Plain language version of the Castle Doctrine

**Tokamak** · October 17th, 2010, 11:48 PM

I am not a lawyer so trying to read legislation makes me liable to make mistakes in interpretation.

Can anyone out there give a plain english version of the Castle Doctrine law that passed on 10/16/2010.

I have been googling it and I have seen several different nuances on what it means.

Of course we have to see if Rendel vetos it....

Personally, I am not psyched out to kill someone and will try my best NOT to shoot anyone but will use a firearm to defend myself or my family.

It would be nice to know exactly what the new law says - where anyone can understand it; so, I have a clearer understanding of when I can legally use deadly force. For example, since someone with a knife can slice your throat in about 2 seconds from 10' away, would I be justified in shooting someone with a knife even though he was 10' away?

**dunsho** · October 18th, 2010, 12:06 AM

as of 10/18 the castle doctrine you speak of has not been passed or signed into law

**Tokamak** · October 18th, 2010, 12:26 AM

Originally Posted by dunsho

as of 10/18 the castle doctrine you speak of has not been passed or signed into law

LOL see what I mean. I read that it had passed the house and senate and assumed it was a done deal. I thought that was all that had to happen. I read some more and saw:

Yesterday, Thursday, October 14, the Pennsylvania Senate passed House Bill 1926 by a vote of 45-4. The bill now returns to the House where it could be concurred with on Monday, October 18.

So it has to go BACK to the house... I had no idea. THanks for straightening me out on this.

**NY Refugee** · October 18th, 2010, 12:54 AM

Then will go the desk of a lam duck, left wing POS who will veto it.
then we start all over again and the legislators will all say they that they supported it so we should vote for them.

Politics, what a bitch

**Bodero** · October 18th, 2010, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by NY Refugee

Then will go the desk of a lam duck, left wing POS who will veto it.
then we start all over again and the legislators will all say they that they supported it so we should vote for them.

Politics, what a bitch

Why would Rendell veto an expansion of Megan's Law and put the lives of millions of our children in jeopardy? Just because of a "castle doctrine" amendment that he probably doesn't care about anyway? IMHO, I bet he'll do a no-sign on it and it'll become law after 10 days. That is, if we can get it to a floor vote on Nov. 8th.

See? Politics isn't always a bitch

**nailer** · October 19th, 2010, 02:28 PM

Some politicians and people think the Castle Doctrine would have everyone with a gun running around shooting people and claiming self defense. Isn't that what they think now already?

**NY Refugee** · October 20th, 2010, 10:35 AM

Originally Posted by Bodero

Why would Rendell veto an expansion of Megan's Law and put the lives of millions of our children in jeopardy? Just because of a "castle doctrine" amendment that he probably doesn't care about anyway? IMHO, I bet he'll do a no-sign on it and it'll become law after 10 days. That is, if we can get it to a floor vote on Nov. 8th.

See? Politics isn't always a bitch

Bodero, I hope you are right on this, I really do. But I have been jaded by they way the politics are played.
I can see him vetoing it and then blaming the republicans for not expanding Megan's Law. This is one time I hope I am wrong, only time will tell.