PA Senate Bill 842 - on Castle Doctrine and More

[TheNewGuy]

Didn't see this being discussed elsewhere on the site, apologies if it has been brought up already.

PA Senate Bill 842 introduces "Castle Doctrine" to PA, as well as clarifying some law, and improving some others.

-----------------
The most important points of the bill, as I interpret it (and I'm not a legal professional, nor do I have any background in law, so take what I say with a grain of salt) are as follows:


+ Better description of home/dwelling, now includes porch/deck/patio, I assume due to a recent case where a citizen shot someone on his porch that was attempting to break in. Previously that was a gray area, I'm not sure how the case turned out. (under § 501. Definitions of Section 1. Section 501 of Title 18)

+ Better description of "residence". A dwelling in which one resides permanently or temporarily, or is just visiting as a guest. (under § 501. Definitions. of Section 1. Section 501 of Title 18)

+ One has the right to stand one's ground, with no duty to retreat, and to protect oneself with force, including deadly force, if one feels it is immediately necessary to prevent death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping, or sexual intercourse by force or threat, (and here's the important part), ANYWHERE one has a right to be. (under § 505.(2.3) of Section 1. Section 501 of Title 18)

+ Under § 506 of Section 1. Section 501 of Title 18, the same rights are understood when protecting another person.

+ Under Section 6(a) of Title 42, § 8340.2. Civil immunity for use of force, anyone that has used force to defend themselves, another, or property, legally, under § 505, 506 or 507 of Section 1. Section 501 of Title 18. Basically you can't be sued for your actions if you injure the offender.

+ Under Section 6(b) of Title 42, § 8340.2, the court shall pay expenses including but not limited to, attorney fees, expert witness fees, court costs and compensation for loss of income, for anyone that falls under § 505, 506 or 507 of Section 1. Section 501 of Title 18.
-----------------


Pretty important stuff, I know I'll actually take the time to contact the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee (link) and offer my support for the bill, and I encourage you all to do the same.


> References:
SB842 on the State Legislation site
The NRA-ILA article
The Senate Judiciary Committe contacts list

[spencer280]

i like what i have read here and i hope that bill goes threw.

[TheNewGuy]

You and me both

[spencer280]

you know there was a friend of mine with me last week and we ran into an old friend of mine bill evens. east Franklin police officer and we got to talking about the use of deadly force with break ins, and my friend was wondering about the reaction if he had to shoot an intruder if he would get into trouble. bill evens looked at us and said this WOULD YOU RATHER BE TRIED BY TWELVE OR CARRIED BY SIX. He said if you feel the need to shoot to kill to save your life or the life of someone else then you do what you have to do and worry after the fact
but this bill if it passes would help alot of people out if it ever came down to the use of deadly force.

[TheNewGuy]

I love that quote, and you hear it pretty often on this subject. Wise sentiments

[Lazydog]

I hope you guys contacted your reps and asked them to sponsor this if they are not already.

[TheNewGuy]

In an effort to encourage more people to contact the PA Senate Judiciary Committee reps to support this bill, I put together a spreadsheet with all their contact information (see attached). Also, below is a sample letter just to give you something to start with. Most senators specify on their websites that they give preference to messages they receive from residents of the counties in their district, but obviously not all counties are represented on the committee, so that's not mandatory. Please take the time to contact the closest rep to you, or even all of them.

My Letter:


Dear (Insert Senator's name here),

I'm contacting you today in regards to Senate Bill 842, regarding amendments to Titles 18 (Crimes and Offenses) and 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes.

I believe that the changes outlined in this bill are paramount to more clearly defining the rights and limits of civilians as it pertains to self defense, and the defense of others and property. The amendments in this bill are necessary to protect law abiding citizens that have the fortitude to protect themselves, their families and those around them from ambiguous statutes which could serve to condemn them if poorly interpreted.

Being a father figure to an infant, boyfriend of a wonderful woman, close to our families, a good neighbor and a law abiding citizen, I would feel much more comfortable protecting those close to me under the proposed laws.

I hope I can count on your support of this bill when it comes to vote. I look forward to hearing from you regarding your stance on this matter.

Respectfully,
Me

[TheNewGuy]

This bill has not yet come before the committee, so there's still plenty of time to contact your senators and ask for their support. This bill is a HUGE step in the right direction for law abiding gun owners, and we should all make an effort to request support of it from our representatives.

[knighted4]

This bill echos HB 40 which has had alot of exposure on other forums.
Please contact you rep and ask them to co-sponser this bill if they haven't already.
Both bill are held up in judiciary and will stay there if we don't get the ball rolling.

knighted4

ARTICLE l SECTION 21
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
What part of this DON'T you understand?

[pemslie]

The day after passing the Judiciary committee by a resounding 22-4 vote, the Castle Doctrine bill HB 40 got sent to Appropriations Committee. The Appropriations committee has 21 Democrats, of which 5 are co-sponsors and an additional 2 who are also on the Judiciary Committee actually voted yes on the bill. Of 14 Republicans on the committee, 12 are co-sponsors, and one of the remaining 2 voted yes in the Judiciary committee. So that's 20 who've either co-sponsored or supported the bill and 14 non-supporters, 2 of which voted against it in the Judiciary committee.

Here are the Democrats who need some pressure. "Voted no" indicates those who are also on the Judiciary Committee and opposed it there.

Evans, Dwight , Chairman (717) 783-1540
Keller, William F., Vice Chairman (717) 787-5774
Frankel, Dan, Subcommittee Chairman on Criminal Justice (717) 705-1875
voted no: Manderino, Kathy, Subcommittee Chairman on Health and Welfare (717) 787-1254
Myers, John, Subcommittee Chairman on Economic Impact and Infrastructure (717) 787-3181
voted no: Vitali, Greg, Subcommittee Chairman on Fiscal Policy (717) 787-7647
Wheatley, Jake, Subcommittee Chairman on Education (717) 783-3783
radford, Matthew D. (717) 772-2572
Briggs, Tim (717) 705-7011
Conklin, H. Scott (717) 787-9473
DePasquale, Eugene (717) 787-7514
Galloway, John T. (717) 787-1292
Parker, Cherelle L. (717) 783-2178
Williams, Jewell (717) 772-2004

In addition, the one Republican who has neither co-sponsored nor supported the bill is the Minority chairman, so we ought to ensure he's on board for the actual vote.

Adolph, William F., Jr. , Chairman (717) 787-1248

The Appropriations Committee is scheduled to meet on June 7-9, 14-16, 21-30 (yes, that includes all weekend).

[pemslie]

On the Senate Judiciary Committee, 5 of 9 Republicans and 2 of 5 Democrats are co-sponsors of SB 842. In the full Senate, it's 32 of 50 overall, enough to override a veto if we could even just get the 4 Repub senators on the committee to support it.
Here are the members to convert:

Officers
No: Greenleaf, Stewart J. , Chair (717) 787-6599
No: White, Mary Jo, Vice Chair (717) 787-9684
No: Leach, Daylin , Minority Chair (717) 787-5544

Majority
No: Earll, Jane M. (717) 787-8927
No: Gordner, John R. (717) 787-8928

Minority
No: Costa, Jay (717) 787-7683
No: Fontana, Wayne D. (717) 787-5300

The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to meet Jun 8, 11, and 15.

[ffemt123472]

Any word how this bill is going? i havent heard anything on it for a while. just courious

[Paradigm]

It made it through the PA house and senate, only to be vetoed by Rendell. Legislator Daryl Metcalfe already told me that it will be reintroduced in this next session. Since many Dems were booted - and since Rendell will be gone - it's very likely that it will finally pass.

[Xringshooter]

Govenor-elect Corbett has already stated that as soon as it hits his desk he will sign it. My Rep (Benninghoff) has told me that it will be reintroduced as soon as possible once the new government is sworn in.