Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gun rights supporter favors Castle Doctrine(PA)
standardspeaker.com ^ | 5 July, 2011 | Bob Kalinowski

Posted on 07/10/2011 5:01:09 PM PDT by marktwain

For gun rights supporters like Rich Banks of Mountain Top, a new state law to widen the right to use deadly force in self-defense "allows good people to protect themselves."

Critics say the expansion of the "Castle Doctrine" was unnecessary, that Pennsylvanians already had the right to protect themselves if their life was in jeopardy and the law could cause more violent confrontations.

Last week, Gov. Tom Corbett approved the expansion of the Castle Doctrine, which allows citizens to use deadly force against an attacker at any place where they have a legal right to be. It also limits civil liability for people who act within the guidelines.

Before, the use of deadly force was not justifiable if the person could safely retreat, except when the threat was made inside his or her home or business.

Every member of the state Legislature who represents Luzerne County voted for the bill except for state Rep. Phyllis Mundy, D-Kingston. She called the law a "defense attorney's dream" and predicted violent criminals will try to use it in court.

"As far as I'm concerned, this was a solution in search of a problem and in the long run it's going to be detrimental to law enforcement and the prosecution of violent criminals," Mundy said.

During hearings on the bill, she said she asked sponsors to point to one instance of a person in Pennsylvania ever being prosecuted for legally defending themselves.

"They could not point to a single case. If people were defending themselves in their own home, place of work, or on the streets, and being prosecuted, I'd think about this. But nobody could show me that was the case."

Even with the changes of the law, people only can use deadly force if "absolutely necessary," said Banks, a federal gun dealer from Fairview Township and a member of the pro-gun group, OpenCarry.org.

"You can't shoot first and ask questions later. You have to have a threat of immediate serious injury," Banks said. "If someone threatens you with a firearm out in public, you could respond with deadly force without worrying about being sued."

The law isn't going to protect people with a "Wild West" mentality, he said.

Gov. Ed Rendell vetoed a similar law in 2010. Since then, several changes were made.

Some changes include you can't use deadly force without being in legal possession of the fireman or if you are engaged in criminal activity that is the underlaying cause for the confrontation. Also, the person has to be displaying a weapon that could be lethal, such as a gun, knife, or bat, according to the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association.

The association was opposed to the previous effort to change the law, but reluctantly "dropped our opposition" due to the changes, said Richard Long, the executive director.

"We believe the current law adequately safeguards a person's right to self-defense. Since the legislature was persistent, we are more comfortable with the current version," Long said. "It essentially eliminates the duty to retreat outside of your home. It expands the area where you don't have to retreat.

"We wish the law would remain as is, but if something was going to be done, we think this is better than the previous version," Long said.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; US: Pennsylvania
KEYWORDS: banglist; castle; opencarry; pa
I would rather have the law changed than rely on prosecutors discretion to get it right. I have seen a number of cases where prosecutors are anti-gun, and go after people who defend themselves because the defender used a gun.
1 posted on 07/10/2011 5:01:16 PM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6XOxduodKU


2 posted on 07/10/2011 5:04:33 PM PDT by Dick Bachert (The 2012 election is coming. Seems we have MORE TRASH TO REMOVE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Some changes include you can't use deadly force without being in legal possession of the fireman

You gotta carry a fireman in order to carry a gun too? That really sucks. Not only will he get heavy but if you're obligated to feed him, well, that could run into serious bucks.

3 posted on 07/10/2011 5:07:35 PM PDT by VeniVidiVici ("Si, se gimme!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VeniVidiVici

Well just darn. Can you imagine if that was in the text of the bill just like that.


4 posted on 07/10/2011 5:21:03 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: VeniVidiVici

If you have a clean record it is very easy to get a cc permit in P.A. If you open carry you dont need a cc permit


5 posted on 07/10/2011 5:54:04 PM PDT by TLEIBY308 (Keep yer powder dry and watch yer top Knot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: VeniVidiVici

If you have a clean record it is very easy to get a cc permit in P.A. If you open carry you dont need a cc permit


6 posted on 07/10/2011 5:56:12 PM PDT by TLEIBY308 (Keep yer powder dry and watch yer top Knot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TLEIBY308
If you open carry you dont need a cc permit

Except that you can't open carry in a city of the first class without a concealed carry permit. There's currently only one city of the first class, Philly.

I carry whenever I'm in PA on my FL/VA permits but always concealed.

7 posted on 07/10/2011 6:14:45 PM PDT by Malsua
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Malsua

You are correct about Philly. Im in the central mountains and I try not to think of that sewer as part of the state,its like west Jersey to me.Keep your powder dry.


8 posted on 07/10/2011 6:44:57 PM PDT by TLEIBY308 (Keep yer powder dry and watch yer top Knot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Well just darn. Can you imagine if that was in the text of the bill just like that.

We better check. The unions may have slipped one in there on us :-)

9 posted on 07/10/2011 11:11:40 PM PDT by VeniVidiVici ("Si, se gimme!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson