IMPORTANT PA RESIDENTS-HB641- Castle Doctrine

Discussion in 'Vintage Topic Archive (Sept - 2009)' started by .45acp, Dec 10, 2007.

  1. I received one reply from a REp already as follows:

    Thank you for your email. I do plan to support this legislation.

    Sincerely,
    Bev Mackereth
     

  2. Keep us appraised. Ours was passed last year and so far seems to be going exactly as the gun grabbers DIDN't say it would. No crazy shoot outs and no vigilante justice.
     
  3. just curious, what did u write?
     
  4. I wrote a very simple note:

    Good day to you all,

    May I ask that you please give me the rights to protect my family and others as detailed in this piece of legislation.

    Thank you,

    ****

    I've heard back from two already, and was also directed to NO MORE GUN CONTROLS petition on Rep. Marsico's site.
     
  5. Can you post the link?
     
  6. Thanks Skate
     
  7. i posted this in another forum and this is a reply one of the guys got back:

    This is what I got back when I e-mailed them this morning.

    From; Vitali, Greg [GVitali@pahouse.net]



    Philadelphia District Attorney's Association: PDAA opposes House Bill

    641 and urges public hearings.



    Text of Dec. 7 press release.





    The Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association urges the House Judiciary Committee to hold public hearings before voting on House Bill

    641 in a hastily scheduled meeting on Monday, December 10. This bill would increase handgun violence in Pennsylvania by encouraging people with firearms to shoot their victims more quickly by removing the duty to retreat from our self-defense statute. A recent case in Pasadena, Texas is testing the limits of a similar law that Texas just enacted, where a neighbor who was in no danger shot and killed two alleged burglars in his neighbor's yard as police were arriving. We don't need any more incentives to shoot people in our state.





    House Bill 641, misnamed "the castle doctrine" legislation, has been introduced to legalize alleged self-defense killing even when the killer knows that the killing is unnecessary to save a life. This bill eliminates Pennsylvania's centuries-old "duty to retreat" that states that if someone whose life is threatened can safely do so, they must retreat and avoid the unnecessary taking of human life. The PDAA urges the General Assembly to vigorously oppose this legislation.





    The true "castle doctrine," (not HB 641) which relieves residents of the duty to retreat before using deadly force to protect their homes from intruders, is current law. See 18 Pa.C.S. 506(b)(2)(ii)(A)("the actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling or place of work, unless he

    was the original aggressor ... "). Advocates for House Bill 641 cannot

    point to a single case where current law failed to adequately protect a Pennsylvania resident's right to defend his or her home. Our current statute safeguarding that right is strong, and this bill does nothing to further strengthen it; instead, the bill produces several disastrous consequences making the streets and highways of our state more dangerous than ever.





    It has been one of the highest principles of civilized society that the use of deadly force on our streets should be the choice of last resort; killing another human being should never be the first option when it is entirely possible to avoid the situation in complete safety. It is not unreasonable to require a person to try and avoid the taking of a life before we as a society will condone and excuse a killing as an act of self-defense. The days of the "Wild West" where two armed gunman could face off on the street at high noon and the winner would walk away under a claim of self-defense should remain a distant memory of a more

    barbaric time in this country's history.





    This bill will protect gang killers from prosecution. The largest impact of House Bill 641 will be to provide most gang killers in this Commonwealth with a ready-made defense that will be very difficult for the Commonwealth to defeat. Many homicides occur when one gang encounters a rival gang on the street - or even when one drug gang member encounters a member of another gang. When fatal shootings occur, our prospects of successfully prosecuting the gang killers are reasonable because current law's duty to retreat negates the killers'

    inevitable self-defense claims. Without the duty to retreat, gang killers will have a potent, often-winning courtroom argument that they had to shoot the rival gang members in order to defend themselves, even

    though the shooting could have been avoided altogether.





    Please remember that these gang killers are often not good shots. House Bill 641's Dodge City protections for gang killers apply with equal force whether the ultimate victim is a rival gang member or an innocent 10-year-old school child a block away. The killers of the young boy, Faheem Thomas-Childs, asserted self-defense to justify their shooting at rival gang members. The veteran homicide prosecutor who tried Faheem's killers, Mark Gilson, has indicated that, had House Bill 641 been in place at the time that young schoolboy was killed, Faheem's killers may

    well have been acquitted and back on the streets today. To quote Mr.

    Gilson, if the duty to retreat "is removed, then many violent ruthless

    killers will be permitted to get away with murder."





    Protecting road rage killers from prosecution. The disconcerting increase in road rage killings potentially affects every community in our Commonwealth. Many road rage killings occur when tempers flare and irate, hot-tempered motorists threaten and menace each other. If one driver is larger than the other, or has a tire iron in his hand for example, the other feels he's facing a potentially life-threatening situation. However, an unnecessary killing in such situations often can be avoided by the threatened driver simply putting his foot on the gas

    pedal and driving away.





    But House Bill 641 provides the driver - who could have safely driven away from the scene - another, entirely legal alternative: grab the

    handgun and shoot the other driver in the head. With the duty to

    retreat taken away, our ability to prosecute these entirely unnecessary killings will be substantially hindered. This is not the time to be throwing fuel on the fire of deadly road rage. The responsibility of government is to make our highways safer, not to provide new legal

    protections to road rage killers.





    The bottom line is this: House Bill 641 will give potent new legal weapons for gang killers and road rage killers to avoid responsibility for the taking of human life. Again, I urge you to oppose this legislation, which will without a doubt make Pennsylvania a more dangerous place for all our citizens, or at the very least, convene public hearings to enlighten and inform the legislators and the public about this critical public safety risk.
     
  8. ***UPDATE***


    Here is an update and what you can do to help:


    Representative Caltagirone, head of the House Judiciary Committee gave in to pressure from certain Democratic members of the House yesterday and opted to pull HB641 from consideration by the committee today as previously reported.

    From the reports we've heard it appears as though the usual suspects from Philadelphia involved in constantly trying to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms have thrown yet another temper tantrum and threatened to take their ball and go home if this legislation was considered.

    The good news is that it appears Representative Cappelli is attempting to force the issue by adding HB641 as an amendment to Senate Bill 436 in an attempt to have the bill debated.

    Please see Representative Cappelli's website for in depth information on his actions regarding this bill:

    http://www.repcappelli.com/?sectionid=16&sectiontree=16&itemid=562

    It is important now that firearm owners do two things:

    1) Contact your representatives and politely, but strongly voice your support for HB641. If you do not know who your representatives are you can find our by visiting:

    http://www.pafoa.org/politicians/

    2) Contact Representative Caltagirone's office and politely voice your extreme displeasure with his capitulation to the minority members of the House by withdrawing HB641 from consideration. His contact information is as follows:

    106 Irvis Office Building
    PO Box 202127
    Harrisburg, PA 17120-2127
    (717) 787-3525
    Fax: (717) 772-5401
    tcaltagi@pahouse.net
     
  9. This time I called and emailed the Reps inc Mr. Caltagirone.
     
  10. I will be surly emailing my state reps WE NEED this made into law under current law as described by a friend who is a lawyer while im watching TV someone could break into my house and pick up my TV and walkout and their is nothing I could do about it as long as they didn't threaten anyone in the house. But we all know that if someone breaks into one of our homes he did threaten us and I had to use force :lol: our laws are made to protect criminals and do jack for us the victims of crimes