PA Castle Doctrine Bill is a Sham!

[johnfritz]

From Attorney Karl Rominger's Weekend Appointment website:

The governor maybe signing a new Castle Doctrine bill which supposedly expands the rights of self defense in Pennsylvania. According to those in charge you will be able to stand your ground and defend yourself with deadly force outside of your home or business without a duty to retreat.

However, the expansion of the bill is watered down by a few huge caveats. The District Attorney's Association refused to support the bill until it was edited to contain a provision that in order to stand your ground in public the other side must have a deadly weapon present and visible.

What this essentially means is that if someone claims to have a gun but you can't see it, or reaches to their pocket and says, "I'm going to shoot you," there is no gun yet visible and you would still have the duty to retreat and could not stand your ground. As you can imagine any clever criminal, thief or wrong-doer simply needs to make sure that their weapon is not immediately visible and you lose your right to stand your ground. And what if you thought you saw a weapon but none was present? Surely the jury will hear an argument hat you were not mistaken, you are lying!

How can this happen? Well the politicians bowed to the District Attorney's Association who traditionally take a stance which cannot be described as progun. I can only tell you that you should thoroughly check out your own District Attorney's history on guns, self defense and gun ownership, and determine if they are appropriate guardians of your Second Amendment rights. Obviously as an association they didn’t protect your Second Amendment rights here.

The bill also contains one other terribly troubling provision which may actually strip additional rights from you. It includes the following, which says you can’t stand your ground or defend yourself in your own home, and get a presumption of self defense if:

“the actor is engaged in a criminal activity or is using the dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle to further a criminal activity“;

Which is basically language which says that if your house is being used for any criminal activity you lose your right to self defense as traditionally understood therein. The sponsors of the bill have claimed that this simply means that if you are committing a criminal act you can't use the Castle Doctrine or the right of self defense in your own home. First of all, in order to expand the right of self defense we didn't need to limit anything within people's homes. Secondly, as the plain language of the statute reads, and as Courts will interpret it, it means that any criminal activity in the house may strip you of your right to self defense.

Practically this means the presence of firecrackers, bottle rockets, small amounts of marijuana, paraphernalia, criminal building code violations, or even an expired prescription would allow a district attorney to strip you of the right of self defense in your own home because there is "criminal activity". The statute specifically does not limit that criminal activity to the underlying use of self defense.

So while I would concede that it's perfectly fair to say that if you murder somebody in your own home or in the context of doing a drug deal you shoot your buyer or seller, you certainly shouldn't be entitled to a self defense instruction. But the mere fact that somebody burglarizes your home while you are in possession of firecrackers, does not mean you should be stripped of your rights.

When I posed that question on the Bob Durgin Show on WHP 580 AM to one of the sponsors of the bill, he simply brushed it aside saying that wasn't the intent. I can assure you as a lawyer that the intent in legislation is taken from the plain language of the statute. In fact many times when legislators claim they meant one thing courts interpret it differently because we have something called the rules of construction which are statutorily set. The first thing the court must do is follow the plain language and as long as the plain language is clear you go with it. The plain language of this statute is troubling and is actually a step back in Pennsylvania gun owner rights.

Further if a co-worker attacks you with deadly force, you still have a duty to retreat!

That’s right, “ the actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling or place of work, unless he was the initial aggressor or is assailed in his place of work by another person whose place of work the actor knows it to be”. So be aware you can shoot a customer in self defense, but not a deranged coworker if you could retreat!

I urge you to ask that this provision be not signed and / or repealed if necessary, and that a true Castle Doctrine be installed in Pennsylvania. The current bill is simply a way for many politicians to claim to be progun by voting for it, or to claim they are anti-gun by voting against it, but would have a little or no effect on your rights to defend yourself, and further maybe actually limiting your right of self defense in your home!

Link to the original page.

[ryan92084]

johnfritz has already noticed but for others most of this is being debunked in the main HB40 thread page 154

[johnfritz]

most of this is being debunked in the main thread

Thanks for the heads-up. I don't know if anyone else is but I'm sending links of all this back to Karl so he can have a look. If he screwed up he'll be the first to say so.

[ChamberedRound]

Thanks for the heads-up. I don't know if anyone else is but I'm sending links of all this back to Karl so he can have a look. If he screwed up he'll be the first to say so.

FYI, I commented on your post in the main HB40 thread prior to your creating this thread:

http://forum.pafoa.org/pennsylvania-...ml#post1637138