>As it was, he didn’t feel threatened enough to shoot the perpetrator.
>Under the law of many states, this is a blatantly illegal act, clearly spelled out in the criminal code.
NH Constitution, Part First, Art 2-a [The Bearing of Arms.]
All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.
Can you prove that he was not acting in defense of his family or his state?
No, and it isn’t my job to prove it. I am stating simply that there are laws in many states against brandishing and using a weapon in a non-lethal manner. Also, that those laws have been on the books for a long time, and have been upheld repeatedly.
http://volokh.com/2010/02/12/if-you-brandish-a-gun-in-self-defense-in-kansas-youd-best-shoot-it/
This isn’t new, unique to New Hampshire, or out of step with other states.
The NRA goes into a fair bit of depth on this exact subject when they teach firearms classes.
It is incumbent on firearms owners to know the law and to know their rights. The police are not here to preserve our rights. We have to do it ourselves.
For example, it’s up to the state to prove that he wasn’t in any danger. At this point, though, it may be up to him to prove otherwise, depending on what he has already said to the police.
Hopefully, he said nothing beyond “I would like to speak to an attorney”.
He may have already talked, though. For one thing, they knew that he fired the gun. If he had repeated over and over ONLY that he wanted to speak to his attorney, they would have had to have gotten a warrant to test for residue.
That advice is also given out in firearms safety classes. I wish more people would take it.
So, no I can’t prove it, but it isn’t up to me. It’s up to the homeowner to know and follow the law; and it is up to the police/DA to prove him guilty. Looks like he may have helped them a bit on at least one front.