• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

GLOCK21GB

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
4,347
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

[align=center]Castle Doctrine Self-Defense Bill to be Considered on Thursday![/align] [align=center]Please Contact the Members of the Senate Judiciary Today![/align] [align=center] [/align] 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
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
2,381
Location
across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsi
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)
 

bnhcomputing

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
1,709
Location
Wisconsin, USA
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.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
2,381
Location
across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsi
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.
 

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
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.
 

bnhcomputing

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
1,709
Location
Wisconsin, USA
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?
 

Flipper

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
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/commpages/BillHistory.aspx?type=SB&num=129
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
2,381
Location
across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsi
imported post

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=5617
[align=center]Castle Doctrine Self-Defense Bill to be Considered on Thursday![/align] [align=center]Please Contact the Members of the Senate Judiciary Today![/align] [align=center] [/align] 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
 

davegran

Regular Member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
1,563
Location
Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wiscon
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
 

Lammie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
907
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
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.
 

Nutczak

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Messages
2,165
Location
The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
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.
 
M

McX

Guest
imported post

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

Brendon .45

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2009
Messages
282
Location
Peoples' Republic of Madison, Wisconsin, USA
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.wi.us/files/HearingNotices//10-03-25-1005-2009SJUD-13630.html

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

KansasKraut

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
116
Location
Verona, WI
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.
 
Top