|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
PA: Amend Stand Your Ground law, don't repeal it
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Florida law clearly states SYG may be invoked upon a reasonable belief that “such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.” Florida’s SYG law conforms to traditional common law notions of self-defense that it is a “reasonable” not “actual” belief that deadly force is required. In contrast, Pennsylvania’s SYG law, as written, essentially requires an “actual” belief since the defender must see the weapon before acting.
Despite Sen. Santarsiero’s inapt comparison to Florida, Pennsylvania’s SYG law does not need to be repealed. It needs to be amended so that the statutory language includes a reasonable belief of an imminent display or use of a deadly weapon. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(11/15/2019)
|
| Outstanding letter. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
