“The sure foundations of the state are laid in knowledge, not in ignorance; and every sneer at education, at culture, at book learning, which is the recorded wisdom of the experience of mankind, is the demagogue’s sneer at intelligent liberty, inviting national degeneracy and ruin.”~George William Curtis, Author, Social Reformer (1824-1896)

Governor John Lynch vetoed Senate Bill 88 yesterday, once again affirming allegiance to yet another unelected, unaccountable constituency: The New Hampshire Police Chiefs Association.  Despite thirty-one states adopting “stand your ground” laws and eliminating such duties to retreat, Lynch takes his counsel from those who think of themselves as smarter, wiser and more intuitive than the very people they were hired to serve.

As I pointed out in earlier blogs, back in 2006, I went on  TV-50 in Derry and debated then N.H. Association of Police Chiefs‘ President, Nathaniel “Chip” Sawyer on this issue. I also pointed out that it wasn’t much of a debate and Chief Sawyer didn’t put up much of a spirited counter-argument because he didn’t have to. He already had Lynch’s fidelity and the veto was already a done deal.

When she was Attorney General, Senator Kelly Ayotte urged Lynch to veto the Castle Doctrine Bill in 2006 (SB318) Yet, when she became a candidate for U.S. Senate, she quickly flip-flopped on the issue.  In 2006, SB 318 passed with arguable bi-partisan support in the house and it was Ayotte and her cronies that decried the bills’ passage with red-herring-esque”, arguments that somehow, “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.” That has not happened in the other thirty-one states who have passed the measure. As I recall, one assistant AG characterized the, “streets running red with blood,” if the bill became law.

Standing ones ground and owing no duty to retreat is not a new doctrine. There is a considerable body of case law addressing this very question. In Beard v. U.S. (1895) that a man who was, “[W]here he had the right to be” when he came under attack and “…did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm…was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground.”

Read more