Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 47

Thread: Castle Doctrine Self-Defense Bill to be Considered on Thursday!

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran GLOCK21GB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    4,348

    Post imported post

    Castle Doctrine Self-Defense Bill to be Considered on Thursday!
    Please Contact the Members of the Senate Judiciary Today!
    On Thursday, March 25 at 10:00 a.m., the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a public hearing on Senate Bill 129, the “Castle Doctrine” bill. This bill would help restore the basic right of self-defense that all Americans are entitled to.

    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. While the Wisconsin State Constitution already recognizes self-defense as a guaranteed right, this bill would further clarify it.

    Please contact the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee TODAY and respectfully urge them to support SB129. Contact information for the committee can be found below.

    State Senator Lena Taylor (D-4) Chair
    (608) 266-5810
    Sen.Taylor@legis.wisconsin.gov

    State Senator Jim Sullivan (D-5) Vice-Chair
    (608) 266-2512
    Sen.Sullivan@legis.wisconsin.gov

    State Senator Jon Erpenbach (D-27)
    (608) 266-6670
    Sen.Erpenbach@legis.wisconsin.gov

    State Senator Glenn Grothman (R-20)
    (608) 266-7513
    Sen.Grothman@legis.wisconsin.gov

    State Senator Randy Hopper (R-18)
    (608) 266-5300
    Sen.Hopper@legis.wisconsin.gov
    http://youtu.be/xWgVGu3OR4U AACFI, Wisconsin / Minnesota Carry Certified. Action Pistol & Advanced Action pistol concepts + Urban Carbine course. When the entitlement Zombies begin looting, pillaging, raping, burning & killing..remember HEAD SHOTS it's the only way to kill a Zombie. Stockpile food & water now.

    Please support your local,county, state & Federal Law enforcement agencies, right ???

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    2009 SENATE BILL 129

    March 24, 2009 − Introduced by Senators HOLPERIN, VINEHOUT, DECKER, PLALE,
    SCHULTZ, LAZICH, LEIBHAM, GROTHMAN, A. LASEE, KANAVAS, DARLING, KAPANKE,
    HARSDORF and HOPPER, cosponsored by Representatives HRAYCHUCK, DANOU,
    VRUWINK, MURSAU, FRISKE, VAN ROY, BALLWEG, SUDER, STRACHOTA, PETROWSKI,
    VUKMIR, ZIPPERER, DAVIS, BIES, KLEEFISCH, GUNDERSON, VOS, SPANBAUER,
    KERKMAN, NERISON, LEMAHIEU, KESTELL, HONADEL, RHOADES, ZIGMUNT, RIPP,
    JORGENSEN, TAUCHEN, ROTH, KAUFERT and HUEBSCH.

    Referred to Committee on Judiciary, Corrections, Insurance, Campaign Finance Reform, and Housing.

    AN ACT to create 939.48 (1m) of the statutes; relating to: the privilege of
    self−defense.

    Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau

    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.

    The people of the state of Wisconsin, represented in senate and assembly, do
    enact as follows:

    SECTION 1. 939.48 (1m) of the statutes is created to read:
    939.48 (1m) (a) If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely
    to cause death or great bodily harm, the court shall presume that the actor
    reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great
    bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim under sub. (1) and
    any of the following applies:
    1. The person against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully
    and forcibly entering the actor’s residence, the actor was present in the residence,
    and the actor knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was
    occurring.
    2. The person against whom the force was used was in the actor’s residence
    after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the residence, and
    the actor knew or had reason to believe that the person had unlawfully and forcibly
    entered the residence.
    (b) The presumption described in par. (a) does not apply if any of the following
    applies:
    1. The actor was engaged in an unlawful activity or was using his or her
    residence to further an unlawful activity at the time.

    2. The person against whom the force was used was a peace officer who entered
    or attempted to enter the actor’s residence in the performance of his or her official
    duties. This subdivision applies only if at least one of the following applies:
    a. The officer identified himself or herself to the actor before the force described
    in par. (a) was used by the actor.
    b. The actor knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering
    or attempting to enter his or her residence was a peace officer.
    (END)

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709

    Post imported post

    This bill doesn't go far enough.

    1. ONLY IN THE HOME. Outside your home, this has no effect.

    2. NO IMMUNITY FROM CIVIL PROSECUTION, if you aren't criminally liable. The bad guy or his estate can still sue you into oblivion.

    We need to demand they amend the bill to include these two provisions.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    "The actor was engaged in an unlawful activity or was using his or her
    residence to further an unlawful activity at the time."

    This is carte blanche for a search of the actor's premises for evidence of unspecified unlawful activity, like improperly stored firearms, evidence of illegal drug use, et cetera.

  5. #5
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    "The actor was engaged in an unlawful activity or was using his or her
    residence to further an unlawful activity at the time."

    This is carte blanche for a search of the actor's premises for evidence of unspecified unlawful activity, like improperly stored firearms, evidence of illegal drug use, et cetera.
    What do you mean Doug? Having guns scattered or strewn about one's house is not unlawful. How you store a gun is a violation of law only if a child gets unauthorized access AND either injures or kills someone with it or takes it to a public place. And even then its unlawful only if you haven't stored it in one of a number of ways.

    Unless a kid has a gun in public, or somebody has been shot by a kid there's no evidence of an "improperly stored" firearm that could exist.
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709

    Post imported post

    Although Doug's example of improperly stored firearm maybe a questionable example, he still makes a valid point. Does this give them a way to usurp the 4th amendment?


  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran Flipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    bnhcomputing wrote:
    This bill doesn't go far enough.

    1. ONLY IN THE HOME. Outside your home, this has no effect.

    2. NO IMMUNITY FROM CIVIL PROSECUTION, if you aren't criminally liable. The bad guy or his estate can still sue you into oblivion.

    We need to demand they amend the bill to include these two provisions.
    It is important for our right (not privilege) to self defense that this be done.

    Contact the State Senate committee members, Senator Decker, and your own state senator and assembly representative about the importance of being able to protect your family without the fear of financial ruin.

    If your senator or assembly person is not a sponsor of this bill or it's assembly version, inform them that their lack of support along with a vote against this legislation will be an indicationthat they are againstyour ability to protect your family against deadly danger. Let them know that you will supportthem or their opponent accordingly in the their next election with money and time.

    Your state senator and assembly representative can be identified here:

    http://www.capwiz.com/nra/dbq/officials/

    The list of state senate and assembly representives sponsoring this legislation is here:

    http://www.legis.state.wi.us/w3asp/c...SB&num=129
    When in danger you can dial 911 and hope for the police to arrive a few minutes later armed with guns.
    Why do police carry guns?

    The Joyce Foundation funded firearm control empire:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...lFundingR1.png

    "Everything that we see is a shadow cast by that which we do not see." - Martin Luther King Jr.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=5617
    Castle Doctrine Self-Defense Bill to be Considered on Thursday!
    Please Contact the Members of the Senate Judiciary Today!
    On Thursday, March 25 at 10:00 a.m., the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a public hearing on Senate Bill 129, the “Castle Doctrine” bill. This bill would help restore the basic right of self-defense that all Americans are entitled to.

    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. While the Wisconsin State Constitution already recognizes self-defense as a guaranteed right, this bill would further clarify it.

    Please contact the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee TODAY and respectfully urge them to support SB129. Contact information for the committee can be found below.

    State Senator Lena Taylor (D-4) Chair
    (608) 266-5810
    Sen.Taylor@legis.wisconsin.gov

    State Senator Jim Sullivan (D-5) Vice-Chair
    (608) 266-2512
    Sen.Sullivan@legis.wisconsin.gov

    State Senator Jon Erpenbach (D-27)
    (608) 266-6670
    Sen.Erpenbach@legis.wisconsin.gov

    State Senator Glenn Grothman (R-20)
    (608) 266-7513
    Sen.Grothman@legis.wisconsin.gov

    State Senator Randy Hopper (R-18)
    (608) 266-5300
    Sen.Hopper@legis.wisconsin.gov

  9. #9
    Regular Member hardballer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    West Coast of Wisconsin
    Posts
    925

    Post imported post

    Glock34 wrote:
    Castle Doctrine Self-Defense Bill to be Considered on Thursday!
    Done five times.
    Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid. Han Solo

    http://buffaloholstercompany.blogspot.com/ Concealment holsters IWB, SOB, and belt slide. Open Carry too. New from Buffalo Holster, Women's holsters for concealment and or belt carry.

  10. #10
    Regular Member davegran's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,565

    Post imported post

    bnhcomputing wrote:
    This bill doesn't go far enough.

    1. ONLY IN THE HOME. Outside your home, this has no effect.

    We need to demand they amend the bill to include these two provisions.
    An amendment by Senator Ellis adds the language, after “the residence” insert “or its premises or vehicle”.

    So you are also protected on your premises (from law.com dictionary, "PREMISES: n. 1) in real estate, land and the improvements on it, a building...) or vehicle.

    I take this to mean that if a bad guy threatens great bodily harm or death to you while you are on your land, in any building on your land, or in your car, it is reasonable for you to use deadly force.

    But I agree, the bill doesn't go far enough.

    Dave
    Dave
    45ACP-For when you care enough to send the very best-
    Fight for "Stand Your Ground " legislation!

    WI DA Gerald R. Fox:
    "These so-called 'public safety' laws only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage when it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that this decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over..."

    Remember: Don't make old People mad. We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    dt

    dt

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Should be "curtilage". Effin' cheese heads.

  13. #13
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047

    Post imported post

    Contacted my Rep Naas and Senator Kedzie.

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    Glock 34:

    Is it SB129 or SB611 that will have a hearing with he Judiciary committee? My legislative alert says SB611 is scheduled at 10AM March 25. SB611 deals with adding additional information people have to supply dealers when purchasing a firearm. The information relates to mental condition. Both bills are important to our cause but are on two entirely different subjects.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    I got to say I am against this bill as it is currently written and I will voice it as such.

    They are only half-way there, this bill needs to cover more area. If they were to copy what the state Of Florida has, and use that for a template, I would be much more pleased.
    This bill only reiterates what is current WI law, and does absolutely nothing to give a potential victim of violent crime a wayto defend themselves without fear of prosecution from their actions.

    A paragraph needs to be added than any entry into a home without invite is a reason to use deadly force and that the person who defended themselves and their family is immune from any and all prosecution from the state, and immune from civil action.
    If that is not in the bill, it is useless.
    As someone else mentioned, this needs to extend to your vehicle and while out in public too.

    This bill is just feelgood fluff that accomplishes nothing but give the legislators warm fuzzy feelings and something to do while they justify why they shouldcollect their paycheck.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Email sent.

  17. #17
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post

    i noted in the discussion in this thread that one mentioned applies to only in the home. anything on place of business?

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Peoples' Republic of Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    283

    Post imported post

    Lammie wrote:
    Glock 34:

    Is it SB129 or SB611 that will have a hearing with he Judiciary committee? My legislative alert says SB611 is scheduled at 10AM March 25. SB611 deals with adding additional information people have to supply dealers when purchasing a firearm. The information relates to mental condition. Both bills are important to our cause but are on two entirely different subjects.
    http://committeeschedule.legis.state...JUD-13630.html

    Both SB129 and SB611 are on the agenda for the March 25th Public Hearing



  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Peoples' Republic of Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    283

    Post imported post

    I sent five emails urging them to add immunity from civil prosecution, and to broaden the scope beyond just one's property and vehicle.

  20. #20
    Regular Member KansasKraut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Verona, WI
    Posts
    116

    Post imported post

    It's most certainly a strange state of affairs when, for fear of civil litigation, one would be better off killing an intruder than wounding him.

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709

    Post imported post

    KansasKraut wrote:
    It's most certainly a strange state of affairs when, for fear of civil litigation, one would be better off killing an intruder than wounding him.
    Doesn't matter either way. If we use lethal force in self-defense in WI, we are subject to civil suit. If the perp lives, he sues. If not, his estate sues.



  22. #22
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047

    Post imported post

    Response from Senator Kedzie:

    March 24, 2010



    Dear Paul,



    Thank you for taking time to contact me to express your support of Senate Bill 129, relating to the privilege of self-defense under certain circumstances. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue currently before the Wisconsin State Legislature.



    SB 129 has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, and it is my understanding the Committee will hold a public hearing on the bill on March 25, 2010. Its companion bill in the Assembly, AB 193, was recently passed by the Assembly Personal Privacy Committee and referred to the Rules Committee for potential action by that House. At this time, it is unclear whether the Senate Committee Chair or the full Assembly will schedule a vote on either bill before the legislative session ends next month.



    While I have yet to take a formal position, I would like to note that as gun owner myself and legislator with a strong voting record for protecting the 2nd Amendment rights of Wisconsin citizens, I value your input on this matter. I co-authored the “right to keep and bear arms” amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution, supported legislation to allow Wisconsin citizens to carry a concealed firearm, and have been a harsh critic of legislation to make current state firearms laws more restrictive. I will certainly keep your support in mind and on file should either bill advance to the full Senate for a vote.



    Again, thank you for contacting me and please do so with any other questions or concerns of your state government, or visit me on-line at www.senatorkedzie.com



    Sincerely,



    Neal Kedzie

    State Senator

    11th Senate District

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran GLOCK21GB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    4,348

    Post imported post

    bnhcomputing wrote:
    KansasKraut wrote:
    It's most certainly a strange state of affairs when, for fear of civil litigation, one would be better off killing an intruder than wounding him.
    Doesn't matter either way. If we use lethal force in self-defense in WI, we are subject to civil suit. If the perp lives, he sues. If not, his estate sues.

    with a good lawyer, you should be able to beat it...
    http://youtu.be/xWgVGu3OR4U AACFI, Wisconsin / Minnesota Carry Certified. Action Pistol & Advanced Action pistol concepts + Urban Carbine course. When the entitlement Zombies begin looting, pillaging, raping, burning & killing..remember HEAD SHOTS it's the only way to kill a Zombie. Stockpile food & water now.

    Please support your local,county, state & Federal Law enforcement agencies, right ???

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    Glock, You really need to think this through a little better before making a comment like that!

    if I shoot a criminal in my home when he is trying to injure me or my family and the shoot is found good. Why should I be forced to spend countless tens of thousands of dollars to defend my actions!

    That is why immunity is so important in this bill!

    We should we need to pay an attorney to stave off a lawsuit if we are innocent!

    A civil lawsuit would bankrupt almost any of us from the attorney fees alone!

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran GLOCK21GB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    4,348

    Post imported post

    Nutczak wrote:
    Glock, You really need to think this through a little better before making a comment like that!

    if I shoot a criminal in my home when he is trying to injure me or my family and the shoot is found good. Why should I be forced to spend countless tens of thousands of dollars to defend my actions!

    That is why immunity is so important in this bill!

    We should we need to pay an attorney to stave off a lawsuit if we are innocent!

    A civil lawsuit would bankrupt almost any of us from the attorney fees alone!
    Nutczak, you really need to think this through a little better before making a comment like that.....OK ?? The Castle Doctrine Bill that they are trying to pass, GIVES NO IMMUNITY TO THE HOME OWNER regarding civil lawsuits. SO, IF I SHOOT SOMEONE THAT BREAKS INTO MY HOME , The Family of the scum bag is going to sue the crAP out of me, take everything I have, plus will garnish my wages for the rest of my life, THAT IS WHY YOU GET A LAWYER...ONLY A COMPLETE MORON WOULD NOT SEEK LEGAL COUNCIL. WhatS the diF, get sued & be really broke or get a lawyer & be not as broke ????
    http://youtu.be/xWgVGu3OR4U AACFI, Wisconsin / Minnesota Carry Certified. Action Pistol & Advanced Action pistol concepts + Urban Carbine course. When the entitlement Zombies begin looting, pillaging, raping, burning & killing..remember HEAD SHOTS it's the only way to kill a Zombie. Stockpile food & water now.

    Please support your local,county, state & Federal Law enforcement agencies, right ???

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •