Immunity Bill for Gun Owners Passes the House

How would many Democratic N.H. House Reps, (including the only Merrimack Democratic House Rep), one Republican Rep, and hoplophobes answer the following questions?

Suppose someone hotwires your F-150, spins a few doughnuts in your neighbors lawn, and then proceeds to tear through an intersection only to T-Bone a Statey.  Do you think you should also be liable because it’s your truck?

Suppose someone breaks into your house, locates your Louisville Slugger collection, finds your favorite lumber, and then proceeds to bludgeon mailboxes, a mail truck, and then a mailman.  Do you think you should also be liable for that because it’s your baseball bat?

Now, suppose someone breaks into your house, locates your prized Smith & Wesson “most powerful handgun in the world Eastwood edition” .44 Magnum,…

… steals it, shoots out your  neighbor’s windows, and then holds up a 7-Eleven. Do you think you should also be liable for that thief’s actions because it’s your gun?

If you answered, “No” to at least the last question, you answered differently than those that I mentioned at the start; you’ll be glad to hear that House Bill 388 was put up for a vote on Wednesday in the House of Representatives and passed, and is now onto the Senate. Its text reads, “This bill provides civil immunity to the owner of a firearm in the event the firearm is used in the commission of a felony or a misdemeanor.”

What struck me as odd is probably the same thing that’s striking you as odd. And that is, why was this bill even necessary in the first place? It seems to me that the other two scenarios I scribed are just as absurd as the third, and the the answers to the questions would be, “No”.

Oh_No_Guns_WhiteAhh, but then again, those don’t involve the, gulp, “g” word (<insert horrified woman’s scream here>).

So there’s that panic inducing stimulant that tends to stimulate the constitutionally untethered politician (there are many) and hoplophobics to twist any word, phrase, expression, or weather pattern into meaning “No guns”, followed by a <insert horrified woman’s scream here>.

Regardless, this bill should be law. Gun owners shouldn’t be treated any differently just because they are trying to defend themselves with something other than a whistle, vomit, or urine.

As you might expect, the vote was not unanimous as I alluded to at the beginning and is completely obvious to anyone that has actually been paying attention to events over the last 20 years.

Gun owners and others concerned may want to peruse the entire Roll Call votes here and note the “Yea”’s.  (It was a vote to kill the bill, so voting “Yea” means you want to kill it). Most Democrats voted to kill the bill–not surprising– but there was also one Republican that I found that voted to kill it (I may have missed others, it’s late) her contact information is below.

Also, for fellow Merrimack-ians, I’d like to call your attention to the only Merrimack Representative that voted to kill the bill, (i.e. leave gun owners vulnerable to legal action if their firearm is stolen and then used in a misdemeanor or felony), coincidentally she’s a Democrat (Surprise!), her contact information is also below. We need to watch and remember Rep. Grady.

Representative Charlene Takesian (r)
Hillsborough- District 37
Seat #:3095
Home Address:
114 Jeremy Hill Rd
Pelham, NH  03076-2111
Phone: (603)635-7215

Representative Brenda Grady (d)
Hillsborough- District 21 (Merrimack)
Seat #:5031
Home Address:
7 Woodward Rd
Merrimack, NH  03054
Phone: (603)424-4589