PA Castle Doctrine

[Malsua 1,422]

Today is the big day. Let's hope they get it right.

 

------

http://www.philly2philly.com/politics_c ... w_home_own

 

Castle Doctrine could allow home owners to legally defend homes in PA

By Dennis Bakay at 9:09 pm on Wednesday November 18, 2009

 

You would think that in America we can legally defend our homes when a criminal breaks in our home with the intent of injuring, robbing, or even killing us.

 

AH! Wrong!

 

You can be sued by one of these degenerates if you do the right thing in defending your home should you injure them. Or better yet, some piece of garbage can break into your home with the intent of killing you or committing a heinous crime upon your family, and if you shoot said piece of garbage dead, their family could sue you!

 

Ah, you gotta love justice. Home invasion is among one of the most unspeakable crimes one can commit. In the Philadelphia region it's almost a daily story when we hear of a home invasion ending in murder. And, for there to be any legal grey area concering a home owner's right to defend against such a crime is a travesty.

 

The PA House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hold a hearing on Castle Doctrine legislation tomorrow otherwise known as HB40.

 

This would eliminate the duty to retreat within one's home including attached structures. It would also eliminate the duty to retreat onto the streets provided one is in fear of being harmed by one of these animals. It also provides civil immunity should someone defend their home. It also clarifies the definition of a loaded firearm to "magazines being secured in a separate pouch, rather than specifying a separate container, provided the magazine is secure, and the ammunition covered."

 

It's such a great concept! We will actually be allowed to injure and render these animals harmless should they break into our homes.

 

The Castle Doctrine is defined as an American legal doctrine that designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack.

 

Not only should this be a law in PA; it should become a Constitutional Ammendment. Defending one's home should not even be argued; it should be a human right.

 

If the PA House Juiciary Committe decides to move forward with Castle Doctrine Legislation tomorrow then November 19th will be a great day in Pennsylvania history.

[Malsua 1,422]

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/2 ... tion_.html

Stu Bykofsky: Your home, your castle ... so why hesitate shooting an intruder? Good question.

 

By Stu Bykofsky

Philadelphia Daily News

 

Daily News Columnist

"GUN NUTS" and "gun-hating zealots" will be taking aim at each other before the Pennsylvania House Judiciary Committee today in Harrisburg (check your weapons at the door, please.)

 

It's a public hearing for House Bill 40, which will "eliminate the duty to retreat" if you are confronted by an attacker, according to Dave McGlaughlin, deputy counsel to the committee, and a former Philadelphia defense attorney.

 

As another chapter in our society's clash of cultures, HB40 will drive most Philadelphians batty and be catnip to Pennsylvanians up north and out west.

 

The bill expands what's called the Castle Doctrine - the idea that a man's home is his castle and can be defended by any means necessary, up to and including lethal force. (In the 21st century, add "woman" to that description. The Castle Doctrine also applies to businesses.)

 

HB40 says that a citizen confronted by an attacker and fearing serious bodily harm, death, kidnapping or rape can draw and blast away without fear of prosecution. This is known as the Stand Your Ground Doctrine. Current law requires the victim to first attempt to safely retreat before shooting.

 

Realistically, it's rare for a district attorney to prosecute an honest citizen even without HB40.

 

This presents two questions:

 

1. Why is the law needed, if the above is true?

 

2. If the above is true, why not make it law?

 

 

 

 

Here's why not, according to anti-gun advocate Bryan Miller, co-founder of Heeding God's Call, and scheduled to testify today.

 

It's an unwelcome expansion of the Castle Doctrine, he says, "to everywhere - to churches, schools, malls, everywhere, so that someone can claim they were threatened and use lethal force against the person who they claim [threatened them.]

 

"Our name for it is Judge, Jury and Executioner," he says. Other critics have called it "Shoot now, ask questions later."

 

The right of self-protection already exists, Miller says, but he sees it as limited.

 

"Walking on a street or going through a shopping mall," he says, "we are protected by law and by law-enforcement officers," and that's preferable to giving lethal force to individuals.

 

The other side is expressed by Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, a co-sponsor of the bill who hails from Butler County, about 20 miles north of Pittsburgh.

 

He sees HB40 as merely reinstating "the common-sense right of a citizen" to defend himself against a threat to his life, kidnapping or rape without fear of being prosecuted or sued.

 

Metcalfe points to lawsuits that, outrageously, have been filed by perpetrators against "law-abiding citizens trying to defend themselves."

 

Miller is correct in saying that we have police to protect us, but the crime rate tells us that police aren't omnipresent.

 

HB40 "restores rights that have been eroded away by the current judicial system that's been giving preferential treatment to criminals," says John Hohenwarter, the National Rifle Association's director of government affairs for Pennsylvania.

 

In this state, the strongest opposition to guns comes from Philadelphia. Anything to limit or reduce guns in anyone's hands gets immediate applause.

 

HB40 aims to give the honest citizen added legal protection, and while I can see that a few villains might try to use the law for lethal, "legal" revenge, I can also see that district attorneys are not dense as cheesecake.

 

"This is not an open-door, green-light to shoot," says the NRA's Hohenwarter. "It still must be a justified self-defense case."

 

If HB40 passes, critics fear wild gunfire on the streets.

 

Don't we have that in Philly now?

 

We need criminal control more than gun control.

[HODGIE 3]

I cannot wait to see how this plays out.

It's a wonder how a state that has concealed carry and open carry would not have the Castle Doctrine.

[mikeyboyeee 66]

I cannot wait to see how this plays out.

It's a wonder how a state that has concealed carry and open carry would not have the Castle Doctrine.

 

 

1st thing that popped into my head as well.

 

Shit, I think we even have it in NJ, right?

[NJ609 22]

I cannot wait to see how this plays out.

It's a wonder how a state that has concealed carry and open carry would not have the Castle Doctrine.

 

 

1st thing that popped into my head as well.

 

****, I think we even have it in NJ, right?

 

Yes but it's rather weak. You can get sued, go to jail forever, etc... Commie NJ DA's being what they are...

 

But yeah we have one.

[HODGIE 3]

****, I think we even have it in NJ, right?

 

Yes we do but it states if able to retreat to safety then that should be your 1st course

of action. A bit over a year ago a man in Rumson I believe shot and killed a home intruder and

was cleared of all charges.

[rscalzo 3]

Too many seem to thing a state having a Castle Doctrine guarantees clear sailing is a firearm is used on one's property. Think again. while we have such legislation on the books in NH a homeowner is currently being charged criminally. If the elements of the statue are not adhered to, grief can follow.

[Malsua 1,422]

****, I think we even have it in NJ, right?

 

Yes we do but it states if able to retreat to safety then that should be your 1st course

of action. A bit over a year ago a man in Rumson I believe shot and killed a home intruder and

was cleared of all charges.

 

Retreat is not necessary inside your home in NJ. Everywhere else in the state it is. The key issue is that you must be in legitimate fear for your life.