Brass Magnet
Founder's Club Member
Doesn't TX's castle doctrine protect them everywhere they can legally be? Or are you just talking generalities?
Generalities.
Doesn't TX's castle doctrine protect them everywhere they can legally be? Or are you just talking generalities?
Doesn't TX's castle doctrine protect them everywhere they can legally be? Or are you just talking generalities?
Castle doctorine usually applies inside your home. Stand your ground usually applies "any place you can legally be".
I hate to be the bringer of bad news but if anyone here is capable of it then I guess its me.
I got an email this morning which confirms what I heard a few days ago from an insider in the republican party who is telling me that we will definitely be getting permitting and mandated training, the details are being hammered out now through phone calls and meetings.
The good news is that we get reciprocal carry between permitted states and some form of castle doctrine which we will know more about later. Personally I would persue the legislators on castle doctrine more than anything else at this time to not only include your home and vehicle but also your physical body wherever you happen to be. It should also have a provision to exclude further civil liability and lawsuits from the family and victim after the shooting. Another provision which would be sweet but is probably only a pipe dream is to make the DA responsible for paying your attorney fees in the absence of a conviction. This would stop DA's from throwing the book at defendants hoping something will stick and keep them more honest when they proffer charges.
I don't say this in any way of discouraging you fine folk who are working toward the repeal of 941.23 but I'm only repeating what I've heard and now believe. As you know I never felt that permitting was any infringement on our constitutional rights to keep and bear arms anyway so its no big deal for me.
I'm heading out to cut wood this morning so bash away or whine and cry but the handwriting is on the wall. I'll be back later to pick up the pieces but I am going to put a couple of guys on ignore in the boards interests and also I feel bad for John having to come over here and sort things out all the time.
Nevada has "in home," which is not considered Castle Doctrine. Full Castle Doctrine law should cover "any place you can legally be." "Stand your Ground" is a component of a solid Castle Doctrine law.
<-- is waiting on confirmation from WCI Nik/Hubert before being too outraged...
I would highly suggest that we not Pee in our elected representatives cereal too much as we might NEVER see CCW. or Constitutional carry in our lifetime. Don't hold your breath for the WI supreme court to give you Constitutional carry anytime soon,.
You guys that think it's Constitutional carry or NOTHING are A. smoking some really bad crap & B. acting like your 5 years old throwing a fit.
I agree that we should not need a permit to exercise our rights, but Baby steps here.....look at Arizona they had to wait for it.
Castle Doctrine - the name says it all. It applies in your "castle" - your home.
SYG - a broader doctrine, also applies in public places and private places other than your home. Castle Doctrine is a specific application of SYG.
Both have to do with the duty to retreat (or not). Logically the SYG includes the home. Neither encompasses a right to "shoot on sight."
we will definitely be getting permitting and mandated training,
Thanks for the update Nik - we are looking at Jan before either a repeal or additional laws concerning CC would come before a vote, correct?
I hate to be the bringer of bad news but if anyone here is capable of it then I guess its me.
I got an email this morning which confirms what I heard a few days ago from an insider in the republican party who is telling me that we will definitely be getting permitting and mandated training, the details are being hammered out now through phone calls and meetings.
The good news is that we get reciprocal carry between permitted states and some form of castle doctrine which we will know more about later. Personally I would persue the legislators on castle doctrine more than anything else at this time to not only include your home and vehicle but also your physical body wherever you happen to be. It should also have a provision to exclude further civil liability and lawsuits from the family and victim after the shooting. Another provision which would be sweet but is probably only a pipe dream is to make the DA responsible for paying your attorney fees in the absence of a conviction. This would stop DA's from throwing the book at defendants hoping something will stick and keep them more honest when they proffer charges.
I don't say this in any way of discouraging you fine folk who are working toward the repeal of 941.23 but I'm only repeating what I've heard and now believe. As you know I never felt that permitting was any infringement on our constitutional rights to keep and bear arms anyway so its no big deal for me.
I'm heading out to cut wood this morning so bash away or whine and cry but the handwriting is on the wall. I'll be back later to pick up the pieces but I am going to put a couple of guys on ignore in the boards interests and also I feel bad for John having to come over here and sort things out all the time.
And by the self-anointed 'heavy hitters'? No, couldn't be. LOLAY Tukhus Petard! Livin large in your head.