Castle Doctrine 2011-12 session Activist effort – Please Help

[WhiteFeather]

Dec 15, 2011 Bill of Right day

A year later, with the PAFOA Activist effort to Successfully pass CD all started here.

Several People have requested a brief summary of what is contained in the upgrades to the so called Castle Doctrine legislation and rather than reading through the entire long thread to figure out what does act 10 mean to me?

Here are the elected Reps CD summary to close out the thread also updated the OP so its quickly available for reference to PAFOA members & guest alike.

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.


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

.

On this ACSL link is many if the other pending firearm and hunting related legislation in HBG (both FOR and Against firearms ownership)

http://acslpa.org/html/firearms___hunting_legis_.html

[GunLawyer001]

Another pic:

I just want to point out that my friend, Philadelphia attorney Jon Mirowitz, is the gentleman on the left of this picture.

For the few who sneer at him for not being gung-ho about open carry in Philadelphia (he has the impression that the Philly PD might hassle you and act badly), be aware that he's done more for our gun rights, and has been working far longer for our gun rights, than almost anyone else you can think of.

He was also a named plaintiff HEREm doing something tangible to push back at Philadelphia's illegal & preempted gun control laws:
http://www.aopc.org/OpPosting/Cwealt...08_6-18-09.pdf

He was a major player in the enactment of the improved UFA back in 1994. What were most of you doing about gun rights in 1994?

It's the Internet, it's easy to talk the talk. Not so easy to walk the walk, like Jon has.

[Just1more]

Just spoke with Daryl Metcalfe's office and have a bunch of the Castle Doctrine flyers being mailed to me. This is another option.

[ImminentDanger]

WhiteFeather - I'd suggest you post this exact information in a NEW THREAD entitled 'PA Castle Doctrine Summary - Act 10 of 2011' ... because there is likely to be follow-on postings in this thread that makes finding this summary information just as difficult as before - by making a new thread with that title, it should be more findable with a search of those popular terms...

- - - - - - - -

Those summaries point out again the requirment for standing your ground outside your home is that:
"the “attacker” displays or uses a firearm or any other deadly weapon"

Not simply that the attacker threatens to use or pretends to have - but actually "displays or uses" a weapon in the attack/confrontation...

And, the issue of 'disparity of force' is not addressed...

(I wonder how these Act 10 'requirements' will be legally argued relative to the existing use of force statutes? Remember the law of unintended consequences often comes into play in legal matters.)

- - - - - - - -

Also, the "protection against civil lawsuits" seems to be a misnomer as it does not prevent (as in, protect you from) such suits but rather simply provides a means to recover financial cost related to such suits where the defendant actually wins...

While this is not a bad thing, it definitely does not provide "protection against civil lawsuits" but rather ameliorates the results. By not preventing the suits, it still leaves you liable to the initial expense of defending yourself (and the possibility of being bankrupted before winning) and the equally expensive mental stress of such a defense.

I'm certain that the idea was to make the lawyer, who would be willing to file such a suit on behalf of the perpetrator, think twice before proceeding, but the lawyer is not going to have to pay your costs - Even if you win the suit, and Act 10 is applied in your favor, what is the likelihood that a violent criminal is going to be able to come up with the money to cover your legal fees?

- - - - - - - -

Like so many other gun-related legislations, this one is a small incremental step in the right direction ---- but we have a very long way to go toward a more just legal standing for those who act in self-defense in such situations...

...

[Just1more]

Disparity of force - wasn't this left out in this castle doctrine? to be added at a later date and is only in the works right now?