·11250 Waples Mill Road · Fairfax, Virginia 22030 ·800-392-8683
Posted on 08/26/2011 3:37:59 PM PDT by neverdem
| Pennsylvania’s Castle Doctrine Law Takes Effect Tomorrow |
| Friday, August 26, 2011 |
|
Tomorrow, August 27, House Bill 40 takes effect. This NRA-backed Castle Doctrine legislation was signed by Governor Tom Corbett on June 28. Introduced by state Representative Scott Perry (R-92), HB 40 would permit law-abiding citizens to use force, including deadly force, against an attacker in their home and any place outside of their home where they have a legal right to be. It would also protect individuals from civil lawsuits by the attacker or the attacker’s family when force is used. The Senate companion bill to HB 40 was sponsored by state Senator Richard Alloway, II (R-33). Please thank both Representative Perry and Senator Alloway for sponsoring this important self-defense legislation. Contact information is listed below. Representative Scott Perry Senator Richard Alloway, II
|
Will the sky fall down as a result? Will there be blood in the streets?
Excellent.
High speed solid Pb likely beats the molten stuff.
Perfect timing—open season on looters when Irene strikes.
In between the creeping PC that is destroying Dr. Who, there is a scene where Doctor who is in the oval office and being real smug as guns are pointed to him and talking to Pres. Nixon. He is ignoring the guns and being a smart aleck. Then one of his companios rushes in and yells, “they’re AMERICANS!!!!”. At which point the Doctor raises his hands and says “don’t shoot!!” (just FYI for some, Dr. Who is a show about a time traveler. Been going since the 1960’s)
these castle doctrine laws just add, in a good way, the perceptions of the usa by those who are abroad.
Bang
Yep. and in these times, its a very good thing.
No. Maybe.
Now at least those "flash mob" terrorists can be legally opposed with force, including deadly.
With the usual caveat to double-check your state - From Wiki:
States with a Stand-your-ground Law
No duty to retreat, regardless of where attack takes place. (I like the tone of that one)
Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Washington
States with a Castle Law
No duty to retreat if in the home.
Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii,
Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming
States with weak or no specific Castle Law
These states uphold castle doctrine in general, but may rely on case law instead of specific legislation, may enforce a duty to retreat, and may impose specific restrictions on the use of deadly force.
Idaho (Homicide is justified if defending a home from “tumultuous” entry; duty to retreat not specifically removed)
New York (May not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no duty to retreat if he or she is in his dwelling and not the initial aggressor.)
South Dakota “Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is.” SD Codified Laws 22-16-34 (2005).
Iowa, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Virginia, Vermont, District of Columbia
Thanks for the ping. I’ll have to pass this on in e-mail.
There is no reason NO reason for someone to be in your home unless you invite them in. Their very presence means they plan to either rob you or kill you. Good for Pennsylvania for passing a law allowing law abiding people to protect themselves, their families, and things they have worked hard to obtain.
“States with a Stand-your-ground Law
No duty to retreat, regardless of where attack takes place. (I like the tone of that one)”
This is slightly overstated—in PA at leaest, it’s no duty to retreat from any place where you have a right to be. Presumably, if you’re trespassing, the fact that you didn’t retreat might still be offered as evidence that your use of lethal force was unreasonable.
Point taken. I wasn't thinking of trespassing or similar misdeeds - only of being somewhere legally and being attacked.
Also, in PA, it appears from the language of the bill that in places other than your dwelling, residence or vehicle, the “stand your ground” exception from the duty to retreat only applies if the person against whom the deadly force displays or otherwise uses a firearm, a replica of a firearm, or “any other weapon capable or apparently capable of lethal use.” This is in addition to the requirements that the actor (a) be in a place where he has a right to be, and (b) reasonably believes that it is immediately necessary to use lethal force to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual assault by force or threat.
So, a 65-yr-old man confronted by 3 unarmed “youths” might still be subject to the retreat rule. (However, that rule requires retreat only where “the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating.”)
There are other conditions, exceptions, and exceptions to exceptions that might apply depending on circumstances.
Bottom line: the Pennsylvania law is complex and nuanced, and anyone carrying a gun for self-defense, particularly outside his/her home or vehicle, would do well to study it.
Argh—the words “is used” should appear between “deadly force” and “displays” in the first sentence of my previous post.
What I meant to say is that the PA “stand your ground” law appears to apply (outside your home or vehicle) only if the aggressor is armed or appears to be armed with an instrument of deadly force.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.