Prohibited eliminates self defense claim?

[DonSmithnotTMD]

Just curious if a prohibted person llegally carrying a firearm would be able to claim self defense in an otherwise legitimate shooting.

[headcase]

Just curious if a prohibted person llegally carrying a firearm would be able to claim self defense in an otherwise legitimate shooting.

Why wouldn't they? I would not confuse getting charged with a 6106 violation, with getting charged for murder in a clear self defense situation.

[GunLawyer001]

Under the House version of the "Castle Doctrine" bill (really just a "stand your ground" law), you'd lose the presumption and you might still have the duty to retreat, but you wouldn't lose the ability to claim self-defense:

(2.3) An actor who is not engaged in a criminal activity, who is not in illegal possession of a firearm and who is attacked in any place where the actor would have a duty to retreat under paragraph (2)(ii), has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and use force, including deadly force, if:

[mollymayhem82]

I'm curious about this as well. My boyfriend is prohibited until the end of June. We follow the law, and he has no access to any firearms or ammunition. If someone broke into our house, and if for some reason he had to use my gun to protect us, how much trouble would he get in? He's not a felon, he's just restricted by a PFA.

[Steve in PA]

If you are following the law and he has no access, then how woud he obtain the firearm to use it?

[streaker69]

If you are following the law and he has no access, then how woud he obtain the firearm to use it?

A group of thugs breaks in during the night. She grabs her pistol, but is blindsided and knocked out. Her boyfriend grabs her now dropped gun and defends her and himself...

Perfectly plausible.

[headcase]

If you are following the law and he has no access, then how woud he obtain the firearm to use it?

She gets hurt in a struggle and tosses it to him?

[mollymayhem82]

If you are following the law and he has no access, then how woud he obtain the firearm to use it?

If someone broke into the home and I had time to actually get it out of the safe, if I handed it to him because he's a better shot than I am, would either one of us be violating a law? It's a hypothetical question. The only time the gun is out of the safe is when I'm carrying it. Or does him being prohibited mean that I'd have to be the one standing between some psycho and our kids? That's what I'm asking.

[headcase]

If someone broke into the home and I had time to actually get it out of the safe, if I handed it to him because he's a better shot than I am, would either one of us be violating a law? It's a hypothetical question. The only time the gun is out of the safe is when I'm carrying it. Or does him being prohibited mean that I'd have to be the one standing between some psycho and our kids? That's what I'm asking.

Of course you would. If you give him the gun, you will likely be charged, and he will likely be charged, but with UFA violations, not murder. There is always the chance that you would get a human being who declined to prosecute, or it is possible that when the smoke cleared you would be the one holding the gun, but prohibited means prohibited, and anti-gun types hate it when you defend yourself against their wishes...

[whoshisface]

There is a famous case where a prohibited person was in a home while a criminal broke in and attempted to kill him. He grabbed a gun and killed the intruder. The court ruled that he still had the right to defend himself. I don't know if that was a surpreme court case or not, I thought it was. Basically, I don't think its an issue in that circumstance because it wasn't his home and the person who owned the gun didn't make it available to him, he just knew where it was.

Imagine you know that I always keep my gun in my bookshelf. You get convicted. I invite you over. I'm not give you access to the gun but you know its there. I'm not required to make sure you cant go grab it because I don't live with you. Bad guy comes in you grab the gun and shoot him. Who would convict?

In that case (GunLawyer knows the term) you are committing a crime in order to stop a more serious criminal act. That's legal somehow.. That doesnt mean you cant be convicted, you can be convicted of murder because you were chewing gum if you have a crappy jury and judge. However there is some sort of protection when committing a crime if the purpose was to prevent a larger crime.

You can come up with all sorts of scenarios in which one would have to commit a lessor crime in order to prevent serious bodily injury of yourself or another or a larger crime, in those circumstances the law has some built in protection but I don't recall the term.

You'r not going to get a jwalking ticket if you have to run across the street to prevent a kidnapping.

The argument that you can dead stop your car on the bridge to NJ (and win a court fight over it) before the state line, get out and walk back, popped into my mind a few times because you'd be committing a bigger criminal act by crossing into NJ.

Except PA could argue that NJ law doesn't apply in PA. So I don't know how that plays out