed it for you.

[jpak]

66. and they can't in NH without a stupid GOP/NRA Castle Law?

news to me

yup

[eqfan592]

76. See post 77 & post 35.

yup

[gravity556]

71. AZ does have a high gun death rate.

Though I don't think it's the highest in the nation-Chicago, NYC or DC I think have the top 3 spots sewn neatly up. Of course, most of those shootings are directly related to the drug and human smuggling operations from Mexico-Juan shoots Miguel because he wants Miguel's territory or even to steal his load of illegals and drugs. Then Jose, on orders from his and Miguel's bosses shoots Juan (and a couple other gang bangers who happen to be standing in a bad spot) in retaliation. Back and forth, back and forth.

Nothing to do with castle doctrine or SYG laws. Unless Jose gets lost on his way to kidnap and kill Jesus and ends up in someone else's living room. Then the homeowner, who is now faced with a kicked in door (home invasions are popular with the cartel boys) and a stranger in his house is legally within his rights to presume that said individual means him great bodily harm or death and respond appropriately. In your case, jpak, the response would be to call 911 and hope that you aren't beaten to death or shot before the cops get there in 5 to 7 minutes. I'd suggest covering your head and trying to protect your neck as you assume the fetal position. ;)

[PavePusher]

98. We do?

Cite or retract, please.

[PavePusher]

97. Civility...

you hatin' it.

[TheCowsCameHome]

9. Gov. Lynch enjoys high popularity ratings in both parties.

We need more like him in other states.

[gejohnston]

16. Until this

that will change. That will changed even faster as soon the papers print an article about the family of a dead rapist or serial killer filing a wrongful death suit against the intended victim.

[TheCowsCameHome]

17. I doubt it.

NH voters don't get one hung up on one issue.

[gejohnston]

19. maybe, but something that big could

and for every rule, there is an..........

[Hoyt]

80. Don't fret, current NH law allows you to shoot people -- you just can't shoot unarmed teenager

in the back who is leaving the scene of a minor car break in, as many gunners here are prepared to do. I think those opposed to the governor's veto are just concerned that a court might say your split second decision was wrong, and truthfully it wasn't a "split second decision" since you have been preparing for the chance to shoot another human being for decades shooting silhouette targets; tricking out your guns, loads and magazines; strapping one or two to your body to take your kid to Chuck E Cheeze, etc.


It's about time we started addressing the crazy laws, and kudos to governor for putting vetoing one. I think people somewhat removed from the so-called "gun culture" will respect his decision.

[gejohnston]

84. first

shooting an unarmed teenager in the back is murder, except for San Francisco cops in the 1990s. Castle law does not change that. My opposition to the governor's veto invites other injustices. Even if the court agrees, the rapist or family of the rapist can still sue the victim.

Ever ask yourself about the laws you are defending? Why they were passed or by whom?

[Hoyt]

86. Are you trying to tell me the NRA gives a dang about a rape victim opposed to more guns in society?

Go read the laws in effect in NH now which have special provisions for rape situations.

Most gunners here are up to date on who you can shoot "legally" in every state.

[gejohnston]

89. The NRA cares about second amendment rights

Brady, back when it was known as HCI, said it was best not to resist. How about home invasion victims? robbery victims? What special provisions are those? Send me the link.

[gravity556]

95. re: Are you trying to tell me the NRA gives a dang about a rape victim

You're right, Hoyt, most people who carry daily take it seriously and take it upon themselves to learn the laws on defensive gun use. If only the pro-criminal safety people (that's you!)would likewise educate themselves rather than taking a special interest group's word for it (VPC, Brady, Handgun Control Inc.), maybe there would be intelligent discussion. Rather than the pro-criminal safety side simply yammering "Ew, guns are icky! I don't like them, so nobody would have them. And if we took them all away, everyone would be happy and sing songs around the campfire..." Maybe if you and the monosyllabic wonder read the laws, you'd know that no state's castle doctrine or stand your ground law permits shooting someone in the back outside as they run away.

Also, at least in AZ, there are situations where deadly force is permitted in defense of third party. Rape, sexual molestation of a minor and arson of an occupied structure (or a structure that the shooter believes to be occupied) are the ones that come to mind at the moment. Or should the armed individual wait until the rapist/molester/arsonist is done and then wait for the police? Should someone have to wait until the individual who just kicked in his door actually shoots someone before he defends himself? Or comply, hope that the criminal doesn't beat him up too bad or kill him, and then call the cops afterward? Serious question.

And the preemption of lawsuits being filed by the criminal or his family over injuries he sustained while robbing/raping/mugging/assaulting a victim is also a good thing. I would imagine someone who has endured the trauma of the crime doesn't need to be further victimized by his assailant, though in some states without SYG/CD laws, Johnny Scumbag is free to sue his victim for any injuries that little Johnny sustained while engaged in a criminal act.

Though I can see how that would upset the pro-criminal safety folks. I mean, hell, it's a tough existence using violence to take shit that isn't yours, but to actually have to deal with someone who not only refused to let him steal the TV and maybe rape the wife but actually shot poor Johnny? That's just barbaric! And think of the lost income for Johnny's family-they were planning to watch the big game on that TV, maybe buy a surround sound system with fenced property! Totally understandable that they'd want to sue, right? And then those mean old gun owners insisting that they have the right to defend themselves and their home.... Positively distressing to both criminals and the pro-criminal safety folks. Why should crooks and murderers and rapists have to work in unsafe conditions like that-the possibility that you might break into a house one night for some stress relieving sex and get beaten up or even killed? It must be horrible.

Back in the real world, however, more and more people are deciding that they don't want to provide a safe work environment for thugs. They don't want to be sued by Johnny's mom for shooting Johnny after he pulled a knife and demanded money. They don't want to be sued by Johnny when he breaks into their house and threatens them and their family and gets his head half bashed in with a baseball bat. And poor Johnny is simply shit out of luck these days. The only people who have any concern for a criminal's safety when he's menacing innocent people are Johnny himself and the pro-criminal safety folks. The PCS people couch their arguments in bullshit and distorted truths (you're more likely to be shot when there's a gun in the house! really? a gun needs to be present for someone to be shot?! zounds! oh...usually the shooter brings the gun with him while he's breaking in, you say? oh...much less a revelation then..), saying that they want guns banned for the good of the public! Of course, they close their eyes, stick their fingers in their ears and yell "LA LA LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" when it's pointed out that criminals tend to have little regard for the law.

Or the ever popular "Well, *I've* never needed a gun, why should anyone else anywhere feel the need to carry one? Or any of a thousand other inane arguments to support their pro-criminal safety stance (Oh, the police will protect you! Just call 911 and they'll be there in a few minutes), all the while ignoring the the fact that it matters not a whit what they "feel" about anything. A right is a RIGHT.

[Hoopla Phil]

50. So did Ann Richards. . .

nuff said.

[Union Scribe]

88. Yes it sounds like Republican authoritarians really like him.

Along with Democratic authoritarians.

[gejohnston]

10. here are my questions

If you are glad the bill was vetoed, please explain why.

(The bill) would unleash the potential for increasing deadly violence in our communities," he said. "It would allow the use of deadly force on street corners, in shopping malls, public parks and in retail stores. Drug dealers and other felons who brandish weapons will be further emboldened to use their weapons, while prosecution of those criminals will be made more difficult because of this bill's expansion of the right to use deadly force.

Questions I would ask Lynch would be:
Has that happened in other states? If not, what did he base it on other than what some police chiefs claim? If it has not been a problem in other places, where do police officials base their opinions on?

Current law allows people to use deadly force in their homes and in public to defend others, but in public only if they can't safely retreat. Deadly force is not limited to use of a firearm, but could be a knife, baseball bat or other weapon.

Who defines the ability to safely retreat? The jury? Who has the burden of proof? I have four problems with "duty to retreat". First is that you are giving rights away to an aggressor and rewards uncivilized behavior. Second, some one who was not there and not in danger judges the actions of someone with their life threatened. Third, it opens the door to malicious prosecution by DAs more interested in personal politics or philosophical grandstanding than justice. Granted, that problem is more common in Canada and UK than here. Fourth, you defend yourself against an attacker, the attacker or their family can sue you.

[spin]

28. Often there is a disparity in physical condition between an attacker and his victim ...

A street thug doesn't go around looking for the toughest individual in the crowd to attack. Like any predator he tries to pick a weaker target.

So you often have a young criminal in prime physical condition attacking a middle aged man or a woman. For discussion purposes let's visualize me as a potential victim. I'm 65 and suffer from back problems and my doctor tells me that I am a candidate for a hip replacement. Why should I have to attempt to retreat? If anything, my retreating will only encourage a violent attack by the criminal. I can't run, I can only limp fast.

If I can stand my ground, I have a better chance of survival.

Often in real life a criminal encounters a person who stands their ground and when the criminal realizes that his victim is armed, he runs.

[ileus]

11. Funny that somehow the fine Gov got Criminals confused with honest citizens.

[Ragnarok]

12. This governor...

..is not on my good-guy list. It's sad we have to rely on the Repukes to stand up for our right to self defense and our rights not to be sued by some shit-bag's family after the courts find we exercised our right to self defense in a legal manner. People such as this governor are why I quit voting straight party in 2004. I sincerely hope that budgetary constraints force him to ponder undertaking the responsibility of providing for his own security with his own hands (no taxpayer funded hired guns to help).

From the article...
"Senate Republican Leader Jeb Bradley of Wolfeboro predicted the Senate would vote to override the veto..."

"The bill also grants civil immunity to using force against assailants under some circumstances."

[jpak]

14. Republicans suck

FYI

YUP

[gejohnston]

18. So are you saying

Lincoln and Eisenhower (who was to the left of Obama, IMHO) sucked? (Well OK give Honest Abe half Republican, Lincoln was a third party in his second term. He lost the GOP nomination to John C. Fremont 1864). Fremont got zero electoral votes.
You would love Reagan as California Gov, since he signed the Mulford act. Trent Lott (and the other racist Shelby) voted for the AWB, so you would love them too.
I agree, the last three Republicans suck.

[Ragnarok]

38. True, but...

...it doesn't change the fact that this governor and his supporters are elitist hypocrites.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpak]

41. the Free Stater/GOP/Teabaggers that passed this bill are fucking extremists

that suck

yup

[brendan120678]

13. Whatever happened to...

"Live Free or Die?"

Has it been changed to, "Beg for Your Life?"

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gejohnston]

22. no it does not.

Charles Bronson played a vigilante in his movies, not relevant.

[spin]

29. There is no guarantee that using a firearm for self defense will work ...

You use a firearm only when the other choices are to suffer serious injury or to die.

If you lose, you are not out much. You would have ended up in a hospital or six feet under anyway.

[GreenStormCloud]

40. Doesn't work that way.

The bad guy can't claim self-defense as he is the agressor. He gets convicted for murder. No-retreat doctrine doesn't apply for the agressor, only for the defender.

Many states now have no-retreat laws and it hasn't been a problem for any of them that have it.

Our imaginations have nothing to do with it as we know how the law really works. Your imagination is divorced from legal reality.

[damntexdem]

21. Even if his veto is overridden, it is important for him to fight against this nonsense.

It is important to fight back wherever and whenever we can.

[gejohnston]

23. please explain why it is nonsense, and while you are at it,

can you answer our points in a logical and concise manner?

[oneshooter]

83. He won't answer you. Like many anti's he posts and then runs. n/t

[PavePusher]

24. "fight back" against what? The right of Citizens to defend themselves?

Wow, that poses a rather unflattering picture of you.

Unless, of course, you are volunteering to provide security for others?

[jpak]

27. Fight back against GOP/NRA gun extremism/vigilantes/insanity

you can already defend yourself in NH

yup

[gejohnston]

35. vigilanteism would still be illegal

While true you can still defend yourself, this is the part that matters to me:

627 one - a Civil Immunity. A person who uses force in self-protection or in the protection of other persons pursuant to RSA 627:4, in the protection of premises and property pursuant to RSA 627 seven and 627:8, in law enforcement pursuant to RSA 627:5, or in the care or welfare of a minor pursuant to RSA 627:6, is justified in using such force and shall be immune from civil liability for personal injuries sustained by a perpetrator which were caused by the acts or omissions of the person as a result of the use of force. In a civil action initiated by or on behalf of a perpetrator against the person, the court shall award the person reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs, including but not limited to, expert witness fees, court costs, and compensation for loss of income.

If I understand the lawyer speak correctly, the skinhead, rapist etc. can sue for injuries or wounds caused by resistance. In the case of death, the family of the rapist, skinhead, serial killer etc. may file a wrongful death suit against the victim. Please explain to me how that is just or civilized.

edited to remove smily caused by colons and digits.

[PavePusher]

53. "yap, yap, yap."

Try some facts next time.

[ileus]

55. GOP?NRA have nothing to do with expanding civil rights of citizens

[jpak]

57. R U Series?

:rofl:

Who is sponsoring all this guns on campus, guns in bars, guns in church, guns at sporting events, guns at grade schools bullshit?

clue - the GOP/NRA

and they suck

yup

[friendly_iconoclast]

37. No doubt similar counsel was offered to Ann Richards.

Unfortunately for all of us, she listened to it...

[SteveM]

93. Why? So more Democrats can be exposed to cheap, easy & effective attacks?

[Redneck Socialist]

25. link to the bill

Here's the bill in question, if anyone cares.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2011/SB0088.html

[krispos42]

42. "It would allow the use of deadly force on street corners, in shopping malls, public parks..."

"'(The bill) would unleash the potential for increasing deadly violence in our communities,' he said. 'It would allow the use of deadly force on street corners, in shopping malls, public parks and in retail stores.'"

Duh. That's the point. Instead of being a victim, you become an "intended victim", while your attacker becomes "the killed/wounded/foiled attacker".

And felons that brandish weapons will NOT be further emboldened because.... IT'S ILLEGAL FOR THEM TO OWN WEAPONS!


A convicted felon has the right to use lethal force to protect himself. Okay, he can't legally own or possess a gun, so if he uses a gun to protect himself he still gets arrested. Not for shooting the guy attacking him, but for possessing a gun at all. In his case, the act was legal, but the tool used in the act (the gun) wasn't.

[ileus]

44. anyone with a gun is considered a criminal...

he doesn't know the difference between citizen and criminal, they're all one and the same to him.

Guns = Criminal

[krispos42]

73. Apparently so.

I guess everybody should just say home... this way they don't need to carry concealed firearms in public.


Of course, then they'll be complaining about the obesity epidemic...

[TheCowsCameHome]

81. Gov. Lynch has vetoed this bill

and the complaining and gnashing of teeth will continue indefinitely.

More news at 11.:woohoo:

[X_Digger]

85. When the veto is overridden...

Then I expect what we'll hear is.. cracking molars as crime continues to drop at the same rate as before.

Just like in other states that have removed the duty to retreat.

[SteveM]

94. "...gnashing of teeth will continue indefinitely?" With an override?