H.B. 2669

[TangoBravo605]

Well, this certainly won't help our cause: http://www2.philly.com/philly/news/p...-20181016.html

TB605

[bluetrane2028]

Well, this certainly won't help our cause: http://www2.philly.com/philly/news/p...-20181016.html

TB605

Should not be held against the many, the actions of the few. Especially enshrined constitutional rights. But, I know I'm preaching to the choir here...

[PHL9mm]

Well, this certainly won't help our cause: http://www2.philly.com/philly/news/p...-20181016.html

TB605

Just another day in Philly. Bullshit on all sides now. If you guys don't know there's a good channel called Guns and Gadgets run by a Mass. State police officer. He covers all the anti-2A bullshit and good news from around the country on YouTube.https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5f...K97fLg7RTdZpJg

[Hodgie]

Well, this certainly won't help our cause: http://www2.philly.com/philly/news/p...-20181016.html

TB605

Yes but what are the chances this guy was a law abiding LTCF holder right up until this happened. While it’s possible I think it to be highly unlikely.

Criminals gonna commit crimes.

[c45man]

There is a strong probability that there is a higher percentage of Pa. state politicians that have permits to carry that the percentage of private citizens that have carry licenses in the commonwealth. Unless there is an exception for the politicians to carry loaded in a car, this bill is going nowhere.

[GunLawyer001]

Well, this certainly won't help our cause: http://www2.philly.com/philly/news/p...-20181016.html

TB605

A normal person would say that the driver who got out of his car, walked over to the other driver, and stood at their window, was most likely the person in a "rage".

I've seen this (or heard of it) many, many times. There are bullies and people with anger management issues who believe that they have the right as men to beat up anyone who displeases them.

That would be a mistake.

I don't know any details of this incident, but it seems likely that the dead guy had some prior incidents, may even have a police record, and was not standing there in order to discuss Proust or baseball. It would not surprise me if the dead guy made verbal threats, intimidating gestures, or even swung at the driver sitting in his/her car all belted in.

The only thing you can do while standing 12" from the other guy that you can't do from your own car, is punch him in the face. Or get shot at close range. These things may be related.

I could be wrong, the shooter could be an asshole who shot a man asking for directions. But it's just wrong to assume that every shooter is the bad guy. Plenty of people are unwilling to engage in sweaty tussling with strangers on the side of the road, and they're willing to use force to decline such an invitation. A significant number of victims are killed every year in this country with no weapon at all, just "hands or feet".

There are many things for which I would be willing to die, to save my family or to serve my country or to stop a terrorist, but "getting my skull fatally split because Rithina hates his job" is surprisingly not on that list.

"No" means "no" when it comes to personal combat for stupid reasons. You have a problem with another driver, make a note of the tag and call the cops. Use a dash cam, not your fists.

[TangoBravo605]

Good points you make, Sir, especially given PA 9.502A JUSTIFICATION: USE OF DEADLY FORCE.... Jury Instructions for cases post 27Aug2011. By Andrew Branca LOSD. A few relevant excerpts:

"...In making this determination, you must understand that the law presumes a defendant to have a reasonable belief that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect another against death, [or] serious bodily injury, [kidnapping, or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat] if both of the following conditions exist:

(i) The person against whom the force is used is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered and is present within, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; or the person against whom the force is used is or is attempting to unlawfully and forcefully remove another against that other’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(ii) The defendant knows or has reason to believe that the unlawful and forceful entry or act is occurring or has occurred.

[A “dwelling” means any portion of building or structure, including any attached porch, deck, or patio, [even though it is movable,] which is for the time being the home or place of lodging of the defendant.]

[A “vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether motorized or not, that is designed to move people or property.]

In fact, the law further presumes that someone who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a defendant’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle or removes or attempts to remove someone against their will from the defendant’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, is acting with the intent to commit an act resulting in death or serious bodily injury [or kidnapping or sexual intercourse by force or threat]. If the defendant knows or has reason to believe that this unlawful and forceful entry or act is occurring or has occurred, the law then presumes that the defendant’s belief in the necessity of using deadly force is reasonable and justified." (Emphasis added).

My hope for this defendant is that his attorney knows this material and, if so, that it's not his first rodeo using it in defense of his client.

Cite: https://lawofselfdefense.com/jury_in...stle-doctrine/

Two caveats to the above.

First: The application of the law in a specific case can change based upon actual outcomes decided upon Appeal. Sometimes those changes occur without the knowledge generated by timely publication of those decisions. Only an attorney, knowledgeable about the most current changes (if any) in PA State Specific, Self-Defense law, who is licensed to practice in PA and has a track record therein of defending "card carrying good guys/gals" as to their use of force, offers the highest likelihood of prevailing, all things considered.

Second, I am NOT a lawyer, so the above information is NOT legal advice. If you need such advice, follow my recommendation above in bold-type. Absent that, YMMV, Oh and I sure do hope this guy has REALLY good self-defense insurance to defend in the second use of force, i.e., the ensuing legal battle.


TB605

[PHL9mm]

Commita got re-elected; unopposed so I guess this shit marches forward. I got to thinking after watching Colion Noir's last video about Albany. These politicians do nothing but live off our tax dollars, oppress the poor, and put forward gun control to look like they're doing something but it is only and solely to protect their power. They don't give a shit about their constituents.

[Yoder]

I have a LTCF. I'm not unloading my gun in my car. They can suck it.

[God's Country]

I don't see this going anywhere.

As stated it was written by a jackass who clearly either A) has no clue about Pa firearms law, and has no idea this already illegal without a LTCF. or B) the most likely IMO, nothing more than drama to be used as click bait for anti polls and continue to mislead the sheep that is somehow currently a lawful activity without restriction.