[RecoveringYankee]

In a bipartisan 159-38 vote, the House approved expansion of the so-called castle doctrine, which allows individuals to defend themselves beyond their home - or castle - or vehicle.

At the same time, House Republicans, backed by dozens of Democratic supporters, shut down attempts to consider any amendments proposed by gun-control advocates. One that had the wide support of law enforcement and mayors across Pennsylvania would have closed a loophole that allows individuals denied gun permits in Pennsylvania to get them elsewhere.

A top Senate staff member indicated that the bill was likely to get a vote next week. Gov. Rendell said Tuesday he would have to review the bill before making a decision on whether to sign it.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/pa ... ights.html

 

[EJR914]

That's great news! A good day for gun owners indeed! :cheers:

 

[ookoshi]

Is there a link to the legislation somewhere where interested people can read?

I only ask this because I can't count the number of times the local Atlanta media has screwed up reporting what SB-308 does. I'm curious to see how big of an actual expansion it is in Pennsylvania.

 

[RecoveringYankee]

Is there a link to the legislation somewhere where interested people can read?

I only ask this because I can't count the number of times the local Atlanta media has screwed up reporting what SB-308 does. I'm curious to see how big of an actual expansion it is in Pennsylvania.

You ask for it, you get it.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Leg ... 40&pn=0032

 

[atlsrt44]

not very fond of rendell. We'll see if he signs it or not.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Anybody know if the resistance to unlawful arrest bit is a change to current Pennsylvania law?

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

You still have to retreat or give up your wallet unless you are at work or at home.



You cannot use deadly force if:

the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating [or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take], except [that:

• (A)] the actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling [or place of work,] unless he was the initial aggressor [or is assailed in his place of work by another person whose place of work the actor knows it to be; and

[/list]

 

[ookoshi]

You still have to retreat or give up your wallet unless you are at work or at home.



You cannot use deadly force if:

the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating [or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take], except [that:

• (A)] the actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling [or place of work,] unless he was the initial aggressor [or is assailed in his place of work by another person whose place of work the actor knows it to be; and

[/list]

If some mugger is pointing a gun at you and demands your wallet, I don't think you "know" that surrendering your wallet will avoid anything with "complete safety". I think you'd only know it's safe to comply or retreat if the guy was unarmed. And, if the bad guy was unarmed, I don't think you could shoot them in Georgia either.

 

[phantoms]

If some mugger is pointing a gun at you and demands your wallet, I don't think you "know" that surrendering your wallet will avoid anything with "complete safety". I think you'd only know it's safe to comply or retreat if the guy was unarmed. And, if the bad guy was unarmed, I don't think you could shoot them in Georgia either.

Give him your wallet. Once he has the wallet, pull out your gun and demand the wallet. By law he has to give it to you and can't shoot you. :shattered:

 

[RecoveringYankee]

Update: (Not so) Good day for gun owners in Pennsylvania

This is a little out of date, but I did not see mention of it back in November.

Gov. Rendell shot down a bill that would expand the rights of gun owners to defend themselves. He vetoed an expansion of the so-called "Castle Doctrine." But the midstate lawmaker who wrote it promises to bring it back soon with a more sympathetic governor and legislature.

http://www.abc27.com/Global/story.asp?S=13583817

House Bill 1926 - Veto Message

I wish that the Legislature had sent a clean bill with these provisions to my desk. However, the “Castle Doctrine†amendment that the General Assembly subsequently approved and included in House Bill 1926 would have threatened â€" not enhanced â€" the public safety of Pennsylvania citizens, and for that reason I am withholding my signature from the bill.

Under current law, the use of deadly force is not justifiable to protect oneself when one can safely retreat, unless a person is attacked in his or her dwelling or workplace. I support the state’s existing Castle Doctrine â€" which enables Pennsylvanians to protect themselves in their homes; however, I have grave concerns with the expansion included in this legislation. We should have the right to protect the sanctity of our homes at all times. This legislation has nothing to do with the right to protect one’s home, but seeks to expand the Castle Doctrine to outside the home.

The bill as passed encourages the use of deadly force, even when safe retreat is available, and advances 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. 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.

http://www.whptv.com/news/local/story/R ... W7pjw.cspx