"Stand Your Ground" Passes PA House 159-38

House breaks logjam on home defense

By Brad Bumsted, TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Sunday, October 10, 2010


HARRISBURG - Gun-control advocates were furious, claiming that supporters of the Castle Doctrine extension had unfairly cut off debate on the bill, which would expand Pennsylvania's law on self-defense.
They were outraged -- outraged, mind you -- that numerous amendments could not be offered, such as closing the so-called Florida loophole that allows Pennsylvanians to get a license to carry a firearm in another state such as Florida even if they've been turned down in a Pennsylvania county.
Never mind that a minority of House Democrats had kept the bill bottled up and had no intention of allowing it to come up for a vote. It had been blocked for years. Last week's action was the first time "stand your ground" legislation has passed the House.
The bill would give people the right to use lethal force without retreat outside their homes when confronted by an assailant threatening death or serious bodily injury. They already have that right in their homes.
Because it was conveniently buried in the House Appropriations Committee, the kingdom of Chairman Dwight Evans, D-Philadelphia, the bill was just not moving despite having more than 150 co-sponsors, an unusually high number in a chamber where it takes 102 votes to pass a bill.
Several lawmakers supporting the bill filed a discharge resolution that enables a bill locked in a committee to be called to the floor for a vote.
Rather than be defeated on a discharge resolution, House Democrat leaders agreed to schedule a floor vote.
When the bill hit the floor, opponents were ready with numerous amendments. Had they passed, which was doubtful, the legislation would have been a hodgepodge of pro-gun and anti-gun measures.
So Sam Smith, House minority leader, in a parliamentary move that infuriated the bill's opponents, called to "move the previous question."
That means the House moves without debate or consideration of amendments to an immediate vote on the bill. Twenty House members had to stand up and be counted.
Smith's motion was approved 143-56, with three members excused.
Rep. Curtis Thomas, D-Philadelphia, an opponent, said the maneuver amounted to the minority leader trying to "shut this chamber up."
Uh, it was almost a 3-to-1 majority that agreed.
On final passage, 61 Democrats joined virtually the entire Republican caucus in approving the bill 159-38, with five members on "leave." The lone Republican against the bill was former Speaker Dennis O'Brien of Philadelphia.
It was almost a replay of what had occurred 24 hours earlier, on Monday, when the House gave preliminary approval.
On Wednesday, CeaseFirePA, a gun-control group, fired this round:
"Yesterday, for the second time, a majority of the Pennsylvania House supported the National Rifle Association, and turned its back on their constituents."
The Democrats supporting the bill included most Pittsburgh and Western Pennsylvania members.
Most of these guys are not NRA stooges.
Neither are the Republicans who voted for the bill.
Sure, the NRA supported it.
But in my view, this had a lot more to do with what the average gun-owning constituent was saying: It's not right that I could be tried for murder and sued for damages for defending myself -- without retreat -- outside of my home.
Members get that.
The Senate plans to vote on the bill this week. It will be interesting to see what lame-duck Gov. Ed Rendell, a former Philly district attorney, does if he gets the bill.


http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/s_703460.html

retreat isn't always possible, safe or a good idea. at least now the good guy has one less thing to think about besides killing another person to save his own life.

Pennsylvania: Senate Judiciary Committee Avoids Consideration of HB40 Tuesday, October 12, 2010

The Senate Judiciary Committee did not hear House Bill 40 today because, once again, a laundry-list of anti-gun amendments was added to the bill. This is an attempt by anti-gun zealots to torpedo this much-needed reform and we cannot allow that to happen.

Such amendments include: a ban on semi-automatic rifles; “one-gun-a-month” purchasing restrictions; a prohibition on the use of out of state Right-to-Carry permits by Pennsylvania residents while inside the Commonwealth; mandatory reporting of lost or stolen firearms; mandatory storage of firearms within the home; and increased regulations of firearm ownership in Philadelphia.

HB40, sponsored by State Representative Scott Perry (R-92), is the “Castle Doctrine” bill that would permit law-abiding citizens to use force, including deadly force, against an attacker in their homes and any places outside of their home where they have a legal right to be. “Castle Doctrine” would also protect individuals from civil lawsuits by the attacker or the attacker’s family when force is used.

Please contact your State Senator TODAY and respectfully urge them to vote for HB40 without any anti-gun amendments. Pennsylvania lawmakers need to stop liberal judges from putting the rights of criminals before the rights of the law-abiding. Harrisburg needs to stop playing political games with our important self-defense rights and pass HB40.

Contact information can be found by clicking here.

Discussion on PAFOA: http://forum.pafoa.org/political-138/113390-hb-40-race-finish-line-senate.html

The Bill: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billinfo/billinfo.cfm?syear=2009&sInd=0&body=H&type=B&bn=40

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking/s_704244.html


Pa. Senate poised to consider Castle Doctrine bill


By Brad Bumsted
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Thursday, October 14, 2010

HARRISBURG --The Senate on Thursday is expected to give final consideration to legislation that would allow people to defend themselves with lethal force and without retreat in public places if an assailant threatens their lives. By a 41-8 vote, the Senate on Wednesday approved an amendment called "stand your ground" legislation. The Senate added the provision to a House-passed bill aimed at strengthening Megan's Law, which requires registration of sexual offenders.

Thursday is the Senate's last scheduled session day of the 2009-2010 session. The House, which passed a similar bill by an overwhelming margin last week, would have to agree to the Senate's changes. The House plans to return to session after the Nov. 2 election.

Under current law, people can defend themselves without retreat in their homes. It's called the Castle Doctrine based on the notion that one's home is their castle. But outside the home, people must take steps away from an assailant before shooting in self defense.

The bill would tilt the presumption to law abiding citizens, said Sen. Richard Alloway, R-Franklin County, the amendment's sponsor.

"It's only right we have the ability to protect ourselves and our loved ones," said Sen. Richard Kasunic, D-Fayette County.

But Sen. Lawrence Farnese, D-Philadelphia, called it "shoot first, ask questions later" legislation.

Sen. Vincent Hughes, D-Philadelphia, said the legislation would create a "Wild West" atmosphere on Pennsylvania streets.

Proponents said it protects people with permits to carry firearms from zealous prosecutors and from civil lawsuits filed by the people who attacked them.

Alloway said there is a real concern for people who act in self defense from civil litigation because the burden of proof is lower than in a criminal case.

Dozens of members of Firearms Owners Against Crime, many of them from Western Pennsylvania, lobbied senators earlier Wednesday for passage of the Castle Doctrine extension.

After the measure was approved, Sen. Daylin Leach, D-Montgomery County, offered an amendment to close the so-called "Florida loophole." It's aimed at people turned down for permits for carrying concealed weapons in Pennsylvania who go to other states such as Florida and get licenses.

"People with no respect for the law aren't going to get a Florida license," said Sen. John Wozniak, D-Cambria County. "They don't care."
Leach's amendment was defeated 29-20.

Gov. Ed Rendell, former Philadelphia district attorney, has been asked repeatedly at news conferences whether he will sign or veto a Castle Doctrine extension bill. He says it's a complicated issue and he would have to review the bill.

"Stand Your Ground" was amended onto a "Megan's Law" bill and passed overwhelmingly 45-4 in The Senate.

Now, it goes back to the House for a final vote. Expect it to pass overwhelmingly. I can't imagine Rendell vetoing "Megan's Law."

The anti-gun rights folks lost every argument and every vote.

ezliving said:

"Stand Your Ground" was amended onto a "Megan's Law" bill and passed overwhelmingly 45-4 in The Senate.

Now, it goes back to the House for a final vote. Expect it to pass overwhelmingly. I can't imagine Rendell vetoing "Megan's Law."

The anti-gun rights folks lost every argument and every vote.

Click to expand...

That is more amazing than any horse I have ever seen. Rendell can suck it.

This issue has been boiling for a long time in PA and I think our spam campaign to Congress has really payed off.

ezliving said:

"Stand Your Ground" was amended onto a "Megan's Law" bill and passed overwhelmingly 45-4 in The Senate.

Now, it goes back to the House for a final vote. Expect it to pass overwhelmingly. I can't imagine Rendell vetoing "Megan's Law."

The anti-gun rights folks lost every argument and every vote.

Click to expand...

Good.

Maybe now they'll crawl back under their mossy rocks and live a long and unprosperous life there.

Well HB1926 passed the house and is off to the Gov to get singed into law

This would have helped Gerald Ung earlier this year in Philly, sadly it's not retroactive. Maybe thugs will start to think twice.

Vetoed.

Governor Rendell Announces Vetoes of Three House Bills

mrjam2jab said:

Vetoed.

Governor Rendell Announces Vetoes of Three House Bills

Click to expand...

Expect a veto override when the PA senate gets back in session.

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 – not enhanced – 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 – 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.

Click to expand...

Inigoes said:

Expect a veto override when the PA senate gets back in session.

Click to expand...

It is my understanding that there is no chance of over ride. The next session is the NEXT session...which means this bill is dead and it will have to go thru the entire process again.

What a douche. Of course he can veto it. He's surrounded by armed cops 24 x 7. Gotta keep the serfs in line.

85% of PA was in favor of the bill.

Hmm, sounds like PA's version of Brian Frosh.

Federal government, State government(s), has ceased to be representative of the people.

Sorry, I'm really stupid here, I assumed that this was all part of the Castle Law doctrine. I.e., scumbagus drives wifelyunit and I outside and pillages my house while we sit there wringing our ringless hands? Who'duhthunkit. The nerve of the homeowners.

STSCM said:

Sorry, I'm really stupid here, I assumed that this was all part of the Castle Law doctrine. I.e., scumbagus drives wifelyunit and I outside and pillages my house while we sit there wringing our ringless hands? Who'duhthunkit. The nerve of the homeowners.

Click to expand...

There is no duty to retreat in your PA home.

Now, if you are in public, then you must attempt to retreat before engaging a threat.

What I consider the most important part of the law was civil immunity.