Recent Posts

Recent Comments


Cop Land

« | Main | »

PA Mulls Expanded Self-Defense Bill

By Wyatt Earp | November 16, 2010

There is no question that Philadelphia is a crime-infested cesspool. This year, shootings are up, robberies are up, and home invasions are up. The citizens here are being victimized by thugs every hour of every day.

If you live in one of these concrete target ranges we call Pennsylvania cities, good news may be on the way:

A bill headed to Governor Rendell’s desk would expand the right to use lethal force in self-defense in Pennsylvania. Currently, state law allows a person to use deadly force, with no duty to retreat, against an intruder in their home. The controversial bill given final legislative approval by the state House expands that right to any situation where a person feels threatened with harm in a place where they have a right to be.

Philadelphia House Democrat Cherelle Parker argued against the bill, saying lawmakers should honor law enforcement officials. “Respect their professional acumen. They have told us that this bill will be a nightmare.”

Democrats are against this bill? There’s a shocker. Look Cherelle, any law enforcement official that says this will be a nightmare is an idiot. We can’t be everywhere at once – especially in Philly, where our manpower is at record lows. People need to know that they have a right to protect themselves and their property in the event of an attack, and criminals need to know that if they continue to prey upon the citizens, there may be deadly repercussions.

(Sebastian has been all over this story from the beginning.)

UPDATE: Fat Eddie vetoed the bill. Big surprise.

Topics: Gun Pr0n, Politics | 21 Comments »

21 Responses to “PA Mulls Expanded Self-Defense Bill”

  1. Randal Graves Says:
    November 16th, 2010 at 1:09 pm

    There is, of course, a bad side to this. All of the thugs now have another defense for their thuggery.

  2. dragonlady474 Says:
    November 16th, 2010 at 1:10 pm

    Sounds good to me. For the sake of the people I hope it passes.

  3. Wyatt Earp Says:
    November 16th, 2010 at 1:23 pm

    Randal – Sadly, they always have a defense – just never a good one.

    DL474 – I don’t expect Rendell to sign it. He’s a scumbag that is not a fan of guns and gun owners.

  4. Robert B. Says:
    November 16th, 2010 at 1:27 pm

    Any politician who opposes a citizen’s right to self defense should give up their own bodyguards and security. Let them live in neighborhoods that are not gated communities. Let them live next to crack houses and graffiti adorned tenements, walk to the corner store unprotected.

    Think that will ever happen? Nope, gun control is not about controlling crime. It is about controlling you.

  5. Wyatt Earp Says:
    November 16th, 2010 at 1:29 pm

    Robert B. – Rendell feeds off his protection and police escorts. He got into a pickle a few years ago while making his State Police driver blast through the PA Turnpike at 90 mph with his domelights on. Classy individual, that Eddie.

  6. Sebastian Says:
    November 16th, 2010 at 2:08 pm

    The law specifically exempts being able to claim these expanded self-defense defenses if you’re engaged in other criminal activity. So if you’re selling crack on the street corner, and pop a cap in sumdood’s ass because he owed you money felt he was threatening you, you would still have a duty to retreat first.

  7. Jon Brooks Says:
    November 16th, 2010 at 2:09 pm

    An armed society is a polite society. Don’t know what a legged society is though.

    Hope he signs it, it just may reduce police work in some areas.

  8. Sebastian Says:
    November 16th, 2010 at 2:11 pm

    Besides, for Castle Doctrine to even come into play, that means they’d have to try to actually prosecute you in the first place, and given the number of rapsheets I’ve seen where they didn’t even go after aggravated assault, I’d be happy just to have the thugs in court having to figure out a defense to the charges against them.

  9. Lergnom Says:
    November 16th, 2010 at 2:17 pm

    Rendell won’t be Governor in a while. That’s not to say he still won’t have influence, but it won’t be quite as overt as he has now.

    Stay safe

  10. JCM Says:
    November 16th, 2010 at 3:20 pm

    Shut up.

  11. Wyatt Earp Says:
    November 16th, 2010 at 3:41 pm

    Sebastian – Good to know, because I am due to work my crack corner on Wednesday. :)

    Jon – If nothing else, it may put the fear of God into a few of these scumbags.

    Sebastian – And with Seth Williams dismissing 19,400 fugitive warrants . . .

    Lergnom – If there’s a God, Rendell will slink away and never be heard from again. Or the media will finally unveil the seemy skeltons in his closet.

    JCM – So simple, a caveman can do it.

  12. Dr. Evil Says:
    November 16th, 2010 at 4:38 pm

    Fully support this! I’d give the law enforcement officers armor piercing, cyanide tipped rounds as well. And for their entertainment purposes use Call of Duty Black Ops as a trainer, team building exercise.

  13. Lou Says:
    November 16th, 2010 at 6:36 pm

    The expanded Castle Doctrine also allows us to presume that anyone breaking into your home is there to cause you harm, and deadly force is justified.

    I think this will cause a large decrease in “home invasions” if Fat Eddie doesn’t veto it.

  14. Lou Says:
    November 16th, 2010 at 6:38 pm

    Forgot to mention it also protects private citizens AND police officers from civil liability when deadly force is lawfully used.

    Win/Win in my book.

  15. bob (either orr) Says:
    November 16th, 2010 at 8:11 pm

    If Fat Eddie does veto it, Gov.-elect Corbett won’t. Make sure the bill comes back up if Slimo does run the veto.

  16. piperfromtn Says:
    November 16th, 2010 at 10:26 pm

    Our legislature overrode the veto of the Gov. of TN on being able to carry in a restaurant that serves alcohol, as long as the permit holder isn’t partaking.

    With an incoming new Gov. in TN, we may vote in ‘constitutional carry’ where no permit required, like the founders originally wanted. Seems likely.

    Do you think your legislature might be willing to override the veto of fast Eddie?

  17. bob (either orr) Says:
    November 17th, 2010 at 2:44 am

    piperfromtn, as currently constituted, probably not. But the GOP took over the state House and already has the Senate, so it would not surprise if even if Rendell vetoes it, it’ll be law sometime before the winter ends. New Gov. (Republican) will likely favor it.

  18. Bob G. Says:
    November 17th, 2010 at 9:26 am

    Sounds like a better plan there.
    Let the law-abiding CITIZENS decide how best to meet a threat…works for me.

    And, we ALL know they don’t call governor Rendell “Fast Eddie” for nothing, right?


  19. Wyatt Earp Says:
    November 17th, 2010 at 12:49 pm

    Dr. Evil – I’ve heard good things about that, but I have been too busy smiting stormtroopers in The Force Unleashed II.

    Lou – I think you’re absolutely correct.

    Bob – I am fairly sure they won’t stop if Fat Eddie doesn’t sign the bill.

    Piper – It’s more possible after the new legislature (GOP majority) gets in.

    Bob G. – He is the politician I despise the most. Second place is not even close to this piece of garbage.

  20. Smite A. Hippie Says:
    November 17th, 2010 at 2:14 pm

    If it doesn’t get signed, there’s always hope for trying it next year when Fast Eddie is gone.

  21. Jason Says:
    November 19th, 2010 at 2:46 pm

    Fast Eddie not signing it is a win win (although I prefer the bill be signed ASAP). Not signing once again proves we trust no democrat on gun rights. It will also give the new Governor an opportunity to thank us for electing him.