Printable View
Anybody see the piece of crap the Scranton Times ran today (Thurs. Oct 7) as their editorial? Same anti HB40 Castle Doctrine garbage that CeaseFire has been putting out. Conspicuously absent from their description is the civil liability protection it provides us. Typical Scranton Times slant. I'd write a letter to the editor but the jerk in charge there won't print my letters.
http://thetimes-tribune.com/opinion/...ouse-1.1044773
My reply, if the editor doesn't whack it:
Has the writer of this editorial even read the bill, or is he simply spewing the fallacious drivel of CeaseFire, et al?
I rather suspect the latter.
Pennsylvania already has Castle Doctrine; this bill is more accurately a 'Stand Your Ground' bill. It does not actually mention firearms at all; by the PA House's own rules, only amendments pertaining directly to the bill could have been added; all of the proposed amendments concerned firearms directly, and as such, were not germane to the bill. It is highly unfortunate that a small group or representatives from the Philadelphia area can hold a needed bill hostage for over six years. Yes, it ultimately took some seldom-used parliamentary procedures to move the bill out of the committees where it had been repeatedly permitted to die. And some of the reps who claimed that there was no debate on the bill had actually VOTED IN FAVOR OF the house rule that ended the debate.
What does this bill do?
It does NOT change the definition of justifiable self defense. If you are able to retreat in COMPLETE safety, you are still required to do so. If you wrongly injure or kill another, you will still be charged.
It does NOT protect criminals and thugs on the street. Illegal possession of guns is still illegal, a weapon held by any prohibited person is still against the law. Criminals ignore weapons laws. Using or possessing a weapon while committing any other crime is still illegal.
It DOES provide an individual the right to justifiable defend the life of themselves, their loved ones, and innocents anywhere that they are legally permitted to be, and extends the definition of your home to the porch, patio, or yard, which are not currently considered to be part of your home.
It DOES prevent overzealous prosecutors from charging an individual for a justifiable use of force; currently even if justified, one can be arrested, charged incarcerated, and dragged through the legal system to defend against a legitimate use of force.
Most importantly, the bill prohibits the aggressor, or the aggressor's family, from pursuing the victim civilly in court. Today, if somebody breaks into your house and accosts you or your family, and they are injured or killed, YOU, the victim, can be sued for those injuries! Police officers may be forced to kill or injure a criminal in order to defend themselves; they can also be successfully sued. This law will prevent the victim from being victimized yet again.
Ultimately, in the number of states that have offered these protections, there have been no increases in the number of legal killings noted at all; in some (Florida, for example), the number of armed robberies and home invasions have actually gone down!
Finally, ask yourself what kind of Representative would wish to deny their constituents the right to defend themselves and their families from harm at the hands of a violent criminal.
I congratulate the House for taking this important step.
Mods...would this fit into Pennsylvania better than just Lackawanna county?
Good reply. Hope it gets in, but I doubt it. Not in the print version of "letters to the editor" anyway. That's pretty much reserved for a select few people. You see the same names every week. I've never been able to get one in.
Well lets see if my reply to the moron that never read the Bill gets posted. How can these morons post their disgust for something when they have no clue about what it is.
Oh yeah, they're Morons following whomever is pulling their golden ring.
If the people who oppose this bill want to be victims in their own homes, that's fine with me. Just don't subject the rest of us to predatory criminal acts because you're too weak to defend yourself, your family and property.
I love this part:
Hey yous looking at me? BANG!Quote:
This will change what happens in the street," he said. "Someone can claim self-defense if they shoot someone who looks at them the wrong way. By eliminating a duty to retreat, you are encouraging someone to potentially take a life."
Well, they ran it online unedited!
Great going wr3ra, your letter were very well written and to the point, hopes it wake up the citizens to the facts of HB40.
Kudos