In an often-cited Washington State Supreme Court case, State v. Reynaldo Redmond, Evergreen State gun rights activists remind us that the court noted “The law is well settled that there is no duty to retreat when a person is assaulted in a place where he or she has a right to be.”
Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, who is no friend to the Second Amendment, used his veto pen the other day to nix so-called “Castle Doctrine” legislation that would have removed a requirement in current statute that citizens cannot defend themselves when “safe retreat” is possible. This gives rise to a question: Has this guy ever witnessed an attack in a public place? Has he ever been attacked physically in a public place? If he had, then he would know that such attacks happen so fast that retreat is rarely an option. Turn to run and you may just get clubbed, stabbed or shot in the back.
Rendell, a Democrat, is a former district attorney who has become something of a career politician. As mayor of Philadelphia and now as Pennsylvania governor, he’s got a security detail. That’s a luxury not available to typical Pennsylvanians, or any other average citizen anywhere in the United States. So, why did Rendell veto this legislation?
According to the York Daily Record, Rendell was concerned that passage of such a law will “encourage violent and deadly confrontations.” Actually, Ed, lack of such a law encourages thugs into violent and deadly confrontations because they have far less concern that their intended victim will fight back.
Under current law, the use of deadly force in self-defense is not justifiable when safe retreat is possible, unless a person was attacked in his or her home or workplace. The legislation Rendell vetoed would have removed the requirement to retreat before using deadly force outside the home or workplace as well.—York Daily Record
This column has previously mentioned the violent and deadly confrontation of Oct. 7, 2006 at Seattle’s Westlake Plaza, where a deranged man identified as Daniel Culotti viciously attacked another man, Kenneth Miller, and beat and kicked him savagely in front of who knows how many witnesses? This was a midday attack on a bright autumn day and the place was full of people who stood by and did nothing, save for the 911 calls. When seconds count, police are minutes away.
Culotti, a convicted arsonist with a history of mental problems, attacked Miller at random. Miller was licensed to carry, he was armed, and he fought back. Culotti was killed by a single bullet, fired upward by Miller, who was lying on the ground, essentially being beaten to death. Would former prosecutor Rendell have charged him?
Opponents of mislabeled “Castle Doctrine” bills – they are actually “Stand Your Ground” statutes – frequently use, as an excuse, their fear that such laws will lead to bloodshed. Well, perhaps they will, but maybe we should consider whose blood will be shed. If some violent criminal makes a fatal error in the victim selection process, just whose fault is that? And deep down in the recesses of their consciousness, anti-gunners are just as happy to see those people taken out of circulation as are the rest of us, but their public piety about the sanctity of human life (or whatever) precludes them from admitting it. They’re happy to be safe, but don’t seem too eager to accept personal responsibility for that safety.
People who are anti-gun are typically also against personal self-defense. For whatever reasons, such folks believe that we are not capable of defending ourselves; we must wait for the police to respond.
As this column reported here Friday, more than 275,000 Washington State residents do not subscribe to that philosophy. They have obtained Concealed Pistol Licenses so they may go legally armed in public. Others – a small number by comparison – choose to openly carry their defensive sidearms. Their presence has, according to anecdotal information, occasionally prevented a crime or brought it to a swift conclusion.
Rendell did no good thing for the citizens of Pennsylvania by exercising his veto pen. Fortunately for us here in Washington, he’s at the far end of the country and our courts have already assured us that his philosophy will find no footing here.
One more thing: In 2009, the murder rate in Pennsylvania was 5.2 per 100,000 population. Here in Washington, the rate was 2.7 per 100,000, according to this website. According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, in 2009, Pennsylvania reported 658 murders. The same year, Washington posted 169. Readers may make any conclusions they wish.
PLEASE FORWARD the link to this column and share with all of your chat lists and forums
PLEASE SUBSCRIBE by clicking on the link above
And Don’t forget to visit:
VISIT THESE GUN RIGHTS EXAMINERS ON-LINE:
Atlanta Ed Stone | Austin Howard Nemerov | Boston Ron Bokleman | Charlotte Paul Valone | Cheyenne Anthony Bouchard | Chicago Don Gwinn | Cleveland Daniel White | DC Mike Stollenwerk | Denver Dan Bidstrup | Des Moines Sean McClanahan |Detroit Rob Reed | Fort Smith Steve D. Jones | Knoxville Liston Matthews | Los Angeles John Longenecker | Minneapolis John Pierce | National David Codrea | Seattle Dave Workman | St. Louis Kurt Hofmann | Tucson Chris Woodard
ALSO VISIT:
‘Winning Firearms Freedom One Lawsuit at a Time’
CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
READ:
America Fights Back: Armed Self-Defense in a Violent Age
These Dogs Don’t Hunt: The Democrats’ War on Guns
Assault on Weapons: The Campaign to Eliminate Your Guns
Washington State Gun Rights and Responsibilities
Comments
"The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime."
“No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”
- Miller v. U.S., U.S. Supreme Court,[319 U.S. 105 (1943).]
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.”
- Miranda v. Arizona, U.S. Supreme Court,[384 U.S. 436 (1966).]
“If the state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity”
- Shuttlesworth v Birmingham, U.S. Supreme Court,[394 U.S. 147 (1969).]
"Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a Constitutional right, from liability. For they are deemed to know the law.”
- Owen v. City of Independence, MO,[445 U.S. 622, 100 S.Ct. 1398, 63 L.Ed.2d 673 (1980).]
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
"A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."
- 16th American Jurisprudence, 2nd Edition, Volume 16, Section 177.
In this case it is always easy to tell others how they must act when confronted by the threat of deadly force by a criminal, as they are not in the emanate danger zone, plus they have never been in a Deer in the Headlights, fear frozen unable to move situation, not everyone has the ability to react, and run away from danger!
But to tell people they must retreat is the same as saying if you do not run you deserve to be at the mercy of the Criminal Element.
I prefer to have the Criminal alive but, two in the chest and one in the head will stop them from hurting anyone else, and I would not feel bad about it!
PA has a higher percentage of non-Caucasians living within its borders, than Washington state does. That's one factor, since minorities tend to commit violent crimes at higher rates, especially in urban areas.
I have been shot in the back while attempting to retreat.
I have been assaulted with a weapon by a police officer for not retreating.
I wish I was joking. :(
What is the average citizen supposed to do? The police won't risk their hides to save or protect us against violent criminals, much less one of their own -- and they aren't required to, actually, according to the Supreme Court -- and people like this seem to think that we're supposed to believe that they *will* lay down their lives for us? That violence won't happen to us as individuals? Violence will happen no matter what is done. A gun makes it easier, but it's by no means necessary to perform the deed.
Did these people eat paint chips as kids?
Also:
I'd like to see these people refute this claim: "Statistically, banning guns has never protected anyone from being shot, and has statistically increased the rate and thus the risk of violent crime."
And then I'd like to see these people refute this claim: "Statistically, reducing the burden on keeping and bearing arms has always, or nearly always, reduced violent crime in areas where restrictions were relaxed and notice of the change in law was publicized via regional news sources before taking effect."
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!