Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« British police blogs | Main | Alaska Army command restricts troops' arms »

Pro-gun bills in PA

Posted by David Hardy · 15 March 2006 09:06 AM

Pro-gun legislators in PA have introduced two interesting bills.

One, by Rep. Metcalfe and Pippy, would require destruction of the state background checks after they are passed -- as it is, police are apparently keeping the records. The other, by Rep. Cappelli, would adopt the "castle doctrine," removing the retreat requirement before self-defense (it's hard to tell from the article just how this modifies current PA law -- article refers to protecting homeowners, but at common law the retreat requirement didn't apply in one's own home, as I recall).

Here's another report, referring to Rep. Cappelli and two other unnamed lawmakers.

[Hat tip to Kathy Habel]

· contemporary issues

3 Comments | Leave a comment

Sebastian | March 15, 2006 9:17 AM | Reply

I'm glad to hear this as a PA resident, but there's no way Rendell will sign them.

geekWithA.45 | March 16, 2006 10:34 AM | Reply

PA is a "retreat on the street, but not in your house" state, with all the usual exceptions. (Defense of others, reasonable belief retreat would not be effective, requirement only exists when a retreat in _complete_ safety is possible, etc)

geekWithA.45 | March 16, 2006 10:37 AM | Reply

Also, the SP spokesman is being disengenious. The State Supreme Court was not as sympathetic to them as his selection of quote implies. They said that the list wasn't a registry as the result of the consequences of how the law was written, and that it would require legislative correction rather than judicial.

Leave a comment