Firearms property insurance and firearms personal libility insurance

imported post

Firearms property insurance is common.

Personal liability insurance for firearms related incidents is not.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed whre they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$

imported post

I am with Electric Insurance. Under the exclusion section, it includes text "does not apply to bodily injury resulting from the use of reasonable force by an 'insured' to protect persons or property".

Common Law self-defense would apply here I assume. At least it gives the exclusion for BOTH persons and property. If someone enters my house by force and is armed, I can use reasonable force with a firearm to stop him since my life or my families is in immediate danger. If someone enters my house by force and is unarmed, I assume firearm use would not be considered "reasonable", unless he tried to attack me or my family.

Gene G can weigh in on this for sure.

imported post

smithman wrote:

I am with Electric Insurance. Under the exclusion section, it includes text "does not apply to bodily injury resulting from the use of reasonable force by an 'insured' to protect persons or property".

Common Law self-defense would apply here I assume. At least it gives the exclusion for BOTH persons and property. If someone enters my house by force and is armed, I can use reasonable force with a firearm to stop him since my life or my families is in immediate danger. If someone enters my house by force and is unarmed, I assume firearm use would not be considered "reasonable", unless he tried to attack me or my family.

Gene G can weigh in on this for sure.

Click to expand...

Depends on the wording of Wisconsin law. Texas' Castle Doctrine is pretty broad; if someone enters your home unlawfully and with force while you are in it, you are justified in shooting them regardless of their personal armament or their threat to you. But, that's Texas and not Wisconsin.

imported post

If only wisconsin had a castle doctrine law. The castle doctrine bill (AB35) was passed in the assembly but is currently stalled in committee in the state Senate. I emailed Liberals hate these laws since it reduces the liability that their liberal cronies can sue for people who actually defend themselves. Liberals hate self-sufficiency.

I did write this email to Sullivan and Taylor. Remember that a few citizens CAN and DO make a difference at the state level.

Senator _____,
I respectfully urge you to support the castle doctrine bill. This was passed in the Assembly as Bill 35 but is now stalled in the committee you co-chair.

Without this type of legislation, it is easy for criminals and their families to shakedown people on liability who lawfully defend their persons and property. Not everybody is willing to use reasonable force to defend their houses and family and that is OK. However, how does it help society when good people are scared to lawfully defend themselves from armed bandits who don't care about committing misdemeanors when they commit felonies!

If someone's family is attacked, they should have two choices... defend their family or be a good witness against the criminal in court. They shouldn't have to defend their family and then defend their actions in court when the criminals family sues them for all they are worth.

Respectfully,
Brandon Smith
Waukesha, WI

imported post

*

imported post

It's not common law that applies.

Wisconsin already has a statute that clearly spells out under which circumstances you may intentionally use force to stop a threat against you, including lethal force.

Look in Chapter 939.48.