PDA

View Full Version : The Castle Doctrine has PASSED!!!



notmYJ
10-15-2010, 12:53 AM
The castle doctrine aka the "stand your ground" law has passed the state senate today without ANY anti gun amendments.

This bill, known as HB40, The Castle Doctrine, etc, does alot of good for the citizens of PA who carry firearns or have firearms for defencive use in the home. In simple words, it provides the following...

-Eliminates the "duty to retreat". Meaning, if you are confronted by an attacker you may stand your ground and use deadly force according to the current statutes anywhere you are legally allowed to be.
-Allows for civil imunity to a person using LEGAL deadly force. Meaning if you shoot an attacker, they or their estate cant sue you in civil court for damages.

This has passed the House as HB40 last week, today it passed the senate as an amendment to HB1926. This bill will be sent to the governors desk. The question is will he sign it? If he does, it will become law. If not....

This is a HUGE success for PA gun owners. copies of this bill have been locked up in commitee by anti gun politicians for years. Finally it has made its way to the govs desk. There is some question as to whether or not he will sign it. He has never seen any pro gun legislation that he liked, but since he is on his way out as a lame duck, and might try to save face for other democrats that are on the choping block in a few weeks, he may sign it. There was and is a huge response state wide from the citizens in favor of this bill.

More info....
http://forum.pafoa.org (http://forum.pafoa.org/political-138/113390-hb-40-race-finish-line-senate.html)

Aran
10-15-2010, 01:38 AM
Don't count your chickens until the governor signs them.

Dragonslayer
10-15-2010, 04:32 AM
YAY!!! At least it's a step closer than it has been. Thank's for the update Dave.
I prolly won't hear anything from the NRA till around noon. LoL

Aran
10-15-2010, 06:42 AM
Who cares what the NRA has to say? They're essentially useless.

Super Scout
10-15-2010, 07:05 AM
Why? Did your mother neglect you ? You seem very bitter. But this is great news for gun owners.
And the NRA has done more for pro gun legislation than any other group.

gonecheenin
10-15-2010, 07:51 AM
huh, well I'll be.

If he actually signs this, I may finally go get my permit & a pistol.

Dick.Breakey
10-15-2010, 08:44 AM
aran, you are a bitter person. if your not happy about this or dont care enough to be happy about it for now while we have cleared a huge hurdle, then dont post up.


outside of that, FU*K yeah!!!! im very happy it passed. i didnt really expect it to get this far with such short time remaining in their work schedule. this is great news for everyone, including those who dont like guns. now, in the case of an emergency someone who is carrying does not have to feel like they are risking more than just their life to help someone else. thanks for posting up the info. made my morning and half day at work even better :)

ExplorHer
10-15-2010, 09:47 AM
Finally some good news this AM.

OverkillZJ
10-15-2010, 10:53 AM
Sweet.

TimMichaels
10-15-2010, 11:20 AM
Gonna have to find some free time to read through the statute myself. But so far I dig it.

Dick.Breakey
10-15-2010, 12:15 PM
its good. up until last week i kept a copy in my car.

TimMichaels
10-15-2010, 12:33 PM
I don't pass full judgment on laws until I read them myself. No offense, I just don't like to take anyone else's word on what's 'good.' Especially since my idea of 'good' on this topic won't be the same as the majority of people here.

beat1078
10-15-2010, 12:47 PM
its good. up until last week i kept a copy in my car.

Was that in case you had to bust a fool with your shotty?

(Sorry I couldn't resist)

OverkillZJ
10-15-2010, 02:31 PM
Especially since my idea of 'good' on this topic won't be the same as the majority of people here.

Thank goodness for that! :overkill:

Lumpy
10-15-2010, 03:00 PM
This is great news!!!! I always thought it was kinda stupid that someone could break into your home and you shoot them they sue you????

Dead men tell no tails...

Sleeper
11-07-2010, 05:54 PM
Um, it is not over yet or passed. It was supposed to be voted on Nov 8th but not sure if they are going to put it on the schedule or not, they only need 24 hours notice to do so so start calling your local reps to get it going!

ezman
11-07-2010, 08:17 PM
here's a link to hb40 http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&sessYr=2009&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=0040&pn=0032

i got most of it but there were a couple of paragraphs that i wasn't clear on... could somebody help me out...

8
Section 2. Section 505(b) of Title 18 is amended and the
9
section is amended by adding a subsection to read:
10
§ 505. Use of force in self-protection.
11
* * *
12
(b) Limitations on justifying necessity for use of force.--
13
(1) The use of force is not justifiable under this
14
section:
15
(i) to resist an arrest which the actor knows is
16
being made by a peace officer, although the arrest is
17
unlawful; or
18
(ii) to resist force used by the occupier or
19
possessor of property or by another person on his behalf,
20
where the actor knows that the person using the force is
21
doing so under a claim of right to protect the property,
22
except that this limitation shall not apply if:
23
(A) the actor is a public officer acting in the
24
performance of his duties or a person lawfully
25
assisting him therein or a person making or assisting
26
in a lawful arrest;
27
(B) the actor has been unlawfully dispossessed
28
of the property and is making a reentry or recaption
29
justified by section 507 of this title (relating to
30
use of force for the protection of property); or


so does 27 (B) mean that you are not justified to use deadly force if you are trying to reclaim stolen property? that's what it kinda sounds like to me... just trying to figure it out... thanks

Aran
11-08-2010, 01:00 PM
aran, you are a bitter person. if your not happy about this or dont care enough to be happy about it for now while we have cleared a huge hurdle, then dont post up.


outside of that, FU*K yeah!!!! im very happy it passed. i didnt really expect it to get this far with such short time remaining in their work schedule. this is great news for everyone, including those who dont like guns. now, in the case of an emergency someone who is carrying does not have to feel like they are risking more than just their life to help someone else. thanks for posting up the info. made my morning and half day at work even better :)
I didn't see this until just now...

It's not that I wasn't happy, it's that you're celebrating nothing happening. Until it's signed into law, it's meaningless. And even then, until it's tested, it's meaningless. And the NRA had zero to do with the majority of "gun victories" over the last decade and beyond. They've either been a "ME TOO!" bandwagoneer or opposed to any efforts.

Super Scout
11-08-2010, 01:04 PM
Explain that last statement. If the NRA had nothing to do with it who did ? Their attorneys have been the representation for just about every gun victory I can recall.

Dragonslayer
11-11-2010, 05:42 AM
"Castle Doctrine" Could Be Voted on Monday, November 15!

Please Contact Your State Representative Immediately!


This afternoon, Speaker Keith McCall (D) announced that votes will be taken on unfinished business on Monday, November 15. Please contact your State Representative immediately and urge him or her to ask the Speaker to bring House Bill 1926 (http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billinfo/billinfo.cfm?syear=2009&sind=0&body=H&type=B&BN=1926) up for a vote and to vote for concurrence on HB 1926.

HB 1926 would permit law-abiding citizens to use force, including deadly force, against an attacker in their home and any places outside of their home where they have a legal right to be. If enacted, this law would also protect individuals from civil lawsuits by the attacker or the attacker's family when force is used.
It is critical that you contact your State Representative TODAY and respectfully urge him or her to have HB 1926 brought up for a vote AND to vote for concurrence on HB 1926. Contact information can be found by clicking here (http://www.capwiz.com/nra/state/main/?state=PA&view=myofficials).


IT IS CRITICAL THAT YOU MAKE YOUR VOICES HEARD!

Aran
11-11-2010, 11:17 AM
Explain that last statement. If the NRA had nothing to do with it who did ? Their attorneys have been the representation for just about every gun victory I can recall.
They jump in after everyone has done all the work and victory is a sure shot.

Super Scout
11-11-2010, 11:59 AM
Who did all the work ? I have been following this for awhile and really don't understand what the hell your saying? Who are these people that have done all the work ?

Dragonslayer
11-15-2010, 06:58 PM
H.B. 1926 passes the house 161-35 woot woot, 1 more vote to go. :041:


Please contact Governor Rendell today and respectfully urge him to protect law-abiding Pennsylvanian's by signing HB 1926 into law.

The Governor can be reached at:
225 Main Capitol Building
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
Phone: (717) 787-2500
Fax: (717) 772-8284

OR E-MAIL
http://www.governor.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/contact/2998/e-mail_the_governor's_office/465341

notmYJ
11-21-2010, 04:56 PM
Who did all the work ? I have been following this for awhile and really don't understand what the hell your saying? Who are these people that have done all the work ?

Who did the majority of the work? Officially, the FOAC and the SAF. Un officially, the PAFOA members had a huge part in this as well. The NRA has been accused, with good reason, for almost killing this bill before it was voted on.

As for the major victories, the NRA was kinda "Me too!". Most recently the Chicago case before the SCOTUS. The NRA got in after Allen Gura did all the work to get the case that far, with the help of the SAF. Only after the case was before the SCOTUS did the NRA and their lawyers petition the court to be heard on the Chicago case. The petition was granted and split Gura's time before the court. Gura and the NRA both argued on the same side (in favor of incorporation) but on different clauses of the 4th amendment. Gura, under the Privileges and Immunities clause, the NRA on Due Process.

While the the 2nd was incorporated under the 4th, it was done so under the Due Process clause, which in turn allows for a watered down version of the 2nd after heavy future litigation.

Not familiar with Allen Gura? Trust me, he is prob the most qualified attorney to argue these cases. He won the Heller case, which decided that the 2nd was an individual right. He is currently involved in many cases, suing states and DC over 2nd amendment related cases.

I am a member of the NRA, and I know what they do and dont do. But they are to the point of being too big to be productive on a state and local level. They should stick to the election endorsements in national campaigns.

Want to give money to groups who do more at the local level? Look at the FOAC, NSSF and the SAF.

Here is a vid of Gura after the Mcdonald v Chicago case, mentioning the NRA......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52_27JeI9YY

Dragonslayer
11-21-2010, 06:33 PM
PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!! forget about WHO did all the work and get on the god damn phone and call the freakin Governor and URGE him to sign this freakin bvill into LAW. WHO CARES at this point WHO did WHAT, this bill NEEDS signed into law NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rendell's office phone---->(717) 787-2500 and his office fax#---->(717) 772-8284

OR JUST FREAKIN E-MAIL HIM------>http://www.governor.state.pa.us/port..._office/465341 (http://www.governor.state.pa.us/port..._office/465341)


DONT WORRY ABOUT WHO DID WHAT


JEEZE!!!!!!!!!!! freakin worrywarts WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!

justin'sbig7
11-21-2010, 08:23 PM
done, i also called my rep last week to make sure it was brought to the gov's table before the holiday break.

if people are in it for the props, they are in it for the wrong reason. if the locals start the fight, and the nra brings the needed money and muscle, who cares as long as it passes?

HoodRN
11-21-2010, 10:11 PM
If it wasn't for the NRA's influence, money, and political muscle, most other second amendment groups would have never had a chance to come into existence. This fact escapes a lot of the bedwetters over at PAFOA.

Super Scout
11-21-2010, 11:27 PM
^ Thank you.

Aran
11-28-2010, 11:47 PM
I'd like to take this opportunity to say a few words...



Told you so.

Wrecker
11-29-2010, 08:59 AM
^
So no body should try anything since you said so?

I hear your rock calling you.

The new Gov. has voiced his support for it. So we still have a chance.

OverkillZJ
11-29-2010, 11:31 AM
I'd like to take this opportunity to say a few words...



Told you so.

Someone needs to bitchslap you for your own good. You're saying "told you so" because we tried. Really? Wow!

jackb1
11-29-2010, 12:05 PM
The Gov. has voiced his support for it. So we still have a chance.

Thought it was dead: http://www.ammoland.com/2010/11/27/pennsylvania-castle-doctrine-legislation-dies/

Did I miss something? I hope I did.

5spdXJ
11-29-2010, 10:59 PM
anything pro second ammendment is a plus in my book....

joshs1ofakindxj
11-29-2010, 11:06 PM
Last I read this bill died on the governor's desk.

Maybe this thread jinxed it!

Dragonslayer
11-30-2010, 05:20 AM
It wa vetoed on Saturday. Rep. Perry promises to reintroduce early in 2011
I got this from a PAFOA thread.


Share (http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.yorkdispatch.com%2Fn ews%2Fci_16728490&t=Perry%20deplores%20veto%2C%20promises%20Castle%2 0Doctrine%20will%20be%20reintroduced%20-%20York%20Dispatch&src=sp)

http://www.yorkdispatch.com/mngi/tracking/track?s=138&c=16728490&t=VIEWED&n=1
http://s9.addthis.com/button1-bm.gif (http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php) http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/std/icon-print.gif (http://www.yorkdispatch.com/news/ci_16728490#)Print (http://www.yorkdispatch.com/news/ci_16728490#) http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/std/icon-email.gif (http://javascript<b></b>: popup("email","/portlet/article/html/fragments/email_article.jsp?article=16728490&hostName=www.yorkdispatch.com&section=/news&siteId=138&siteName=York Dispatch",600,400);)Email (http://javascript<b></b>: popup("email","/portlet/article/html/fragments/email_article.jsp?article=16728490&hostName=www.yorkdispatch.com&section=/news&siteId=138&siteName=York Dispatch",600,400);) http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/std/normal.gifhttp://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/std/large.gifhttp://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/std/largest.gif Font Resize

Perry deplores veto, promises Castle Doctrine will be reintroduced

AMANDA DOLASINSKI - The York Dispatch
Updated: 11/28/2010 08:48:30 PM EST




Rep. Scott Perry said he is disappointed, but not surprised, Gov. Ed Rendell killed his Castle Doctrine legislation Saturday.
"It's a bill that strengthens Megan's Law, penalties against firearms and people that steal them and allows people to defend themselves - that's what he vetoes," Perry, R-Dillsburg, said. "Gov. Rendell has been against the citizens and citizens' rights in this regard for the past eight years. The governor is really out of step with a vast majority of Pennsylvania."
Rendell on Saturday vetoed the bill, saying it would escalate violent acts by expanding a person's rights in Pennsylvania to use deadly force in self-defense, even when safe retreat is possible, if feeling threatened outside the person's home.
Rendell criticized the bill as a dangerous solution to a nonexistent problem that would encourage a "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality.
"I do not believe that in a civilized society we should encourage violent and deadly confrontation when the victim can safely protect themselves" through retreat, Rendell wrote in his veto message released Saturday. "As keepers of the public trust, we have the solemn duty to protect our citizenry, not put them in harm's way, and to protect the sanctity of human life."
The veto was one of three bills Rendell rejected Saturday. Perry said there are already plans to re-introduce the bill in the next session.
"Almost immediately it will be re-introduced," he said. "We did a lot of work on it to get it to what we thought was perfect. We don't see any reason to change it at this time."
The measure broadening Pennsylvania's so-called Castle Doctrine also would have offered immunity against civil lawsuits to people who could show that they acted within the law's guidelines.
Under current law in Pennsylvania, the use of deadly force in self-defense is not justifiable when safe retreat is possible, unless a person is attacked in his home or workplace, Rendell said.
The vetoed bill said, in part, that "no person should be required to surrender his or her personal safety to a criminal, nor should a person be required to needlessly retreat in the face of intrusion or attack outside the person's home or vehicle."
A number of states have Castle Doctrine laws, although most limit the use of deadly force in self-defense to the home or private property.
Dauphin County District Attorney Ed Marsico said in a statement Saturday that it's rare that a prosecutor targets people who were legitimately defending themselves. Conversely, prosecutors in states with wider self-defense protections are finding that criminals are exploiting them by making bogus self-defense claims, Marsico said.
The term-limited Democratic governor, who leaves office Jan. 18, took action on the bill Saturday, the last possible day he could have vetoed it before it was to become law automatically.
The timing of Rendell's veto left just a tiny opening for lawmakers to reconvene to try to override the veto, which would require a two-thirds majority vote in each chamber before the current Legislature expires at midnight Tuesday. But House Speaker Keith McCall, D-Carbon, has no plans to recall the chamber's members, a spokesman said Saturday.
The new Legislature is seated in January and the bill can be reintroduced then.
It passed the Senate, 45-4, in October and the House, 161-35, earlier this month. Republican Gov.-elect Tom Corbett, Pennsylvania's attorney general, has said he would have signed it. The bill was supported by the National Rifle Association but opposed by the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association. Rendell was conflicted about his veto, because the state Senate had packaged the self-defense elements into a wider bill with separate provisions to update the registration requirements of homeless and out-of-state sexual offenders, which he supported. But the maneuver, he said, likely violates a constitutional prohibition against legislation that incorporates more than one subject.

Aran
12-10-2010, 07:34 AM
Someone needs to bitchslap you for your own good. You're saying "told you so" because we tried. Really? Wow!

Incorrect.

I said I told you so because of the celebratory "The Castle Doctrine has PASSED!!!" and earlier I stated that it's too early to say so. And oh hey, what do you know.

HoodRN
12-10-2010, 11:11 AM
I'd like to take this opportunity to say a few words...



Told you so.

Very constructive.

Aran
12-10-2010, 06:27 PM
Very constructive.

Ditto.