Castle Doctrine 2011-12 session Activist effort – Please Help

[WhiteFeather]

pic:

HB 40 Castle Doctrine SIGNED into law by Governor Tom Corbett June 28th 2011 approx 2pm now known as ACT 10.

Everyone on PAFOA that called, snail mail, emailed or personally contact the Reps you ALL did your part to get this bill passed into Law.

Especially all of you that traveled to HBG to attend a interactive lobbying event ,you are the real un sung hero's that made an impact with the outcome of this effort.

THANK YOU
WF

Referred to JUDICIARY, Jan. 31, 2011
Reported as amended, March 7, 2011
First consideration, March 7, 2011
Laid on the table, March 7, 2011
Removed from table, March 8, 2011
Second consideration, March 9, 2011
Re-committed to APPROPRIATIONS, March 9, 2011
(Remarks see House Journal Page 401-407), March 9, 2011
Re-reported as committed, April 11, 2011
Third consideration and final passage, April 12, 2011 (164-37)
(Remarks see House Journal Page ), April 12, 2011
In the Senate
Referred to JUDICIARY, April 25, 2011
Reported as committed, June 14, 2011
First consideration, June 14, 2011
Second consideration, June 15, 2011
Third consideration and final passage, June 20, 2011 (45-5)
Signed in House, June 20, 2011
Signed in Senate, June 21, 2011
Presented to the Governor, June 22, 2011
Approved by the Governor, June 28, 2011
Act No. 10

Castle Doctrine summary

Here is Rep Metcalfe Castle Doctrine summary in little hand dandy one page tri fold flier

Print this PDF out, then you got your own copy to pass out to help educate people

http://www.repmetcalfe.com/Display/S...e%202011_1.pdf

From Rep Metcalfe's Castle Doctrine summary

HB 40 now known as Act 10 of 2011

Act 10 of 2011, known as the Castle
Doctrine, addresses the right to use
force, including deadly force, in self
defense and the defense of others. It
contains several topics dealing with
self defense, including:

• Use of force in a dwelling,
residence or occupied vehicle,

• Use of force outside a dwelling,
residence or occupied vehicle, and

• Limits on lawsuits for legal use of
force.

This is intended as a short overview
of the Castle Doctrine legislation and
is not a complete explanation of the
law as it relates to the use of deadly
force in self defense.

USE OF FORCE IN
A DWELLING, RESIDENCE OR OCCUPIED VECHILE:

The Castle Doctrine assumes that an “attacker”
or “intruder” intends great bodily harm if
he/she either:

1. unlawfully and forcefully enters a dwelling,
residence or occupied vehicle, or

2. is attempting to unlawfully and forcefully
remove someone from a dwelling,
residence or occupied vehicle
Either of these circumstances results in an
initial presumption that a person (who is
aware that 1. or 2. above have occurred) is
justified in using deadly force in self defense
against the “attacker” or “intruder.”

NOTE: This rule does NOT APPLY if ANY of
the following apply:

• the “attacker” or “intruder” is another resident
or has a right to be in the dwelling,
residence or occupied vehicle;

• the “attacker” or “intruder” is a parent,
grandparent or other guardian removing
a child from the dwelling, residence
or occupied vehicle;

• the “attacker” or “intruder” is actually a
law enforcement officer engaged in the
performance of his duties; OR

• the “attack” or “intrusion” is related
to criminal activity in the dwelling,
residence or occupied vehicle (e.g., an
“attacker” breaks into a home to steal
drugs from a drug dealer).

USE OF FORCE OUTSIDE
A DWELLING, RESIDENCE OR OCCUPIED VECHILE:

Outside a dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle,
the Castle Doctrine legislation eliminates
the duty to retreat and a person can “stand his
ground and use force,” including deadly force,
in self defense, if ALL of the following apply:

• the person has a right to be in the place
he/she was attacked;

• the person has a reasonable belief that the
use of force is immediately necessary to
protect against imminent death, serious
injury, kidnapping or rape;

• the person is not illegally possessing a firearm;

• the person is not engaged in criminal activity;

• the “attacker” displays or uses a firearm or
any other deadly weapon; AND

• the “attacker” is not a law enforcement officer
engaged in the performance of his
duties.

LIMITS ON LAW SUITS FOR
LEGAL USE OF FORCE

Any person who legally uses force in
self defense is entitled to protection
against civil lawsuits by his/her “attacker”
or the family of the “attacker”.
This protection allows the person to
recover attorney fees, court costs and
compensation for loss of income if:

• the person uses force in compliance
with Pennsylvania law;

• the person is sued by the “attacker”
or the family of the “attacker” for an
injury to the “attacker” as a result of
that force; AND

• the person wins the lawsuit.

WHERE CAN I FIND THE FULL TEXT OF
THE “CASTLE DOCTRINE ” LEGISLATION ?

Act 10 of 2011 was signed into law on
June 28, 2011. Specific acts and the
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes
can be viewed on the General Assembly’s
Website: www.legis.state.pa.us.

NOTICE: Neither the Republican Caucus of the Pennsylvania
House of Representatives, nor any individual member or employee
thereof, shall be responsible for any errors or omissions
in the material contained in this document, or for the effect
on such material of the subsequent passage or repeal, after its
publication, of legislation dealing with the same subject matter.
Moreover, the above mentioned parties shall not be responsible
for mistakes in the interpretation by any person, of any statutory
provisions or case law decisions thereto. Any user of this document
shall consult with an attorney for advice on interpreting
the material contained herein before taking any action in reliance
thereon, which could affect his or her own rights or the
rights of others.




As a historical record for PAFOA guest & members going to leave most of all the request for Activist effort post intact so you can read the price and efforts that many in PA paid to finally get a MUCH needed reasonable measured upgrade to self defense laws in PA.

While the original language was modeled after approved Florida version in PA we corrected the flaws that was contained, plus added upgrades to the language. As usually is the case in the legislative process, the final approved language was weakened from original version due to concerns valid or not or to appease a certain group.

We also had included several technical corrections to the UFA in other areas that actually did make this a firearm related bill that flew under the radar without opposition.
view summary of these other items that changed in the UFA here
http://forum.pafoa.org/1638251-post-1552.html

Castle Doctrine 2011-12 session Activist effort
Please Help if you are for this concept

Dec 15 is Bill Of Rights day time to start the Castle doctrine effort for 2011-2012 session


This session is going to mark the beginning of the seven year effort to get Castle Doctrine with the Stand Your Ground provision and civil immunity from frivolous lawsuits protection along with several minor changes to the UFA.

With any proposed legislation its common to hang a "nickname" on a bill. That nickname may not reflect all what its actually does or doesn’t do so don’t let yourself get confused with this being called "castle doctrine" as it includes "stand your ground" and Other provisions.

What a bill is called doesn’t matter as much as what really is in the proposed legislation actually says.

So when in doubt ALWAYS read the bill language itself, change one or two words can be a world of difference in the final law impact / meaning, right now its not available soon it will be. For max support reason its basically the same bill as HB 40 that was voted in the full house vote on Oct 5, 2010. Not that amendments both pro and anti-gun can't be amended or tried on this bill at some point.



Despite the opposition, we finally got several votes in last session and had overwhelming support for passage in all votes cast everywhere. As you know the final outcome of this effort there is no more point dwelling on that here, we did our part, most of the Reps did theirs, Governor fast eddie vetoed the amended version.


This thread should stay focused of the effort to get this passed in the 2011-2012 session Last session is ALL in the past. Requesting everyone to keep this with getting this passed and refrain from Dwelling on what happened wrong in the past.

Politically reality check

This is not going to be an easy effort to get this accomplished despite some people opinions to the contrary as we always had enough votes for passage in the last six years. Without being able to get all the required votes in all the committees by the chairman you got nothing.

There are very power groups, with deep pockets and vocal voices in opposition to this concept and they have political allies with some key leadership people. What we have is voters in many Reps district and Activist in growing numbers willing to do their part to balance the scales.

There are many key leaders in both parties, both the house and senate who don’t really support this bill and will do their best to drag their feet, prevent, delay, stall and drag this out for as long as they can, including attempting to amend with killer kooky amendments.

Leadership everywhere has the power to do back room deals, play political games as they have risen in rank they have gotten better at claiming support while stonewalling legislation. Still there are many in leadership that actually support this legislation, so all we have to do is do our part and support this effort.

We have to stay strong and focused on the end goal, WE also will not accept abridgments in our rights with more gun control.

Tactics & Strategy for achieving passage.

Due to retirement and 2010 election results the Republican now hold a majority in the house with a total of 29 newly elected Reps taking office from both parties.

In the senate due to retirement 4 newly elected senators hold office two are from upgrades in house and two outsiders were elected. The balance is still the Republican hold the same numbers in the senate and leadership here will remain unchanged.

We will have political problems getting this passed in the senate. Details to follow on efforts to address this with educating the senators at one of the interactive legislative lobbying events & HGB Rally using the A-Team in which you will be welcome to attend in this effort..

In the house, there are only 112 of the 131 original sponsors to castle doctrine left in office and 77 of the 82 people that signed the discharge resolution. In the senate side we have 29 of the 33 sponsors to castle doctrine left in office.

There are 142 of the 159 Reps that voted for final passage in house left in office.

More sponsors = greater chance for passage despite opposition forces

Rep Perry the prime sponsor to Castle Doctrine (HB 40) Has already send out a co sponsorship memo for this session (47 signed on as of Noon Dec 15). Rather than wait just hope that Reps will sign on and take our chances, Here is your chance to take direct action The more sponsors the greater chance of getting this bill out of committees and up for a full vote.

This list is broken down in grouping so we can use aimed fire, versus blast email all of them and hope that some will sign on.

Everyone we are not going to waste your time by ask you to contact people who will probably not sign ever sign on. Hence the reason for supplying you the specific listing and grouping


First - FOCUS on contacting ALL of these new Reps & your Rep.

Second - objective contact all the past sponsor - ((mission complete))

Third - contact the remaining groups after the first two groups are contacted

Newly elected Reps for 11-2012 session that are Pro gun or indicated they "may" be pro gun

Rep Rick Saccone has already signed and expect big things coming from him this session.

So has Rep Stephen Bloom, Rep Mullery, Rep Simmons , Rep Evankovich, Rep Aument, Rep Dunbar, Rep Gillen, Rep Lawrence, Rep Maloney, Rep Neuman, Rep Toohil, & Rep Tobash - Rep Masser - Rep Emrick - Rep Culver - Rep Heffley
Note these new Reps email address have not be confirmed or posted as of Dec 15, 2010 still they should work No emails bounced got a few replies back so they work

Warren Kampf ( R ) wkampf@pahousegop.com
Chester*, Montgomery*


Dan Truitt ( R ) dtruitt@pahousegop.com
Chester*


Newly elected Reps that are “UNKOWN” which side they are on


Rosemary Brown ( R ) rbrown@pahousegop.com
Monroe*, Pike*

Tina Davis ( D ) tdavis@pahouse.net
Bucks*

Joe Hackett ( R ) jhackett@pahousegop.com
Delaware*

Sid Kavulich ( D ) skavulich@pahouse.net
Lackawanna*, Luzerne*, Susquehanna*, Wyoming*

Fred Keller ( R ) fkeller@pahousegop.com
Snyder*, Union

Todd Stephens ( R ) tstephens@pahousegop.com
Montgomery*


There are four newly elected Reps that probably are a waste of time contacting so didn’t post there info

UPDATE 1-27-2011 UPDATE Thank to all of your efforts it was introduced & filed on Jan 27 as HB 40 with 135 sponsors


We Had 47 sponsor on Dec 15 am, Thanks to all of you that did your part
we have added 91 more sponsors
for total of 141 Sponsors (so far) As of 3-11-2011

We also picked up so far 28 brand sponsors some among the new Reps the rest with Reps that didn't sponsor castle doctrine last session for what ever reason.

Note: Reps that have already become sponsors their names have been removed so it less confusing on who need to be contact

Everyone Sorry I have not updated this thread on been on PAFOA between Jan 11 - 20, 2011 see post #10 below for what happened

Here is listing of ALL the Reps that was a sponsor last session the vast majority of these will sign on with no prompting required. Other than just asking them. (* indicates part of a county they represent)



All 111 past co sponsor re signed except the one that stabbed us in the back with every vote cast in opposition

IF they are NOT on this list, they are NOT co sponsors as Jan 31, 2011 introduction Note any sponsors above the orginal 135 that add their names after Jan 31 printing will not appear on bill to a new printing is req'd.

PERRY, METCALFE, AUMENT, BAKER, BARBIN, BARRAR, BEAR, BENNINGHOFF, BLOOM, BOBACK, BOYD, BRENNAN, BROOKS, BURNS, CALTAGIRONE, CARROLL, CAUSER, CHRISTIANA, CLYMER, CONKLIN, D. COSTA, COX, CREIGHTON, CUTLER, DALEY, DAY, DEASY, DELOZIER, DeLUCA, DENLINGER, DERMODY, DeWEESE, DUNBAR, ELLIS, EVANKOVICH, J. EVANS, EVERETT, FARRY, FLECK, GABLER, GEIST, GEORGE, GERGELY, GIBBONS, GILLEN, GILLESPIE, GINGRICH, GODSHALL, GOODMAN, GRELL, GROVE, HAHN, HALUSKA, HANNA, HARHAI, HARHART, HARPER, HARRIS, HELM, HENNESSEY, HESS, HICKERNELL, HORNAMAN, HUTCHINSON, KAUFFMAN, M.K. KELLER, KILLION, KNOWLES, KORTZ, KOTIK, KRIEGER, KULA, LAWRENCE, LONGIETTI, MAHER, MAHONEY, MAJOR, MALONEY, MARKOSEK, MARSHALL, MATZIE, METZGAR, MICCARELLI, MICOZZIE, MILLARD, MILLER, MIRABITO, MOUL, MULLERY, MURPHY, MURT, MUSTIO, NEUMAN, OBERLANDER, O'NEILL, PASHINSKI, PAYNE, PEIFER, PETRARCA, PETRI, PICKETT, PYLE, QUIGLEY, QUINN, RAPP, READSHAW, REED, REESE, REICHLEY, ROAE, ROCK, SACCONE, SAINATO, SAYLOR, SCAVELLO, SCHRODER, SIMMONS, K. SMITH, M. SMITH, S. H. SMITH, SONNEY, STABACK, STERN, STEVENSON, SWANGER, TALLMAN, J. TAYLOR, TOBASH, TOEPEL, TOOHIL, TURZAI, VEREB, VULAKOVICH, WATSON, WHITE, and Masser 2-2-2011, Ravenstahl 2-4-2011, Emrick 2-7-2011, CULVER 2-9-2011, MILNE 2-16-2011, HEFFLEY 3-11-2011, currently 141 total

NOTE: Any Rep that adds their name now will not show up, untill there is another reprinting of HB 40 after a change or movement. Please still ask those not shown above to add their names. We will update the list as required.

Read text of 2011 -2012 Session HB 40 (Castle Doctrine) available here
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/...type=B&BN=0040


We will Keep updating and revising this OP as required so Information will not be lost in a long thread

So everyone can keep there efforts focused on who needs to be contacted and why.

2011-2012 OFFICIALLY starts with swearing in ceremonies on Jan 4 2011.

GAME ON, it’s the beginning of the of the new 2011 -2012 legislative session.

If you are for the castle doctrine PLEASE CALL, Fax, write and Email all the Reps listed and ask them to sign on as a sponsor

Bearing this in mind
There are ONLY so many sessions days to get this passed, there is a big block of time spent on doing the state’s budget as required to be completed in end of June along with other required business for the Reps to complete. We are in broke and deep in debt in PA government so it’s going to take up lots of Reps time trying to make up for the tax and spend money we didn't have for many YEARS.

So we got to be quick to get this Castle Doctrine bill to the governor’s desk early in this session so WE need you help now and as long as it takes to be the squeeky wheel to get this passed.

[WhiteFeather]

Another Castle Doctrine summary
From Rep Reichley that has been elected and upgraded to Judge Reichley after Nov 8, 2011 election day

http://www.pahousegop.com/NewsItem.aspx?NewsID=12626

Expanded Castle Doctrine Reinforces Right of Self-Defense

10/13/2011

Defending oneself is a natural reaction when faced with an imminent threat, but in Pennsylvania, people who use lethal force in such situations now have some added legal protections.

Act 10 of 2011, known as the Castle Doctrine, clarifies state law so that legal protection is afforded to law-abiding citizens who use lethal force in protecting themselves and their families. Residents who are protecting themselves and their families should not have to fear criminal prosecution or a civil lawsuit if using force against an intruder is warranted.

If an attacker or intruder breaks into a home or occupied vehicle, the law creates an initial presumption that he can be met with lethal force.

The initial presumption of the legal use of deadly force in self-defense would also apply if an assailant is trying to unlawfully remove an occupant, against his or her will, from a home or vehicle. The legislation is based on a similar bill enacted in Florida that addresses the use of deadly force in self-defense and defense of others within an individual’s residence or occupied vehicle.

However, the presumption would not apply if the purported victim uses deadly force against another person who is a resident of the home; a law enforcement officer; or a parent, grandparent or other guardian removing a child from the home or vehicle. In addition, this legislation would not apply if the person using deadly force was using his or her home or vehicle to engage in criminal activity.

It is important to emphasize that this new law does not endorse unlawful aggression. It merely provides individuals with the necessary legal protection to respond to such aggression. In addition, the homeowner who legally uses deadly force to protect him or herself or others would have protection from lawsuits filed by an assailant who illegally entered a home, business, or vehicle and suffered death or injuries because of the deadly force used against the assailant. The homeowner who successfully defended a suit would be authorized to collect attorney’s fees, court costs and lost income from the attacker (or his family) who commenced the lawsuit. This provision will protect homeowners from senseless, time-consuming and expensive litigation.

For more information about the Castle Doctrine or other state laws, please contact my office at 1245 Chestnut St., Unit 5, in Emmaus, telephone 610-965-9933. For the latest news from the state House, visit my website at RepReichley.com.

Yet Another Castle Doctrine summary from the prime sponsor Rep Perry summer 2011 news letter

http://www.scribd.com/doc/62416241/R...011-Newsletter

Castle Doctrine Drive Succeeds, Bill Signed Into Law

For the past several years, I have been working to get better legal protections for our citizens in the face of violent criminal attacks. The legislation was contained in House Bill 40, better known as the original Castle Doctrine. For the past two legislative sessions, I have fought for passage of this bill, and now, it has become the law in Pennsylvania. On June 28, Gov. Tom Corbett signed this bill which then became Act 10 of 2011.In the previous session, House Bill 40 garnered wide bipartisan support in both chambers of the Legislature but was vetoed by Gov. Ed Rendell. It is pleasing that we now have a governor who agrees that our citizens deserve to have the protections provided in Act 10.

This new act claries state law so that legal protection is afforded to law-abiding citizens who use lethal force in protecting themselves, their families and their properties. Under previous law, criminals had greater protection than law-abiding citizens, who have faced civil lawsuits from intruders or their families. Residents who are protecting themselves, their families and their homes should not have to fear criminal prosecution or a civil lawsuit if using force against an intruder is warranted.

If an attacker or intruder intends to inflict great bodily harm, this measure creates the presumption that deadly force may be used to protect oneself, family and others while in their home, an occupied vehicle or anywhere they have a right to be. That presumption also applies if a person is trying to unlawfully remove an occupant, against his or her will, from a home or vehicle. More than two dozen other states have enacted similar legislation. This is a common sense law that benefits our citizens.

A person should not have to worry about what to do when being violently attacked. The presumption would not apply if the person entering a home was another resident of the home; a law enforcement officer; a parent, grandparent or other guardian removing a child from the home or vehicle. In addition, this legislation would not apply if a person was using his or her home or vehicle to engage in criminal activity. It is important to emphasize that this legislation does not endorse unlawful aggression. It merely provides individuals with the necessary legal protection to respond to such aggression

.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Castle Doctrine 2011-12 session Activist effort
Please Help if you are for this concept

Dec 15 is Bill Of Rights day time to start the Castle doctrine effort for 2011-2012 session

Most of these Reps in these groups below here still will not become sponsors for whatever reason so ask them last, but you never know, so what could it hurt to ask?


Reps that vary from pro gun, to usually good on our issue, to weak that voted for final passage but also was not sponsors to Castle doctrine last session, IF you ask them maybe they will sign on this time. .


Gene DiGirolamo gdigirol@pahousegop.com Bucks*

Florindo J. Fabrizio ffabrizi@pahouse.net Erie*

Patrick J Harkins pharkins@pahouse.net Erie*

Chris Ross cross@pahousegop.com Chester*


PLEASE START CONTACTING ANYONE LISTED

DON'T WASTE TIME POSTING HERE

START SENDING EMAILS TO REPS NOW

Reps that were NOT sponsors of castle doctrine that voted for more than once for passage in committee votes. Some are weak to poor on our issue that still did the right thing voted for passage every time a vote was offered.



William F. Adolph wadolph@pahousegop.com Delaware*
note signed discharge petition resolution
High value - majority Appropriations Committee chair of the house



Matthew Bradford mbradford@pahouse.net Montgomery*

Eugene DePasquale edepasqu@pahouse.net York*
High value - Judiciary Committee - 1st stop for C.D.


John T. Galloway jgallowa@pahouse.net Bucks*

Jake Wheatley jwheatley@pahouse.net Allegheny*



Ronald S. Marsico rmarsico@pahousegop.com Dauphin*
REALLY High value - majority Judiciary Chairman of the house

First legislative road block to Over come for Castle Doctrine to move forward is for Judiciary Chairman to give US a Up or Dn vote, So everyone start to bug Rep Marsico about CD NOW

It took 6 1/2 years to get a vote from past Judiciary Chairman, it could just sit here ALL session IF we let it

Chelsa Wagner cwagner@pahouse.net Allegheny*
High value - Judiciary Committee - 1st stop for C.D.


Josh Shapiro jshapiro@pahouse.net Montgomery*
High value - Judiciary Committee - 1st stop for C.D.





On this Last list is people that voted for final passage that "might or might not" have done so other than before election day or they really might support this bill.

At least one from this last group allready signed on as a sponsor.

So ask this list last, Still they voted for final passage so why not ask them?


Chris Ross cross@pahousegop.com
Chester*

Dante Santoni dsantoni@pahouse.net
Berks*

P. Michael Sturla msturla@pahouse.net
Lancaster*


I will update this OP frequently so we can stay focus on the Reps that need to be contacted. Obliviously once a Rep has added their name as a sponsor there is no more need to bug them for now at least and everyone can focus on remaining Reps in the list above. PLEASE work you way down this listing of groups as this is part of a over all strategy to get max amount of sponsors.

Anyone is free to contact any and all the above this post is structured to achieve max results with min efforts

See next post for senate version - still in works

January 4 Oath day, 18, 19, 24, 25, and 26
February 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, and 28
March 1, 2, 7, 8, and 9
April 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 25(Non-voting), 26, and 27
May 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 23, 24, and 25
June 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, and 30


current scheduled House session days
Updated Monday, January 24, 2011

PLEASE READ ATTACHMENT of actual Rep Perry’s memo that was sent to all 201 of the Reps

STANDBY BY FOR MORE ACTION INFORMATION

Working on Batch emails for all the new Reps and several other information

Batch email of all the new Reps
jemrick@pahousegop.com; mgillen@pahousegop.com; dheffley@pahousegop.com; wkampf@pahousegop.com; dtruitt@pahousegop.com; rbrown@pahousegop.com; tdavis@pahouse.net; jhackett@pahousegop.com; skavulich@pahouse.net; fkeller@pahousegop.com; jlawerence@pahousegop.com; lculver@pahousegop.com; tstephens@pahousegop.com; mtobash@pahousegop.com;


On this link is contact info for calling or faxing the Reps, you might have better luck calling the local offices on non session days rather than HBG offices see HBG schedule above

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/...ives_alpha.cfm

[WhiteFeather]

It took most of last session to gather all those 131 sponsors from original 57 to drive this bill forward. WE would like to start off with as many Reps as we can get along with picking up as many of the 29 newly elected Reps before introduction and printing of the castle doctrine bill.

So IF you are all for this concept please consider doing your part and contact the Reps listed above.






Most of you can skip this part

This is just for all the people NEW to this Activism

Here is a REALLY brief outline of the process with all bills and not a detail summary


Bills orginate in the house or senate have the same basic paths in both houses and in passage of either house the same basic process is repeated in other house next.


Prime Sponsor sends out sponsorship memo, stays out as long as they feel it takes or will get for sponsors.

Submits the bills to legislative reference bill checks it records it assigns a bill number, gives it a printer number etc

Typical in any Two year session their up to or more than 5,000 bills introduced most never get out of a committee and just die there.



It gets assigned to a appropriate committee in this case its going to be Judiciary committee first.

The chairman of this committee is the sole controlling force of any bills fate or movement, they also can just let it sit all session to die.

The committee chairman can have public hearing where people are allowed to submit written or oral testimony from both side for or against a proposed legislation.

The fiscal / impact statement done to research the bills benefit to cost ratio

They also can amend, change language or attach others bills or concepts in this committee by a majority vote.

The chairman of the committee can call for a vote for passage (with 3 separate attempts in any one session) IF it passes by a majority vote it moves on.



As you can see The majority Committee chair is a very powerful position as you can see and who holds this postions determines what gets acted on or what gets buried in any session.



Leadership determines where the bill goes next some have to go to other committee(s) others can go right to the floor for a full (house or senate)vote or leadership can just let it sit for months or let it die.

If Leadership runs the bill for a full vote it has to take at least three separate days to be considered before any vote can be taken.

First consideration is where it’s the responsibility of the Rep or their staff to read, understand, to formulate a position on which way they will vote for this proposed bill IF they already haven't done so.
Now you can see why more sponsors makes this process easier.

On the second day (second consideration) is when floor debate / questions are allowed also amendment to like kinds of bills can be added in castle doctrine its basically title 18. Each pre filled amendment can have floor debates / questions and each gets a up or down vote if it passes it is amended to original or its kept as a “clean bill” with no amendments.

On 3rd consideration it’s a up or down vote full house vote in which the majority gets to decide if this bill moves forward or not



If it passes with a majority, the bill go over to other house where the committee process is repeated.

If the bill goes through both houses and passes with a majority without amendment it goes to the governors desk for signature, veto or pass into law without a signature.

If a bill gets amended or changed in any form after it passes either house it has to go back original house for a up or down concurrence vote IF it passes there then it goes to governors desk as above.

AGAIN this is just a basic outline of the very difficult process for any proposed legislation to become a law

Hopes this help some of you out, IF you got a specfic question you can always send a PM to me if you don't mind a essay reply back.

ALL the detailed answers are located on this one link just got to find on the states website
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/index.cfm

[WhiteFeather]

This passed the House Judiciary Committee on March 6, 2011 by a Vote of 21 to 1 (with 3 non votes)

THANK YOU TO ALL OF YOU THAT CONTACTED THE REPS



The first 18 reps on Judiciary committee are current sponsors to Castle Doctrine

(D) Joseph F. Brennan jbrennan@pahouse.net (717) 7729902

(D) Thomas R. Caltagirone tcaltagi@pahouse.net (717) 7873525

(D) Dom Costa dcosta@pahouse.net (717) 7839114

(R) Thomas C. Creighton tcreight@pahousegop.com (717) 7725290

(R) Bryan Cutler bcutler@pahousegop.com (717) 7836424

(R) Sheryl Delozier sdelozie@pahousegop.com (717) 7835282

(R) Brian L. Ellis bellis@pahousegop.com (717) 7877686

(R) Keith J. Gillespie kgillesp@pahousegop.com (717) 7057167

(R) Glen R. Grell ggrell@pahousegop.com (717) 7832063

(R) Mark K. Keller mkeller@pahousegop.com (717) 7831593

(R) Tim Krieger tkrieger@pahousegop.com (717) 2606146

(D) Deberah Kula dkula@pahouse.net (717) 7721858

(R) Bernard T. O'Neill boneill@pahousegop.com (717) 7057170

(R) Todd Rock trock@pahousegop.com (717) 7835218

(R) Rick Saccone rsaccone@pahousegop.com (717) 260-6122

(R) Marcy Toepel mtoepel@pahousegop.com (717) 7879501

(R) Tarah Toohil ttoohil@pahousegop.com (717) 260-6136

(D) Jesse White jwhite@pahouse.net (717) 7836437



This list are NOT current sponsor BUT voted everytime for passage of CD

(R) Ronald S. Marsico rmarsico@pahousegop.com (717) 7832014
REALLY Highest value to contact - majority Judiciary Chairman of the house.
The chairman is ONLY one that can allow a vote in the Judiciary Committee

(D) Matthew Bradford mbradford@pahouse.net (717) 7722572

(D) Eugene DePasquale edepasqu@pahouse.net (717) 7877514

(D) Josh Shapiro jshapiro@pahouse.net (717) 7837619

(R) Todd Stephens tstephens@pahousegop.com (717) 260-6163




(D) John P. Sabatina jsabatin@pahouse.net (717) 7724032 Voted against CD every chance so probably not worth your time conacting. Expect this to be a NO vote in Judiciary Committee

(D) Ronald Waters rwaters@pahouse.net (717) 7729850
Voted against CD every chance so probably not worth your time conacting. Expect this to be a NO vote in Judiciary Committee






Here is the list of 25 Reps that serve on the Judiciary Committee

Please contact all the high value Reps noted people



Please Call all of them, IF we can pick most of these we can have this bill lock and load for action in the first few day of the next session



It took most of last 2009-20010 session to gather all those 131 sponsors from original 57 to drive Castle Doctrine bill forward, IF you REALLY want this past please call all the above.

Working on Batch emails for all the new Reps and several other information

Batch email of all the new Reps


rmarsico@pahousegop.com; tcaltagi@pahouse.net; mbradford@pahouse.net; jbrennan@pahouse.net; dcosta@pahouse.net; tcreight@pahousegop.com; bcutler@pahousegop.com; sdelozie@pahousegop.com; edepasqu@pahouse.net; bellis@pahousegop.com; kgillesp@pahousegop.com; ggrell@pahousegop.com; mkeller@pahousegop.com; tkrieger@pahousegop.com; dkula@pahouse.net; boneill@pahousegop.com; trock@pahousegop.com; rsaccone@pahousegop.com; jshapiro@pahouse.net; tstephens@pahousegop.com; mtoepel@pahousegop.com; ttoohil@pahousegop.com; jwhite@pahouse.net;

& If you want to bother to try change his mind and past VoteS jsabatin@pahouse.net; rwaters@pahouse.net

[WhiteFeather]

Note we have LOTS of Pro gun bills planned for introduction in 2011 -2012 sesssion

Please print out or copy paste to email to friends and family so they can take action IF they are for this proposed bill

Jan 11-27, 2011

Rep Scott Perry sent the sponsorship memo out on Dec 8, 2010.

As of Jan 27, 2011 we have 134 sponsors and this bill has NOT be introduced yet, so there is NO bill number to reference.


It took most of last session to gather enough 131 Reps names for enough support to move this castle doctrine bill forward.

Please contact (phone or e-mail or both) the Reps on this list and ask them to ADD their names as a co-sponsor

All the Reps listed below were past sponsors. Newly elected Reps or Reps that voted for passage in an extra committee vote.



( D ) - Chelsa Wagner - cwagner@pahouse.net
High value - Judiciary Committee - 1st stop for C.D.
HBG Phone (717) 783-1582 local office (412) 343-2094
- Allegheny*

( D ) - Jake Wheatley - jwheatley@pahouse.net
HBG Phone (717) 783-3783 local office (412) 471-7760
- Allegheny*



( D ) - John T. Galloway - jgallowa@pahouse.net
HBG Phone (717) 787-1292 local office (215) 943-7206
- Bucks*


( R ) - Doyle Heffley - dheffley@pahousegop.com
HBG Phone (717) 260-6139 local office (570) 645-7585
- Carbon

( R ) - Dan Truitt - dtruitt@pahousegop.com
HBG Phone (717) 260-6164 local office (610) 696-4990
- Chester*

( R ) - Warren Kampf - wkampf@pahousegop.com
HBG Phone (717) 260-6166 local office (610) 688-5691
- Chester*, Montgomery*



( R ) - Ronald S. Marsico - rmarsico@pahousegop.com
REALLY Highest value - majority Judiciary Chairman of the house
HBG Phone (717) 783-2014 local office (717) 652-3721
- Dauphin*



( R ) - William F. Adolph - wadolph@pahousegop.com
High value - majority Appropriations Committee chair of the house
HBG Phone (717) 787-1248 local office (610) 544-9878
- Delaware*



( D ) - Matthew Bradford - mbradford@pahouse.net
High value - Judiciary Committee - 1st stop for C.D.
HBG Phone (717) 772-2572 local office
- Montgomery*

( D ) - Josh Shapiro - jshapiro@pahouse.net
High value - Judiciary Committee - 1st stop for C.D.
HBG Phone (717) 783-7619 local office (215) 517-6800
- Montgomery*

( R ) - Todd Stephens - tstephens@pahousegop.com
High value - Judiciary Committee - 1st stop for C.D.
HBG Phone (717) 260-6163 local office (215) 441-1030
- Montgomery*



( D ) - Eugene DePasquale - edepasqu@pahouse.net
High value - Judiciary Committee - 1st stop for C.D.
HBG Phone (717) 787-7514 local office (717) 848-9595
- York*

For max support reason it’s basically the same bill as HB 40 that was voted on in the full house vote on Oct 5, 2010. Not that amendments both pro and anti-gun can't be considered on this bill at some point.

Despite the opposition, we finally got several votes in last session and had overwhelming support for passage in all votes cast everywhere. As you know the final outcome of this effort there is no more point dwelling on that here, we did our part, most of the Reps did theirs, Governor vetoed the amended version.


Politically reality check
This is not going to be an easy effort to get this accomplished, despite some people’s opinions to the contrary, as we always had enough votes for passage in the last six years.

Without being able to get all the required votes in ALL the committees by the chairman WE got nothing.

There are very power groups, with deep pockets and vocal voices in opposition to this concept and they have political allies with some key leadership people. What we have is voters in many Reps district and Activist all around PA in growing numbers willing to do their part to balance the scales.

There are many key leaders in both parties, committee chairman that will just sit on this bill, both in the house and senate who don’t really support this bill and will do their best to drag their feet, prevent, delay, stall and drag this out for as long as they can, including attempting to amend with killer kooky amendments, IF WE LET THEM..

Leadership everywhere has the power to do back room deals, play political games as they have risen in rank they have gotten better at claiming support while stonewalling legislation. Still there are many in leadership that actually support this legislation, so all we have to do is do our part and support this effort, by contacting the Reps and asking.

We have to stay strong and focused on the end goal, WE also will not accept abridgments in our rights with more gun control

More sponsors = greater chance for passage despite opposition forces, IF you want Castle Doctrine passed in PA consider doing your part and contact ALL of the Reps listed.

[WhiteFeather]

In the works for this session expect big things

[WhiteFeather]

Senate's Castle Doctrine effort

Here is Senator Alloway's version of Castle Doctrine. SB 273.
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/...type=B&BN=0273

Currently (Jan 26, 2011) there is 30 sponsors, please contact these senators below and ask them to add their names as a sponsor to SB 273

Update 2-16-2011 added sponsor we now have 32 sponsors

ALLOWAY, WOZNIAK, ROBBINS, FONTANA, EICHELBERGER, ORIE, FOLMER, PILEGGI, BREWSTER, SMUCKER, SOLOBAY, RAFFERTY, YAW, VOGEL, SCARNATI, BOSCOLA, STACK, PIPPY, MENSCH, TOMLINSON, BROWNE, WARD, YUDICHAK, D. WHITE, KASUNIC, GORDNER, PICCOLA, BAKER, BRUBAKER, WAUGH and McILHINNEY 2-10-2011, ARGALL 2-16-2011,

this first group is past co sponsors in last session, that are not currently

Jake Corman jcorman@pasen.gov (717) 787-1377

Andrew Dinniman andy@pasenate.com (717) 787-5709 Voted 4 loop hole Amendment


These senators voted for passage in last session

Jay Costa costa@pasenate.com (717) 787-7683 Voted 4 loop hole Amendment

Edwin Erickson eerickson@pasen.gov (717) 787-1350 Voted 4 loop hole Amendment

Jim Ferlo ferlo@pasenate.com (717) 787-6123

Stewart Greenleaf sgreenleaf@pasen.gov (717) 787-6599 Voted 4 loop hole Amendment

Patricia Vance pvance@pasen.gov (717) 787-8524 Voted 4 loop hole Amendment

Mary White mwhite@pasen.gov (717) 787-9684 Voted 4 loop hole Amendment

Anthony Williams williams@pasenate.com (717) 787-5970 Voted 4 loop hole Amendment


freshman senator - back channel intel say he will not support CD. What does it hurt to ask especially if he is your senator

John Blake blake@pasenate.com (717) 787-6481


The rest of the senators already voted against Castle Doctrine amendment, so there is not much point in contacting them right now.


Last session we were unable to move the senate's version of CD despite we having so many sponsors (33 out of 50), because of the bias of Judiciary Committee chair against this bill. Nothing has changed since last session.

So this will be a future battle that we will need your help, we will let you know when to fight this fight. First round will probably be at the 6th annual 2nd A rally and interactive lobbying event Tentatively scheduled for May 10, 2011



You can read senator's Alloway Castle Doctrine sponsorship memo in Attachment, you may find it interesting reading

[WhiteFeather]

This passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 1, 2011 by a Vote of 10 to 3

THANK YOU TO ALL OF YOU THAT CONTACTED THE SENATOR'S

The first 8 of 14 on Senate Judiciary committee are current sponsors to Castle Doctrine

(R) Joseph Scarnati jscarnati@pasen.gov
HBG Phone (717) 787-7084 HBG FAX (717) 772-2755

(R) John Gordner jgordner@pasen.gov
HBG Phone (717) 787-8928 HBG FAX (717) 787-9715

(R) Jane Orie jorie@pasen.gov
HBG Phone (717) 787-6538 HBG FAX (717) 772-2470

(R) Jeffrey Piccola jpiccola@pasen.gov
HBG Phone (717) 787-6801 HBG FAX (717) 783-3722

(R) John Rafferty jrafferty@pasen.gov
HBG Phone (717) 787-1398 HBG FAX (717) 783-4587

(D) Lisa Boscola boscola@pasenate.com
HBG Phone (717) 787-4236 HBG FAX (717) 787-1257

(D) Michael Stack stack@pasenate.com
HBG Phone (717) 787-9608 HBG FAX (717) 772-2162
Voted 4 loop hole Amendment

(R) Richard Alloway alloway@pasen.gov
HBG Phone (717) 787-4651 HBG FAX (717) 772-2753


This list are NOT current sponsor BUT voted everytime for passage of CD

(R) Stewart Greenleaf sgreenleaf@pasen.gov
HBG Phone (717) 787-6599 HBG FAX (717) 783-7328
REALLY Highest value to contact - majority Judiciary Chairman of the house.
The chairman is ONLY one that can allow a vote in the Judiciary Committee
Voted 4 loop hole Amendment


(R) Mary White mwhite@pasen.gov
HBG Phone (717) 787-9684 HBG FAX (717) 787-6088
Voted 4 loop hole Amendment



These Senators on Judiciary Chairman voted against Castle doctrine
(D) Daylin Leach dleach@pasenate.com HBG Phone (717) 787-5544 HBG FAX (717) 783-2902
Voted against CD and voted for Voted 4 loop hole Amendment so probably not worth your time conacting. Expect this to be a NO vote in Judiciary Committee

(D) Vincent Hughes hughes@pasenate.com
HBG Phone (717) 787-7112 HBG FAX (717) 772-0579
Voted against CD and Voted 4 loop hole Amendment so probably not worth your time conacting. Expect this to be a NO vote in Judiciary Committee.

(D) Lawrence Farnese NO EMAIL
HBG Phone (717) 787-5662 HBG FAX (717) 787-4531
Voted against CD and Voted 4 loop hole Amendment so probably not worth your time conacting. Expect this to be a NO vote in Judiciary Committee.



(R) Jane Earll jearll@pasen.gov
HBG Phone (717) 787-8927 HBG FAX (717) 772-1588
Voted against CD and voted for Voted 4 loop hole Amendment including final passage so probably not worth your time conacting. Expect this to be a NO vote in Judiciary Committee


Please watch videos on post #28, you can now judge for yourself IF its waste of time or sound investment in contact someone like Senator Earll that voted against CD last time without this added public scrutiny to re evalute their past vote.

Senator Earll tries to defend her 1926 nay vote
http://forum.pafoa.org/pennsylvania-...te-page-3.html





Here is the list of 14 Reps that serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee

Please contact all the high value Reps noted people



Please Call or Fax them, email as last option as not all senators use their emails

It took most of last session to gather all those 33 sponsors in senate, we could not get a vote or hearing in the senate on Castle Doctrine bill to move this forward, IF you REALLY want this past please call all the above and especially BUG - Senate Stewart Greenleaf Judiciary committee chairman to give a up or down vote on Sentor Alloway's castle doctrine SB 273.


Batch email of all the Judiciary Committee senators

jscarnati@pasen.gov; jgordner@pasen.gov; jorie@pasen.gov; jpiccola@pasen.gov; jrafferty@pasen.gov; boscola@pasenate.com; fontana@pasenate.com; stack@pasenate.com; sgreenleaf@pasen.gov; mwhite@pasen.gov; alloway@pasen.gov ;


& If you want to bother to try change their minds to vote for CD
jearll@pasen.gov; dleach@pasenate.com; hughes@pasenate.com

[WhiteFeather]

Our rights have what value you give them by your actions

Reagan quote:

"Freedom ,must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."

Start Getting personally involved in fighting for freedom or sit back, do nothing and watch it keep getting worse for the rest of your life.
Reagan quote:

"Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom, and then lost it, have never known it again."

or just to stand up and fight for something rather than letting them take your freedom

from movie Braveheart
I *am* William Wallace! And I see a whole army of my countrymen, here in defiance of tyranny. You've come to fight as free men... and free men you are. What will you do with that freedom? Will you fight?

Veteran: Fight? Against that? No! We will run. And we will live.

William Wallace: Aye, fight and you may die. Run, and you'll live... at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin' to trade ALL the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take... OUR FREEDOM!

[WhiteFeather]

Everyone, sorry for dropping the sword for a week about Castle Doctrine updates.

My father in law Dan passed away on Jan 12, 2011 at 76 years young, I took his passing extremely poorly as we were VERY CLOSE, much closer than my own father ever was to me.

I missed my last chance to talk with him at the Jan 9 FOAC meeting as I arrived late and due to Dan not feeling well left the meeting early. Ironically I arrived late missing him but managing to first be able to have my wife attend her first FOAC meeting, that her dad never missed in years and finally convinced her to come to in her words, “some boring meeting, talking politics”.

Well she actually liked it and really found it fascinating so much show when lots of the FOAC people that knew Dan came to the viewing.

She told Kim Stolfer she wants to take up the cause that her dad cared about to try to fill the big gap that someone has to now fill.

Now my wife has done transcribe, processing and typing of raw information data in the past for many hours, it wasn’t like she was really involved in FOAC, she promised to change that commitment to the next level of ACTIVISM to Kim and all, Still even with that we need many Others to fill in Dan’s involvement to protecting our all of rights for future generations to enjoy along with the added protection they provide to all of US.

For any of you that was ever on my team or gone to any of the past five 2nd amendment is second to none Harrisburg rallies and interactive lobbying events you may have meet Dan as he never missed the opportunity to do his diligence to honor his oath he took as veteran and Citizen to protect our rights and the rights of children and grandchild.

Our freedoms and rights matter to him very much, even at his age as he often said he is having to much fun kicking them in the rear to do the right thing to quit now. Dan didn’t do this because he was worried about what was going to happen to him, he lived his life and knew his time was numbered as is all of our time on this earth. He didn’t for the future generation sake of Americans, to live in freedom and not tyranny as he watch it grow most of his later life to just take it as most do.

By the way the 6th amendment is second to none Harrisburg rallies and interactive lobbying event is un officially scheduled for Tuesday May 10, details to be coming in the near future as this date draws nearer.

Sadly Dan won’t be there nor will be able to have something we have wanted for a VERY long time a picture of us together with a friendly pro gun governor that we both knew on a first name bias from working with over the years. Dan also will not be able attend all the planed stuff we had for this spring and summer to do.

A lesson for all of you to learn a valuable lesson from, don't put off your plans for another day, you might not get the chance in the future.

In the past decades of PA governors have never been even remotely gun friendly so the baseline bar is pretty low still for what is considered pro gun to meet the definition. We both along with all the FOAC activist worked hard to get Tom Corbett elected to AG twice and now the governor office of PA, so only time will tell.

Dan you will be missed

As a veteran

As a Activist

As a Citizen

As my friend 1st and father in law 2nd


Freedom is NOT Free, someone has to pay the bill and its been many people like Dan has paid his share of the cost for all of US to enjoy.

Freedom is something that you can hold in your hand, can’t be weighed or measure in man’s scales, Freedom is a intangible concept that many a Citizen solider has paid the highest price for Other future generation to have, even with what freedom we have left today after their sacrifices. Is freedom still not worth giving some of your time to help deffer the cost, without the spilling of blood just to keep what is ours.

What will you do without Freedom?

How about taking up the burden of trying to keep it for future American to enjoy while you can make a difference as even my father in law at 76 years of age did for all of the Citizens of PA.

Now that I re focus after a period of morning, Lets all work together to get castle doctrine passed in 2011 and details soon coming on the next lobbying event soon.