Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Castle Doctrine or not?

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    I wonder if the castle Doctrine will be brought to the legislative table this time around.

    It seems there is always an excuse.

    We need to show these legislators we mean business come election day.

    It is time for all of them to go.

    From now on vote with your conscience. Vote for the person who was never a politician. Maybe something will get done around here.

    [size=Wisconsin][size=: Castle Doctrine Bill Needs Your Help]
    Time is running out!

    There are just two days left in the Wisconsin legislative session and Assembly Bill 193 (Castle Doctrine legislation) is still awaiting action in the Senate. Citizens of the Badger State need to contact their State Senator TODAY and urge him or her to ask leadership to schedule AB193 for a vote.

    The Assembly passed its version of AB193 last week by a considerable margin. The Senate can take up the Assembly version and pass it on Thursday, April 22, which would send the bill directly to the governor for his consideration. Without a clear statute describing what your self-defense rights are, individuals are subject to the whims of law enforcement and judges who may or may not interpret a situation correctly.

    Please contact your State Senator right away and ask them make sure AB193 comes up for a vote this session!

  2. #2
    Regular Member hunter9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Greenfield, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    255

    Post imported post

    Done!

  3. #3
    Regular Member davegran's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,565

    Post imported post

    Done. We'll see if Judy Robson can see past her anti-2A beliefs.

    It sounds like a really good bill:

    "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 from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...Forcible+entry

    "forcible entry n.
    the crime of taking possession of a house or other structure, or land by the use of physical force or serious threats against the occupants. This can include breaking windows, doors, or using terror to gain entry, as well as forcing the occupants out by threat or violence after having come in peacefully."

    So, "forcible entry" doesn't depend on your remembering to lock your doors or windows or somebody entering without battering down a door.

    Good stuff!

    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.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Peoples' Republic of Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    283

    Post imported post

    Emailed Sen. Erpenbach,and copied all his staff.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    West Allis, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    12

    Post imported post

    sent an email to the senator i hope it helps

  6. #6
    Regular Member jamesisel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Milwaukee ,WI
    Posts
    76

    Post imported post

    castle doctrine should extend to one's vehicle.......

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709

    Post imported post

    A castle doctrine should extend to "WHEREVER one happens to be."

    A castle doctrine should leave you FREE from civil persecution if you are not criminally liable.



  8. #8
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post

    by the time it makes it through the legislature i'll bet our 'castle doctrine' will be little more than allowing you to put a moat around your house.

  9. #9
    Regular Member hunter9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Greenfield, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    255

    Post imported post

    As long as I can have "Gators" in the moat! :P

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Well to echo the words of many members here, "We have to start somewhere."

    That is the statement I get when I argue for a No Compromise/ non-permitted CCW/OCW Carry law for Wisconsin.

    All I hear is, "we have to start somewhere and that means we have to start with a permitted system and try and pass legislation for a non-permitted system after the legislators see there will be no blood spilled in the streets."

    What makes the Castle Doctrine legislation any different?

    We have to start somewhere.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029

    Post imported post

    I just received word from my state senator that the "Castle Doctrine" bill SB129 is dead for this legislative session and forever if not reintroduced Jan 2011. My senator was a co-sponsor of the bill and quite dissapointed. The assembly passed it's version AB193 on April 15 by a vote of 68 -29, better than a 2 to 1 margin. The Assembly apparently is sensitive to the wishes of it's constituents. On the other hand it appears the Senate leadership is more interested in politics and their own personal opinions than the interests of constituents. Time to clean house in November.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    Captain Nemo wrote:
    I just received word from my state senator that the "Castle Doctrine" bill SB129 is dead for this legislative session and forever if not reintroduced Jan 2011. My senator was a co-sponsor of the bill and quite dissapointed. The assembly passed it's version AB193 on April 15 by a vote of 68 -29, better than a 2 to 1 margin. The Assembly apparently is sensitive to the wishes of it's constituents. On the other hand it appears the Senate leadership is more interested in politics and their own personal opinions than the interests of constituents. Time to clean house in November.
    Well that sucks, these people obviously want to keep the criminalshaving more rights than their victims have!

    I would be very pleased if WI would use the exact wording of the FL castle doctrine, they bill they killed really didn't give us any more leeway, it just reiterated the rights we already have.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029

    Post imported post

    I suggest that every one of us write to our senate representatives but most certainly to Senator Russ Decker and the chair of the Judiciary, Correction, Insurance, Campaign Finance Reform, and Housing. committee Lena TaylorDon't let the fact that you aren't a constituent of senator Decker or Taylor. As senate leader and committee chair, respectivly, they are accountable to all people of Wisconsin. We must express our extreme dissapointment that the Senate leadership is more interested in partisan politics and personal convictions than the personal safety of the state's people. The 2 to 1 victory of the Assembly version AB193 reflects the overwhelming people support of the Castle Doctrine bill. Time is no excuse for the Senate.The bill was first introduced Mar 2009. Do it now while the issue is hot.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    758

    Post imported post

    jamesisel wrote:
    castle doctrine should extend to one's vehicle.......
    How would you be able to use a firearm in your vehicle? Unless you transport it illegally...
    "I don't really care for "cream cheese"..."

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran GLOCK21GB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    4,348

    Post imported post

    Hydrochloric acid in my moat , with Razor wire just above the acid line.
    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 ???

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    North Central Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    768

    Post imported post

    Either the words..

    "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose."

    ..mean something or they don't.

    And since..

    "The state constitutional right to bear arms is fundamental, but it is not absolute. This section does not affect the reasonable regulation of guns. The standard of review for challenges to statutes allegedly in violation of this section is whether the statute is a reasonable exercise of police power. State v. Cole, " 2003 WI 112, 264 Wis. 2d 520, 665 N.W.2d 328,

    Under both Hamdan and Cole there are 2 places in which a citizen's desire to exercise the right to keep and bear arms for purposes of security is at its apex: in the citizen's home or in his or her privately-owned business. It logically and necessarily follows that the individual's interest in the right to bear arms for purposes of security will not, as a general matter, be particularly strong outside those two locations. An individual generally has no heightened interest in his or her right to bear arms for security while in a vehicle. State v. Fisher, 2006 WI 44, 290 Wis. 2d 121, 714 N.W.2d 495,

    The most natural reading of "keep arms" in the 2nd amendment is to have weapons. The natural meaning of "bear arms" is to "wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person." Putting all textual elements together, the 2nd amendment guarantees the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. However, like most rights, the right secured by the 2nd amendment is not unlimited. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, 128 S. Ct. 2783, (2008)

    It seems to me that our laws are fraught with paradox and discrepancy. Our legislators need to know that it is their job clean this up or lose their position in the legislature. Maybe it is our task at hand tohelp the state redefinewhat is "reasonable".


    Sen. Decker is my state Senator and he will hear from me.



  17. #17
    Regular Member gunguy2009's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Janesville, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    200

    Post imported post

    Is anything is stone yet??

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029

    Post imported post

    jamesisal:

    Amendment 1 submitted by Senator Ellis May 2009 would have changed all instances of "actors residence" an "residence" to "or its premisis or vehicle". The disturbing part is that the bill SB129 was in the Senate for over a year and had 14 of the 33 senate members as sponsors. That in itself nearly a majority of the senate, and yet the senate leadership would not allow it to come to the floor for a vote. As usual the Wisconsin legislature represented the people of Wisconsin in spite of the people.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029

    Post imported post

    This is a copy of my email to Senator Decker and Senator Taylor. Feel free to use any portion or disregard it as you wish.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I write this letter not as one of your district constituents but as a citizen of Wisconsin. You are a political leader in the legislature that in and of itself does make me a constituent. I write the letter to express my extreme disappointment in the Senate failure to vote on bill SB129. The bill commonly known as the "Castle Doctrine" bill. A bill that was in the Senate for over a year. A bill that had 14 of the 33 senate membership as sponsors or co-sponsors, nearly a majority in itself.A bill that was approved by the Assembly (AB193) by more than a 2 to 1 margin. Yet the senate leadership apparently listened to its own personal prejucisesinstead of the will of the people and refused to allow the bill to come to the floor for a vote.

    In 1998 over 75% of the voters in Wisconsin ratified Article I section 25. A vote margin that is unprecedented. The amendment reads "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose". Yet the Senate majority apprears to show utter disregard for that constitutional right. A disregard that under current law puts a person(s) protecting their property against criminal intent at risk of being prosecuted for doing so. Prosecutedforexcersizing their constitutional right to defense and security.

    If thereare any locations in the State a person should be safe and secure it is in or on their own home, vehicle or premisis. Persons in your position are certainly aware that law enforcement is reactionary. As the saying goes "'When seconds count, law enforcement is only minutes away". Many times a person at risk of bodily harm or death must take charge of their own protection.

    In my opinion the failure of the Senate to act on SB129 is but an expression of the Senate's interestto legislate for the people in spite of the people.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    I would add:

    You will hear the peoples response to the legislators inaction at election time.

Posting Permissions

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