Expansion of Castle Doctrine Necessary to Protect Liberty in PA

Photo by Michael Fedor

As free citizens, our greatest personal property is our own lives and, therefore, our most important liberty as free citizens is the liberty to protect our lives both in our own homes and in the public sphere. This right is enshrined in the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania which, when listing “inherent and indefeasible rights,” lists first among them that of “enjoying and defending life and liberty….”

Currently, Pennsylvania law respects the absolute right of the individual to protect his or life in the home as part of a law known as the “Castle Doctrine.” Regrettably, Pennsylvania law does not yet confer that right absolutely to individuals in the public sphere. Instead, state law imposes on an individual a duty to retreat before exercising deadly force in defense of his or her life while away from the home.

Not imposing the same duty to retreat while in one’s home, state law today essentially favors the law-abiding citizen in their home while favoring the criminal outside of the home. Recently, in an effort to correct this contradiction, the State Legislature overwhelmingly passed House Bill 1926 – an expansion of the current Castle Doctrine which would enable citizens to defend their lives in a public place without first retreating from the threat and would also protect individuals from criminal and civil prosecution if they used deadly force to protect their lives.

Passing the House on a vote of 161-35 and passing the Senate by a vote of 55-4, House Bill 1926 enjoyed extensive bipartisan support and served the valuable function of protecting the Constitutionally-recognized right of citizens to defend their lives and liberty. In spite of this, Governor Ed Rendell vetoed House Bill 1926 on Saturday, saying in his veto message that

I do not believe that in a civilized society we should encourage violent and deadly confrontation when the victim can safely protect themselves. As keepers of the public trust, we have the solemn duty to protect our citizenry, not put them in harm’s way, and to protect the sanctity of human life.

Rendell’s veto message advanced a baseless belief that only the government can safely protect the citizenry and that empowering citizens to protect themselves would only place them in harm’s way. His suggestion that a civilized society precludes victims of crime from standing their ground and protecting themselves when their lives are threatened is an understanding at odds not only with common sense but also with the constitutional vision of this Commonwealth’s founders.

After all, Section 21 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides that “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.” Clearly, the right of the people to protect themselves is a foundational principle of our Commonwealth and it is a principle without conditions.

Because Rendell vetoed the bill in the final days of the legislative session when both houses are away from Harrisburg, his veto will prevent House Bill 1926 from becoming law this year. But with the inauguration of Tom Corbett as Governor and the vast support for the bill in both houses, it is reasonable to expect that the Castle Doctrine will be successfully expanded sometime next year.

Although the bill is almost certain to become law next year, the fact that law abiding citizens of Pennsylvania must still flee their attackers before defending themselves in the public sphere is a stain on our state and a clear contravention of the principles promulgated in our Constitution. Pennsylvanians are less free as long as criminals enjoy an advantage over their victims in the public sphere.