Exeter Police Chief Richard Kane has been a cop for more than three decades. In that time, he’s never once come across a situation in which existing laws prevented a citizen from being able to legally defend himself.

“Thirty-one years in the business and we’ve never had an issue,” Kane said at Hampton Beach during a press conference on Aug. 23. “I think we’re trying to fix something that doesn’t need to be fixed.”

He was referring to Senate Bill 88, which would expand the legal use of deadly force in New Hampshire. The Republican-led House of Representatives and Senate overwhelmingly passed the bill earlier this summer, but Democratic Gov. John Lynch vetoed it. On Wednesday, Sept. 7, the Senate is expected to vote on an override of Lynch’s veto. If it passes, it will then be taken up by the House.

Current law allows citizens to use deadly force to protect themselves in their homes. If they’re in a public space, they still can use deadly force in self defense, but only if they cannot safely retreat from the situation without opening fire.

SB 88 would eliminate the provision stipulating that people must attempt to retreat before using deadly force in public. Supporters say the bill protects citizens’ Constitutional right to defend themselves. Opponents say it’s based on a misguided ideological principle that would result in an escalation of public violence.

Lynch campaigned against the bill in Hampton on Aug. 23, along with Attorney General Michael Delaney, Rockingham County Attorney Jim Reams, and the police chiefs of Hampton, North Hampton, Exeter and Rye. He’s received backing from law enforcement and prosecutors across the state.

“This bill is bad for public safety,” Lynch said. “It is a bill that favors gangs and criminals over law enforcement, and I don’t know why we would ever consider a bill that favors gangs and criminals over law enforcement.”

Hampton Police Chief Jamie Sullivan agreed. Noting the large crowds along the sunny beachside strip, he emphasized the danger of loosening deadly force laws.

“We have hundreds of thousands of people down here,” Sullivan said. “We do have, from time to time, violent crime. Our concern is that the gangs or the people who come up here will be emboldened to be able to use a new defense that they currently don’t have.”

Reams, a Republican, said SB 88 would encourage armed individuals to open fire with little provocation. A verbal altercation could easily escalate into a gunfight, he said, with everyone involved claiming self defense in court.

“We do not want them to respond with gunfire or any other weapon when it’s a verbal confrontation, and we’re very concerned this is going to encourage that kind of behavior,” Reams said.

Delaney reiterated that state law already allows citizens to use deadly force in self defense as a last resort. SB 88, he said, would not only increase the potential for violence, but would make it more difficult to prosecute violent crimes in court.

“We have very strong statutes on the book that allow citizens to use self defense when appropriate. Whenever any citizen is confronted with deadly force, they do have the right to use deadly force to protect themselves,” he said. “What we don’t want to see is a new law that’s going to result in drug dealers and street gangsters having a new right to respond with unnecessary violence on our streets.”

According to Delaney, Florida passed a similar law in 2005. Up until then, the state averaged about 34 justified homicides per year.

“Following passage of similar legislation in Florida, the number of civilians that were killed through justified homicides tripled,” he said. “So we are concerned that we have seen an escalation of violence and an increase in civilian deaths when laws like this have been passed in other states.”

The bill includes a provision related to the case of Ward Bird, who was convicted of waving a gun at a woman on his Moultonborough property in 2008 and was sentenced to the mandatory minimum of three years in prison (Bird was pardoned after serving less than three months). SB 88 would alter the mandatory penalty for deadly force crimes to give judges more sentencing discretion.

Lynch said he supports that provision of the bill and would sign it into law if it were presented as a separate piece of legislation.

When the original vote on SB 88 took place in June, it passed the House by a vote of 283-89 and the Senate by a vote of 19-5. Every Republican in the Senate voted in favor of the bill, and every Democrat voted against it.

Reaching the two-thirds majority needed to override Lynch’s veto in the Senate will require at least 16 senators to vote again in support of the bill. If the governor’s veto is to prevail, he must keep Democrats on board and convince at least four Republican senators to change their minds and vote against the bill.

That’s why Lynch has been campaigning against SB 88 around the state. On Aug. 22, he visited Manchester with Police Chief David Mara. The next morning, he was at Hampton Beach with another cadre of supporters.

North Hampton Police Chief Brian Page worries about how the legislation will affect his officers on the street, who must respond to shootings. Rye Police Chief Kevin Walsh said the bill invites citizens to use poor judgment with firearms. And Sullivan repeated that the existing self defense statutes have worked flawlessly.

“What is it we’re trying to fix?” he said. “We don’t see a reason that the use of force statute needs to be fixed or changed. It’s worked well for many years and we’re pleased with the way it’s worked. We don’t believe this is a necessary expansion.”

It’s not the first time Republican legislators have been accused of introducing a controversial bill to solve a nonexistent problem. Also in June, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 129, which would have required voters to show photo identification at the polls before casting a ballot. Supporters said the legislation was aimed at eliminating voter fraud in the state. But Lynch vetoed the bill, arguing that voter fraud has never been a problem in New Hampshire, and that the only substantive consequence of the law would be to prevent certain eligible citizens from voting—elderly or handicapped people who don’t drive, for instance, or those with suspended licenses.

Republicans did not have the numbers to attempt an override of Lynch’s veto on SB 129. But, unless several have a change of heart, they’ve got more than enough to override the veto of SB 88. Doing so could make a strong political statement for Republicans as they head into the fall legislative sessions with their veto-proof majorities.

Several House leaders have spoken out in favor of the bill, including House Speaker William O’Brien of Mont Vernon, who pointed to recent riots in London.

“Senate Bill 88 simply ensures that in New Hampshire, lawful gun owners can defend themselves when they are threatened,” O’Brien said in a statement. “This common-sense legislation would make New Hampshire the 32nd state to have a Castle Doctrine or ‘Stand your Ground’ law, and we should have been a leader in this important area of protecting individual rights.”

Following Lynch’s visits to Manchester and Hampton, the House Majority Office sent out a press release labeled “House Republicans React to Governor’s Gun Confiscation Tour.” The headline is a rather drastic distortion of the truth, since Lynch is not attempting to confiscate anyone’s guns or limit gun ownership rights. Jim Rivers, spokesman for the House Majority Office, did not return a voice message and email seeking clarification. 

Among those quoted in the press release is Deputy House Speaker Pamela Tucker of Greenland. “While deadly force should never be used lightly, I do believe New Hampshire citizens have the right to defend themselves when they are threatened,” she said.

But some senators may be willing to vote against the veto override. District 24 state Sen. Nancy Stiles (R-Hampton) said last week she had not yet decided which way she would vote. Several police chiefs in her district have contacted her to voice concerns. “I’m planning to meet with them and I’ll make up my mind after that,” she said.

Stiles voted in favor of SB 88 in June, but recent outcry against the bill has caused her to rethink her position.

“It seemed logical that you should be able to defend yourself wherever you are,” she said. “I support the second amendment, I really do. However, I really just need to rethink this.”

District 23 Sen. Russell Prescott (R-Kingston) said he had not made up his mind either. He said he initially supported the bill because he believes citizens should be able to react when in danger “without feeling like, ‘Boy, I may have to make a split-second decision—should I not defend myself or should I defend myself?’”

Prescott said he would like to see the Sept. 7 override vote postponed to give police chiefs more time to voice their concerns and give legislators more time to address those concerns, possibly with modifications to the bill.

District 6 Sen. Fenton Groen (R-Rochester), however, said he has already decided to vote in favor of the override. He said citizens’ rights to defend themselves without backing down are protected by the state Constitution.

“To put in a requirement that you can’t use your arms to defend yourself without first trying to retreat and trying to get away from an assailant, a criminal, I just don’t believe that’s Constitutional,” he said.

Groen said he has talked to many of his constituents about the bill and a “significant majority” of them support it. He’s dubious of Delaney’s statistics from Florida, saying a number of factors could have led to an increase in justified homicides.

Groen has also heard from police officers in his district who are concerned about the bill. If the law does, in fact, lead to an escalation in violence, he said he would work to address those problems with future legislation.

“If we come to this and we need to have additional laws to deal with a criminal element, then I am more than willing to work with (police) to help them with laws that deal with the criminal element,” he said.

Asked if he was aware of any incident in which a New Hampshire citizen was prevented from legally defending himself by the current law, Groen admitted that he was not. But he repeated that his primary obligation is to uphold the Constitution, which, he noted, can be changed with a two-thirds majority vote of the public.

The exact wording of the New Hampshire Constitution’s provision on deadly force reads as follows: “All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.”

Whether or not existing statutes meet that standard depends on one’s interpretation. Groen and other Republican leaders think not. Lynch and state prosecutors think so. The resolution will begin with the Senate vote on Sept. 7, a date that will mark a new season of partisan wrangling in the New Hampshire Legislature.