• 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.

Something that should go hand in hand with any CCW attempt or repeal ....

JerryD

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2010
Messages
120
Location
central Wisconsin
I believe we need a strong Castle Doctrine law to go along with whatever repeal or CCW bill that comes down the pike.
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
What state has a well written castle doctrine that we could possibly use as a model for ours.
TX, I know FL has a "stand your ground" law, but I'm not familiar with it. I think AZ has a pretty decent one. From my [limited] knowledge, TX is still the best.
 

Jason in WI

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Messages
542
Location
Under your bed
As long as were at it, I'd like to toss this from Texas into the mix for giggles. Re-write it a little to remove the nighttime thing and simplify it. Not that I would shoot anybody for stealing my stuff, but I would like the option :p. Nothing is worst then a thief.

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
 

Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
1,197
Location
, ,
Call your legislator. Request them to bring legislation to repeal 941.23 and include the castle Doctrine in that legislation.

Lets keep the repeal of 941.23 as CLEAN as possible.

The problem with the legislative process in this country is there are too many complex bills introduced that don't allow a true up or down vote on an issue of principle, but instead complicate the issue and give people who support part of the bill reason to vote against it because they don't support ALL of the bill.

We need a CLEAN SIMPLE repeal of 941.23. Castle Doctrine is a complex issue that is VERY important, but lets not make the mistake of trying to marry it to a repeal of 941.23 and COMPLICATE the debate on the floor of the statehouse when a repeal of 941.23 comes up.
 

Peacekeeper

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2010
Messages
171
Location
Fond du Lac Wisconsin
Lets keep the repeal of 941.23 as CLEAN as possible.

The problem with the legislative process in this country is there are too many complex bills introduced that don't allow a true up or down vote on an issue of principle, but instead complicate the issue and give people who support part of the bill reason to vote against it because they don't support ALL of the bill.

We need a CLEAN SIMPLE repeal of 941.23. Castle Doctrine is a complex issue that is VERY important, but lets not make the mistake of trying to marry it to a repeal of 941.23 and COMPLICATE the debate on the floor of the statehouse when a repeal of 941.23 comes up.

Very much agree!
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
Lets keep the repeal of 941.23 as CLEAN as possible.

The problem with the legislative process in this country is there are too many complex bills introduced that don't allow a true up or down vote on an issue of principle, but instead complicate the issue and give people who support part of the bill reason to vote against it because they don't support ALL of the bill.

We need a CLEAN SIMPLE repeal of 941.23. Castle Doctrine is a complex issue that is VERY important, but lets not make the mistake of trying to marry it to a repeal of 941.23 and COMPLICATE the debate on the floor of the statehouse when a repeal of 941.23 comes up.

+1

Of course, I did muddy up my actual letter with the rest of the laws that need repealing.
 

J.Gleason

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
3,481
Location
Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
Legislators sneek stuff in on bills all the time. It happened with the repeal of the law prohibiting firearms in national parks. What is there to lose? Nothing.

If it doesn't work out then we have a legislator draft legislation to repeal 941.23.

We are never going to know if we don't try. WCI needs to kick into lobby mode before the NRA beats us too it with a new bill that comes complete with permits, fees and mandated training.
 

WIG19

Regular Member
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
248
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
Repeal 941.23
Resurrect THIS from the Senate committee it's dead in, having already been passed by the Assembly, and go for it.
Add DL sticker for those out of state who need something warm/fuzzy to make them feel safe from WI travellers.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
Federal Election Commission 2008 Campaign Guide for Nonconnected Committees

We are never going to know if we don't try. WCI needs to kick into lobby mode before the NRA beats us too it with a new bill that comes complete with permits, fees and mandated training.
Here is the Federal Election Commission 2008 Campaign Guide for Nonconnected Committees, all 134 pages of it, digested law. http://www.fec.gov/pdf/nongui.pdf Including
FEC said:
The reader is encour-aged also to consult the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (2 U.S.C. §431 et seq.), Commission regulations (Title 11 of the Code of Federal Regulations), Commission advisory opinions and applicable court decisions.
That's some of the federal law on lobbying, PACs and campaign financing. The Wisconsin Government Accountability Board - GAB (heh heh heh) - has GAB-510, 511, 513.
 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
Is it not the case

that the "Castle Doctrine" is not the same as the "Stand Your Ground Doctrine"? Or put another way, the CD is a special case of the SYGD. I only mention this because it seems that some are using the concepts interchangeably and that could cause confusion.
 
Top