Again, an activist with a spirit to face candidates while taking lunch at his desk decided to bring up the important issue of self-defense and right-to-carry with gubernatorial candidate Joe Hoeffel.
[Comment From Adam Z]
Could you please explain you stance on the proposed PA House Bill 40? This is basically a “Castle Doctrine” piece of legislation that was introduced by PA Reprensentative Perry (92nd PA District) along with 56 other PA House Delegates. Here is brief description of the proposed bill if you are not familiar with it. “An Act amending Titles 18 (Crimes and Offenses) and 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, further providing, in general principles of justification, for definitions, for use of force in self-protection, for use of force for the protection of other persons and for licenses to carry firearms; providing for civil immunity for use of force; and further providing for sentences for offenses committed with firearms.” It is currently sitting in a PA House Judiciary committee. In other words, this proposed legislation would protect someone legally when they are defending themselves or loved ones not only in their home – since we already have that in PA – but also out in public if they felt threatened and were not the instigator or perpatorator of the aforementioned incident. This proposed bill would also grant civil court immunity to victims from the families of criminials who may decide to sue them after a crime has been committed. Could you please tell us your stance on this and simiar types of legislation?
Adam Z, the provisions on House Bill 40 seem excessive and unnecessary. The law has always recognized, as it should, the right for people to act in their own self defense. I favor legislation instead that will establish reasonable, common sense provisions to improve gun safety, such as one gun purchase per month limitations, requirements to report to the police lost and stolen guns, and allowing local governments to enact their own gun laws.
There was never much of a question that Hoeffel would take an extremist view on the subject and use the opportunity to call for more gun control. But the opportunity still gives us a better insight into the head of Joe Hoeffel. Supporting Castle Doctrine is not “excessive and unnecessary,” it’s a position that attracts Democrats and Republicans alike. Joe Hoeffel’s gun control rhetoric, on the other hand, is excessive and unnecessary.