HB40 amendment

**camerapest** · May 27th, 2010, 07:21 PM

Hello, sorry if I'm doing this wrong, I'm not very good at these things.
As I read HB40 amendments it says....

The amendment will modify this section of the bill by providing that the "stand your ground" provision can be invoked only if (i) the actor has a right to be in the place where he was attacked; (ii) the actor believes it is immediately necessary to protect himself from death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or rape; and (iii) the person against whom the force is used displays a firearm or replica firearm or any other weapon readily and apparently capable of lethal use.

This seems to me that you can't stand your ground if you don't see a firearm or other weapon. Am I reading it wrong?

Thanks,
Jim

**thefirstndsecond** · May 27th, 2010, 07:39 PM

That is what it seems. It is stated as an and situation not an or situation.

Humm... interesting...

**Kratos** · May 27th, 2010, 09:03 PM

What if a guy clenches their first? As we all know from Con Air, a trained individual can be considered a lethal weapon.

**fingers80002** · May 27th, 2010, 09:06 PM

Originally Posted by Kratos

What if a guy clenches their first? As we all know from Con Air, a trained individual can be considered a lethal weapon.

OH SHIT!!!!

You mean Hollywood is real??????

Where have I been????????

**tl_3237** · May 28th, 2010, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by camerapest

Hello, sorry if I'm doing this wrong, I'm not very good at these things.
As I read HB40 amendments it says....

The amendment will modify this section of the bill by providing that the "stand your ground" provision can be invoked only if (i) the actor has a right to be in the place where he was attacked; (ii) the actor believes it is immediately necessary to protect himself from death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or rape; and (iii) the person against whom the force is used displays a firearm or replica firearm or any other weapon readily and apparently capable of lethal use.

This seems to me that you can't stand your ground if you don't see a firearm or other weapon. Am I reading it wrong?

Thanks,
Jim

What's it saying is that if a lethal weapon is not displayed then you still have a duty to retreat if you can do so in complete safety per 18 Pa CSA 505/506.

If a 'believable' lethal weapon is displayed then no retreat will be necessary.

**headcase** · June 3rd, 2010, 11:56 AM

This is exactly why people need to take the time to understand the laws relating to firearm carry and use of force, if they are going to carry a firearm. You have always been able to "stand your ground", if you did not KNOW that you would be COMPLETELY safe while, or by, retreating, if you could justify your actions. This section of the proposed legislation simply completely removes the duty to retreat when confronted by what you perceive to be a weapon capable of deadly force, but you will still have to justify your actions.

Understanding the law by actually reading it yourself and getting clarification on the parts you are not sure about, should be a priority for every single one of us. Relying on others to tell you what it says without doing your own assessment, is as bad as the people out there who think whatever the media tells them to.

Fore-go an afternoon in front of the TV, or a few hours away from the XBOX, and read up on the statutes in the reference library here. There are people here willing to help answer the questions you will have and to give their insight on vagaries you might encounter.

**camerapest** · June 3rd, 2010, 08:10 PM

Jeez Headcase,
That's what I thought I WAS doing.

**headcase** · June 3rd, 2010, 08:26 PM

Originally Posted by camerapest

Jeez Headcase,
That's what I thought I WAS doing.

While I was speaking in general, sorry if that didn't translate, the question showed a lack of understanding of not only the new proposed changes, but the current statute as well, which is why I attempted to explain it. While it has always been a general problem here, the posts relating to HB 40 have really shown a glaring lack of understanding by the majority of people posting. Some of us keep trying to get people to educate themselves because it needs to be done, especially if these people are going to decide to be active in the legislative process, and no matter how the posts get phrased we get replies with raised hackles.

How about this way:

People in general, whether or not they decide to try to favorably discuss these issues( but especially if they do), need to be sure they are COMPLETELY up to speed on the topic of discussion, if they are going to carry a firearm.