The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …
From a news report on a Pittsburgh apartment fire:
Once the fire fight was over, crews said they found a partially-damaged AK-47 assault rifle, which will be checked for proper ownership.
Officers said they will check to see if the alligator, which was unharmed by the fire, needs an exotic pet permit or if it already has one.
Well, okay then. Pretty sure ATF isn’t going to be able to trace the alligator though.
From the Patriot News, even going so far as to point out a case of aggravated assault where Castle Doctrine wouldn’t come into play. To hear some in the media tell it, this bill makes it easy to just shoot people. Another case that wouldn’t be helped by Castle Doctrine? Gerald Ung. Even if it eliminated the duty to retreat when facing an unarmed opponent(s), which it doesn’t, the prosecution never made the case that Ung violated a duty to retreat.
Not to be outdone by New Jersey, a bill has been introduced in the Pennsylvania House to criminalize the TSA nude-o-scope and grope. Now, apparently, with 10x the radiation, absolutely free!
I can indeed find some new language in this year’s castle doctrine, as opposed to last year, but so far I don’t see anything that should give us cause to withdraw support for the bill or seriously worry ourselves:
(2.3)  An actor who is not engaged in a criminal activity, WHO IS NOT IN ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF A FIREARM and who is attacked in any place where the actor would have a duty to retreat under paragraph (2)(ii), has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and use force, including deadly force, if:
The section in all caps is new. For most of us who are carrying firearms legally, this isn’t an issue.
(2.4) Â THE EXCEPTION TO THE DUTY TO RETREAT SET FORTH UNDER PARAGRAPH (2.3) DOES NOT APPLY IF THE PERSON AGAINST WHOM THE FORCE IS USED IS A PEACE OFFICER ACTING IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES AND THE ACTOR USING FORCE KNEW OR REASONABLY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT THE PERSON WAS A PEACE OFFICER.
This is new in this section. Without context it’s hard to explain, but I will try. In last year’s bill, you could not use the presumption set fourth that deadly force is justified against someone unlawfully and forcefully entering your home if that person was a peace officer performing his official duties. In a way it’s kind of redundant, because presumably a peace officer is lawfully entering a home, and if a peace officer were unlawfully entering a home, then that wouldn’t be part of his official duties, would it? This years bill adds that same provision to anywhere you have a legal right to be. My opinion is this is a feel good provision. Obviously a peace officer who’s in the process of, say, unlawfully raping a woman, isn’t “acting in the performance of his official duties.”
(d) Â Definition.–As used in this section, the term “criminal activity” means conduct which is a misdemeanor or felony, is not justifiable under this chapter and is
the proximate cause ofRELATED TO the confrontation between an actor and the person against whom force is used.
You can see where last year’s language was struck and replaced with the language in caps. This is probably the language being talked about by the DA’s association. My guess is they were concerned about the burden of proving proximate cause, rather than just having to prove a relationship between the crime and the need to use deadly force, which is a clearer standard. I don’t seriously object to this change.
The rest of the bill is identical to last years, including the civil immunity provisions. My feeling is the changes promoted by the DA’s association are relatively minor and are a reasonable concession if in return they drop their opposition to the bill. The DA’s association no doubt came to the table because they realized something was likely going to pass this session, and decided it was better to get some minor concessions than continuing to tilt at windmills.
That has probably been why this bill has moved so quickly and been voted on so overwhelmingly. Without the DA association’s objections to ride on, opponents of Castle Doctrine don’t have much political cover for their opposition, so they caved. I think the changes outlined were small concessions to make in order to get this bill to move quickly and get cleanly through the legislature.
Looks like the DA’s association has softened their opposition, but the reason is worrisome:
Now, Marsico says the DA’s Association is working with, and not against, Republican lawmakers, in an effort to change the bill’s language. New language the group helped craft would only eliminate the duty to retreat before firing if the other person is armed. “It also provides that the individual who wants to avail themselves of the expanded doctrine cannot be engaged in any criminal activity,†he said. “And prior versions of the legislation put the onus on the prosecution to prove there was no criminal activity. We’ve removed that with the current amendment.â€Â He outlined one more change: “The other thing in the current amendment does is that it provides that if someone’s going to claim the expanded stand your ground doctrine, and they use a firearm in defending themselves, then they have to be legally in possession of that firearm. So we’ve tightened the law a lot.â€
I will do my best to look into this, but this could be cause for concern. I need to look at this year’s and last year’s bills side by side, but I’m pretty sure most of what they are speaking of here is already a feature of last year’s bill, IIRC.
We’ve gotten beyond this hurdle, and now it’s on to final consideration, which will happen in April.
A floor vote for HB40, the Castle Doctrine vote, is proceeding, but our opponents in the legislature are planning on trying to add anti-gun amendments, including the “Florida Loophole” nonsense and Lost and Stolen. NRA is alerting that you need to contact legislators now. Our goal is to get a clean bill out of the House so this can proceed quickly.
The big “excuse” to get the Pennsylvania government out of the liquor business is the infusion of cash the state desperately needs that would come when licenses to sell wine & liquor would be sold or auctioned off when it comes time to privatize the retail stores. It’s an easy way to sell the idea to people who don’t really care about the issue one way or another. So imagine how refreshing it was to read that our Governor took a direct free market argument to the General Assembly today.
Government can’t create jobs. And when it tries it usually makes a mess of it. Industries are built on a singular vision, not by committee. My administration is committed to a study that looks at how best to get us out of a business we should never have entered. I’m talking about the liquor business. This isn’t about the money. It’s about the principle. Government should no more run the liquor stores than it should run the pharmacies and gas stations.
To say that government messes it up is an understatement. I’ve watched state employees sell liquor to visibly intoxicated & borderline violent people. (That was fun to watch the male store employee refuse to back up the female clerk who was trying not to sell to the guy & wanted to call the cops for assistance.) The store I visited today had an anti-alcohol poster up in the window. (I bought 3 items in spite of the poster – sherry for a dish, bourbon for man, and wine suggested by Food & Wine for our pizza later this week.) When we visited a store this weekend, the clerk was yelling at a customer when we walked in. The volume of the argument did not go down once others entered the store. (I will concede the clerk was right, but there’s no reason to scream at the customer.)
The system doesn’t save us money, and we have fewer and crappier choices because of it. At least if it was a free market system, I would know the stores suck because my neighbors have crappy taste. Right now, it’s due to bureaucratic incompetence. So yay to Tom Corbett for making the free market case for privatizing the liquor & wine stores. The fact that it will help the state put its financial house back in order is just a side benefit. This needs to be done for the right reason – the government doesn’t belong in the liquor business.
We’re clear of one house of the General Assembly. The vote was 43 to 4. The only four Senators to vote against were Farnese, Hughes, Kitchen and Tartaglione. Even Leach was a yes, if you can believe that. Now we just need to clear the House.
Today, the full Senate is scheduled to take up Castle Doctrine according to an NRA email sent last night. Considering we waited the entire legislative session to see any serious action last year, the lightening speed of this is just amazing. However, there’s good reason.
Today is also the day that the Governor hands down the budget with massive cuts expected. And on top of that debate, we have to deal with redistricting. It’s a busy legislative session for a lot of reasons, so it’s a good thing we’re getting the major work on Castle Doctrine done now.