Some of You Are Not Gonna Like This...

protias said:

Doesn't TX's castle doctrine protect them everywhere they can legally be? Or are you just talking generalities?

Click to expand...

Generalities.

We Need What Florida Has For Their "Castle Doctrine"

protias said:

Doesn't TX's castle doctrine protect them everywhere they can legally be? Or are you just talking generalities?

Click to expand...

I think Florida's is the best since you can stand your ground "Any place you have the legal right to be" and cannot be held criminally liable or liable in civil court for protecting yourself. I lived in Florida when this passed and became law. It was and is great!

http://www.gunlaws.com/FloridaCastleDoctrine.htm

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=188

Brass Magnet said:

Castle doctorine usually applies inside your home. Stand your ground usually applies "any place you can legally be".

Click to expand...

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.

Spartacus said:

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.

Click to expand...

This is the same thing Rep Gunderson Told me via email. I was talking to Chad W. The new state assemblyman from Ashwaubenon we were talking Castle doctrine last night. He is 100% for it.

The original Wisconsin Castle Doctrine 0f 2007:

A Wisconsin "Castle Doctrine" bill, 2007 Assembly Bill 35, passed the Assembly on Friday, May 11, 2007; it died in the Senate and, therefore, did not become law. The bill would have created immunity for an act of self-defense for any person who uses deadly force while in his or her residence and is not engaged in illegal activity.

My guess is this is what we will get. I'm sure they are going to do nothing more than revisit this, pass it, and move on, to not include your vehicle.

If we do not express our outrage over this and make it clear we do not want more bureaucracy, Legislators, drunk with recent victory and new found power, may think they can do as they please. Voice your opinion. Toss apathy aside and stand firm. Make our case known. Doing nothing at all has the only sure result. We voted these turds in and can vote them out once again.

Besides, What are they thinking, more bureaucracy, more money spent in a state that has no money to begin with? Stop the madness.

Write, speak, do...

Hardballer out!

I will take the warning from Spat and Cuss with a truckload of salt.

I Think You Have It Backwards

wrightme said:

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.

Click to expand...

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."

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.

anmut said:

<-- is waiting on confirmation from WCI Nik/Hubert before being too outraged...

Click to expand...

Great idea!

No need to bring my blood presure up until it needs to be, and then my Rep Pridemore will get a ear full!

Of course good chance i'm on HIS ignore list!!

Maybe we should wait to get verification of this before going off half-cocked.
Consider the source of this alleged news, and his advocating a permit system.

Glock34 said:

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.

Click to expand...

I think you've got most of us wrong. I believe that most of us want to push for "constitutional carry" but have fallback positions. We'd just rather not START with compromise nor would we like our possible fall back position known. We can play politics too; difference is, we can vote them out.

apjonas said:

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."

Click to expand...

While this may seem logical to you, the operation of it is different. Specifically, we have the "in home" for Nevada, and it is NOT referred to as Castle Doctrine. Places where they DO have "stand your ground where you are" get referred to as Castle Doctrine. It seems counter-intuitive.

we will definitely be getting permitting and mandated training,

Click to expand...

Until a bill is introduced, voted on, and passed, NO ONE can say "definitely" anything.

It should come as a surprise to NO ONE that there are groups in Wisconsin that have a financial interest in mandated training.

It should be a surprise to NO ONE that those groups are talking with legislators.

It should not even come a surprise to anyone that there are legislators/republican party insiders AND special interest groups in Wisconsin that THINK they know what we will "definitely" be getting.

But I'll say again, until a bill is introduced, voted on, and passed, NOTHING is definite. NOTHING.

I believe Spartacus has passed along accurate information.

If you have not gotten on the phone and had a PLEASANT polite conversation with your state senator and assembly person, I suggest that is a better use of your time than posting on the internet.

If you have not encouraged AS MANY of your friends in your district and other districts who support less government and more freedom to call AS WELL, you should be doing so.

I will pass along information as I get it as to who supports what.

Having said that, I will not be surprised if people will lie about what they support and turn around and do something different.

I will not be surprised if people SAY they support non-permit right to carry, but turn around and work to a permit system.

REMEMBER WE ARE TALKING ABOUT MONEY HERE.

When there is money at stake MANY people will sacrifice their principles to line their pockets (and have an amazing ability to justify it to themselves)

Many people will say they believe in non-permit right to carry (while turning around and making a phone call advocating for permits and training to drive customers to their door) At the end of the day, the only person you can be sure you can trust is yourself. There are others that no doubt share your beliefs, but in the end, its impossible for you to know. You are the only one who can make sure your legislator hears YOUR voice and YOUR message. Actions speak louder than words. Do not trust what someone says they will do, (not even me) trust only what their actions prove they have done and trust yourself.

I am disappointed to see these otherwise conservative guys who would NEVER
come out for government mandates and who would never support more bureaucracy
nor allowing people to leverage government regulations to support their business
interests coming out for those things on this issue.

Its a shame for them to hide behind the 'safety' argument when they know as
well as I do that many states allow your hunters safety certificate that you got
in 7th grade to qualify as training and there are NO problems in those states
with law-abiding citizens using weapons inappropriately. They also know that in
Vermont Alaska, an Arizona you need no mandatory training and its not a problem.
In Pennsylvania you need no mandatory training and its not a problem.

This, like most things, is really all about the money.

I do think advanced training is valuable, but I think it should be the
obligation of trainers to work within the free market and market themselves and
promote their services and promote the value of advanced training in order to
drive business to their door, not run to the government for a law that drives
business to their door.

I'm preaching to the choir.

Spartacus's post should be a reminder warning to ANYONE who wants a repeal of 941.23 to call your state legislators. I'm confident its accurate, but I'm also confident despite what the insiders THINK, we outsiders still have a shot because until a bill is introduced, voted, passed, and signed by the GOV, NOTHING is for sure.

So contact your state legislators.

Don't 'argue' with them. Don't ask them what THEY want.

Instead politely ASK them to support a repeal of 941.23 and give your reasons why:

Ex: "Mr/Ms Representative, my name is Joe Freedom, I live in your district at 555 Freedom Street. I'm calling today to ask if you would support my constitutional right to carry without government registration, taxes, and government mandated training. I believe a simple repeal of 941.23 and 167.31 would restore my right to conceal carry.

In addition to my belief that my constitutional rights should not require me to register with the government, pay a permit tax, and pay for government mandated training, knowing the state of Wisconsin is in a fiscal crisis AND that "smaller government" is the overwhelming message the voters sent on Nov. 2nd, A repeal of 941.23 and 167.31 would cost the state nothing."

That is just an example, do not read from a script. You know what you believe in your heart is right and you know your reasons for wanting a repeal of 941.23. All you have to do is honestly explain why YOU want a repeal of 941.23 and ask them if they'll support that.

One phone call will NOT change their mind, so IF they don't support non-permit right to carry, do not attempt to debate with them, and think that YOU can sell them on the concept over the phone. You won't. But do let them know how you feel. If they agree, they will know they have your support and that along with hopefully a couple hundred other calls will embolden them.

OH, also, MANY legislators were recently elected. They do not yet have an office. They do not yet have a staff or answering machine or anything. These are STILL good people to contact, but you'll not be able to use the "locate your legislator" link to do it. Rather they may still have a campaign website, facebook page, etc up that you can contact them through.

Lastly, HOPEFULLY you may already have had a conversation with your legislator as a candidate this past election season and you can just build on the rapport with them when you contact them.

1001 words

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?

anmut said:

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?

Click to expand...

January would be the earliest "possible" since the legislature doesn't reconvene until like Jan. 3rd.

Having said that Walker has said he's calling a special session on jobs and the legislators will probably tell you that is their first priority.

I talked with someone from Gunderson's office today and they said "late spring" we might have legislation voted on.

Of course by the time its voted on its too late. The time is now to have conversations with legislators.

In addition to your own, I've been told Scott Fitzgerald Senate majority leader and Jeff Fitzgerald Assembly Majority leader will be very crucial IF we want to get 941.23 repealed.

Nice Play, NOT

Spartacus said:

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.

Click to expand...

Doug Huffman said:

And by the self-anointed 'heavy hitters'? No, couldn't be. LOLAY Tukhus Petard! Livin large in your head.

Click to expand...

What is the deal here guys/gals? Spartucus leaks "inside' information then Doug rubber stamps it, and most join in as if to already concede! This is straight out of a legal battle play book, first make your opponent believe they will lose in court then settle in the hallway before you go in front of the judge, enter and have the judge sign the agreement. I am not going to roll over on my convictions of what my rights are even if I have to continue open carrying rather than go to a mandated training and pay a fee to get a cc permit. Stand hard and strong, yes get the names so we can be a part of the process, and there is another election coming right up, the clock is already ticking.

"I'm looking for an honest man" - Diogenes the Cynic

Now I don't know what Spar****s said because he is on my ignore list; but it's obvious from your responses that he has gotten bored with the lack of attention lately and has found another way to wind you guys up.

Before you expend too much energy on getting excited about his latest outrageous claim, please find out for yourselves whether there is one iota of truth to whatever he is saying. Nik's comment about money being a powerful motivator works both ways; a legislator is not going to get himself fired just to get a few crumbs tossed his way for a non-popular vote... and we WILL fire them like we did the Dems. :lol:

Get involved!

I totally agree that one of the most important things to do to move the change along is to get active in the process.

Find out who your legislators are, contact them via phone, letter, email, in person, carrier pigeon, smoke signals, what ever works best for you, maybe a combination of all of the above!

Seriously though, here in Arizona the battle has been a long one, in a series of small steps to get to where we are today.
We've fixed a lot of things where firearms are concerned, but there are still changes to be made to get it to where we'd like it to be.

Contact your representative(s) and let them know that there are more people concerned about this issue than just the ones who have an interest in concealed carry training.
Keep it courteous, keep it to the point and keep at it!

It has taken years to get the laws changed here. Hopefully, it will take less time for you!
With more people and states seeing that the blood doesn't run in the streets, there aren't shootouts over shady parking spots, no drunken shootouts in bars or restaurants, the less resistance there is to changing things.

Pick your battles carefully. Aim for the moon, but have a fall back position. Move to that position and aim for the moon again, slowly moving towards the goal.

Good luck to you all, keep up the good fight!

-MH