AB-221. Microstamping http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/AB-221.pdf
This bill prohibits a gun manufacturer or a firearms dealer from transferring a semiautomatic handgun that does not produce an identifying code (microstamp) on each cartridge case it expends if both of the following apply: 1) the handgun was manufactured on or after January 1, 2011; and 2) the handgun has not previously been transferred to a person that is not a manufacturer or dealer (new handgun). This bill also prohibits a manufacturer in this state from manufacturing, on or after January 1, 2011, a semiautomatic handgun that does not produce a microstamp. A person that violates one of these prohibitions is subject to a fine of up to $1,000 or imprisonment for up to nine months, or both.
The bill also requires manufacturers and dealers who transfer a handgun that is required to produce microstamps to certify that the handgun, if it is a new handgun, produces microstamps and that the manufacturer of the handgun will disclose to a law enforcement agency that has collected a microstamp from an expended cartridge during a criminal investigation the make, model, and serial
number of the handgun that expended the cartridge.
This bill prohibits a person from modifying a semiautomatic handgun that produces microstamps if the person intends to prevent law enforcement from being able to access the microstamp on an expended cartridge. A person who violates this prohibition is guilty of a misdemeanor and is subject to a fine of up to $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than 90 days, or both. A person who transfers a semiautomatic handgun that he or she knows has been modified in violation of this prohibition is subject to a fine of up to $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than nine months, or both.
AB-193. Castle Doctrine http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/AB-193.pdf
In general, a person who uses force in self−defense or in the defense of another person may not be convicted of a crime stemming from that use of force. This law applies only when: 1) the amount of force used is reasonable; and 2) the person uses that force to prevent or stop what he or she reasonably believes is an unlawful interference with himself or herself or another person, such as the crime of battery. Current law specifies that a person may use force that is intended or likely to cause the death of or great bodily harm to another individual only if the person reasonably believes that using such force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another person.
Under this bill, if a person used defensive force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court must presume that the person reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm if: 1) the individual against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering, or had already unlawfully and forcefully entered, the residence of the person who used the force; 2) the person was present in that residence; and 3) the person knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred. This presumption, however, does not apply if: 1) the person who used the force was engaged in an unlawful activity or was using his or her residence to further an unlawful activity; or 2) the individual against whom the force was used had identified himself or herself as a peace officer (or was or should have been known to be a peace officer) and was entering the residence in the performance of his or her official duties.
Contact your legislators. http://www.legis.state.wi.us/w3asp/waml/waml.aspx
Note: originally posted by Glenn_r on ar15.com