PA. Castle Doctrine/Stand your ground
Results 1 to 5 of 5

PA. Castle Doctrine/Stand your ground

This is a discussion on PA. Castle Doctrine/Stand your ground within the Pennsylvania Discussion and Firearm News forums, part of the Firearms Discussion by State category; Hello All, I'm new here, just posted this same topic last night but it has not posted yet so I'm ...

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    12

    Default PA. Castle Doctrine/Stand your ground

    Hello All,
    I'm new here, just posted this same topic last night but it has not posted yet so I'm assuming I did something wrong. So here goes again.......

    On USACARRY's Concealed firearm permit information by state page under Pennsylvania it states :Deadly Force / Castle Doctrine:
    Pennsylvania is a Castle Doctrine state and has a stand-your-ground law.

    From what I've found on the Pennsylvania General Assembly webpage it states that SENATE BILL 842 : An Act amending Titles 18 (Crimes and Offenses) and 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in general principles of justification, further providing for definitions, for use of force in self-protection, for use of force for the protection of other persons and for licenses to carry firearms; and providing for civil immunity for use of force.

    This bill has not yet even been voted on yet. It was referred to Judiciary on MAY 5th 2009. When you click on the link for "VOTES" it states there are no votes on Senate Bill 842. Either USACARRY is wrong on their statement or the info from the Pa General Assembly page is wrong. Either way I wanted to bring this to everyone's attention as it could cause someone some trouble by thinking they are more protected by our laws than they really are. Can someone shed some light on this? Please let me know if I have this wrong. If right maybe USACARRY should remove that claim from the state's firearm permit info page.
    Thanks,
    -Brian-
    -The City of Fools,
    in the State of Confusion-

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Orleans, LA
    Posts
    2,751

    Default

    You are correct and I've edited the page to reflect this. Wikipedia also has it listed as a castle doctrine state which is wrong. I found this new item as well.


    Castle Doctrine Self-Defense Bill Introduced in the Keystone State!

    Please Contact the Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee Today! State Senator Richard Alloway (R-33) has introduced critical self-defense reform legislation (Senate Bill 842) to protect the rights of law-abiding gun owners in Pennsylvania. This Castle Doctrine self-defense bill has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

    SB842 would permit law-abiding citizens to use force, including deadly force, against an attacker in their homes and any places outside of their home where they have a legal right to be. It is clearly stated that there would be no “duty to retreat” from an attacker, allowing law-abiding citizens to stand their ground to protect themselves and their family. SB842 would also protect individuals from civil lawsuits by the attacker or the attacker’s family when force is used.

    Please contact the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee TODAY and respectfully urge them to support SB842. Contact information for the committee can be found here.

    NRA-ILA :: Castle Doctrine Self-Defense Bill Introduced in the Keystone State!


    Memberships: NRA, GOA, USCCA
    Guns: Glock 26, Ruger LCP, Beretta 90-Two .40, Beretta PX4 Storm Subcompact 9MM, Beretta Tomcat, Bushmaster Patrolman M4

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Orleans, LA
    Posts
    2,751

    Default

    Wikipedia calls it weak castle doctrine law:

    Pennsylvania (18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 505 on the defense of self says there is no obligation to retreat from the home or workplace unless the actor was the initial aggressor or, in the latter case, set upon by a co-worker; however, "surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto" and "complying with a demand that [one] abstain from any action which [one] has no duty to take" are listed in addition to retreating as avenues which, if open to the actor but not taken, invalidate justification for the use of deadly force. Deadly force itself is not justifiable unless "the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat." 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 507 allows the use of deadly force if the actor believes there has been an unlawful entry into his or her dwelling and believes that nothing less than deadly force will end the incursion; if the person on the receiving end of the deadly force is "attempting to dispossess [the actor] of his dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession;" or if deadly force is the only thing that will prevent a felony from being committed in the dwelling. In any of those cases, the property owner must first ask the interloper to desist — unless the owner believes that doing so would be "useless," "dangerous," or would result in the property being defended coming to substantial harm before the request to desist could be effectively communicated.


    Memberships: NRA, GOA, USCCA
    Guns: Glock 26, Ruger LCP, Beretta 90-Two .40, Beretta PX4 Storm Subcompact 9MM, Beretta Tomcat, Bushmaster Patrolman M4

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Orleans, LA
    Posts
    2,751

    Default

    Wikipedia calls it weak castle doctrine law:

    Pennsylvania (18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 505 on the defense of self says there is no obligation to retreat from the home or workplace unless the actor was the initial aggressor or, in the latter case, set upon by a co-worker; however, "surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto" and "complying with a demand that [one] abstain from any action which [one] has no duty to take" are listed in addition to retreating as avenues which, if open to the actor but not taken, invalidate justification for the use of deadly force. Deadly force itself is not justifiable unless "the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat." 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 507 allows the use of deadly force if the actor believes there has been an unlawful entry into his or her dwelling and believes that nothing less than deadly force will end the incursion; if the person on the receiving end of the deadly force is "attempting to dispossess [the actor] of his dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession;" or if deadly force is the only thing that will prevent a felony from being committed in the dwelling. In any of those cases, the property owner must first ask the interloper to desist — unless the owner believes that doing so would be "useless," "dangerous," or would result in the property being defended coming to substantial harm before the request to desist could be effectively communicated.


    Memberships: NRA, GOA, USCCA
    Guns: Glock 26, Ruger LCP, Beretta 90-Two .40, Beretta PX4 Storm Subcompact 9MM, Beretta Tomcat, Bushmaster Patrolman M4

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Thanks for taking care of that lukem!

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •