[PAFOA Alert] Judiciary Committe Action: HB 641 (Castle Doctrine)

[CCinPA]

Originally Posted by wilddude4202001

how/ what can i do to express my opion to the power that be should i call or should i send emails to the people on the list?

I would call Caltagirone office and let them know your dont appreciate them caving in contact info below.


State Representative Thomas R. Caltagirone (D-127), Majority Chairman
106 Irvis Office Building
PO Box 202127
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2127
(717) 787-3525
Fax: (717) 772-5401
tcaltagi@pahouse.net

[larrymeyer]

HB 641 (Castle Doctrine) Pulled from Agenda


Just got word that HB 641 has been pulled from Tuesday's agenda and will not be considered.
No further details at this time.

[doug]

Originally Posted by CCinPA

I just received this confirmation from Representative Capelli's office on what is going on. As we all know Rep. Capelli is the sponsor of HB641.

"It is not coming out of committee, the delegation threatened to walk out. However, he is amending this bill into a Senate bill that's scheduled to be voted on by the full House this week.

District Legislative Aide to
Representative Steven Cappelli
Phone: 570-321-1270
Fax: 570-326-3719

Good to know, maybe it will get passed after all.

[stimpy17]

We're on it, stoked up the keyboard for tonight.
Thanks!

[crazy charlie]

It's time for all you boys and girls to contact your representatives and let them know how you feel. If your representatives won't even talk about what my rep., Steve Cappelli proposes shame on them and shame on you for re-electing them.

The Dems threatened to walk out when Steve's Bill was proposed and my latest e-mail from him indicates he is proposing an amendment to the current law just to get them to talk.

Come on folks. We all know this is a Dem. thing and it's about time to let these people know you mean business about changing your Districts leadership if they insist on playing the party game instead of looking out for you.

You bad butt boys that say you'll shoot the first person that threatens you in your home stop beating your chests and do something. All your AK's and other fancy hardware for your own defense are just bragging rights if you can't use them.

If you don't do anything at least take the time to register to vote and get these idiots out of office.

If I've stepped on your toes or ego so be it.

The stuff is going to continue to hit the fan if you continue to let the cool-aid drinkers run your State.

[Mileglock]

Here is the email I sent.

To whom it may concern,

The Black Caucus is comprised of a bunch of cowards who cry about the fact that people are dying in Philadelphia due to people owning illegally obtained weapons. I carry a handgun every day of my life and no one I have come into contact with has ever known, and I reason that most of those people would have considered their encounter with me to have been a pleasant one.

In the event that a violent encounter occurred at a location I was currently in I would attempt to contact police and keep others safe without engaging the perpetrator unless forced to do so.

However, I feel that the same criteria should not be applied to one's home. I have a wife and a young son to protect and if someone enters my home without being invited I will not retreat and pray for the police to protect me. I will bunker my family and protect them at all costs.

The Black Caucus is confusing legal gun ownership with illegal gun ownership and I find it unexcuseable that legislation limiting handgun purchases to one per month should be stressed rather than far more meaningful legislation meant to protect people in the most sacred of places, their homes.

I am one individual voter who will not let this issue rest. I will be lobbying for the issues that promote real change, and I will vote for those that have the courage to pass legislation that stands a real chance of preventing violent crime.

To the members of the Black Caucus: Do you plan on reasoning with a violent felon who enters your home illegally, or do you plan to defend your family by whatever means necessary. My hope is that you would defend your families the same way I plan on defending mine. Gun violence is a tragic problem, especially in urban areas, however, tying the hands of your constituents with regard to defending themselves is not the answer.

With Regards and Prayer,
Aaron Rich
Carlisle, PA

[MrUgly]

Not sure if this was posted yet, but I just got off the phone with Dave McGlaughlin (I called Thomas R. Caltagirone office, and this gentleman answered. He said the bill has been attached to Senate Bill 436 and that the bill is on the fast track.

He seems confident the bill and the amendment will pass. Please forgive the lack of detail, I was expecting to get an answering machine.

[Mileglock]

That is great news! Hopefully this will be the first step towards a Castle Doctrine in our state!

[doug]

Here's the text of PA Senate Bill 436

[CHAUKA]

I sent a quick email to all the members of the Jud. committee after I got home from work this evening.


To all Members of the Judiciary Committee,

Please take action and support HB 641 (castle doctrine)
This Legislation is very important to the safety of all law abiding Pennsylvanians.

We have a right to defend ourselves when confronted by Violent Criminals in our own homes.

We also should have the right to legal protection from Car Jackings & Home Invaders - Fellow upstanding citizens should have protection against civil actions when defending our families.

Thank you for your time & consideration of this important legislation,



Eric B******

North Huntingdon, PA

412-***-****




This is an email I recieved back from:
State Representative Greg Vitali (D-16)
103B East Wing
PO Box 202166
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2166
(717) 787-7647
Fax: (717) 705-2089
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 cannotpoint 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 legalprotections 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.

Contact: Christopher Mallios, PDAA Legislative Liaison, 215-686-5873