Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 81

Thread: "castle doctrine" self defense bill introduced in WI Assembly

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Vilas County, WI, ,
    Posts
    318

    "castle doctrine" self defense bill introduced in WI Assembly

    http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/AB-69.pdf

    <snip>

    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 to himself
    or herself or to another person 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 reasonably believed that an
    unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred.


    <snip>

  2. #2
    Regular Member jpm84092's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,068
    Definitely a step in the right direction!
    My cats support the Second Amendment. NRA Life Member, NRA Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, & Personal Protection - NRA Certified Range Safety Officer, Utah BCI Certified Concealed Firearm Permit Instructor.
    "Permission Slips" from Utah, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Arizona, and Florida. _ Verily, thou shalt not fiddle with thine firearm whilst in the bathroom stall, lest thine spouse seek condolences from thine friends.

  3. #3
    Regular Member civilwarguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    elkhorn wi
    Posts
    197
    Now all we need is to get it passed and get constitutional carry passed as well.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran GLOCK21GB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    4,348
    I might be wrong, but when I read this..it seems only good if a scum bag is entering your home. not if your out and about.
    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 ???

  5. #5
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Unless I'm missing something, this only applies inside your house. I thought someone said the castle doctrine bill that was going to be introduced was the 'best in the land'.

  6. #6
    Regular Member 1FASTC4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Tomahawk
    Posts
    510
    Actually, as it's written is very broad and thus quite good. They just need to extend this to your vehicle as well. Of course, a good "stand your ground" law must follow.

  7. #7
    Regular Member oak1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    So far, so good.
    In God I trust. Everyone else needs to keep your hands where I can see them.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Motofixxer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over the Rainbow
    Posts
    971
    Yes I agree it's a step in the right direction, but it's too restrictive to a "residence"
    Click Here for New to WI Open Carry Legal References and Informational Videos--- FAQ's http://Tinyurl.com/OpenCarry-WI

    The Armed Badger A WI site dedicated to Concealed Carry in WI

    "To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason, Speech of June 14, 1788

    http://Tinyurl.com/New-To-Guns to DL useful Info

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,318
    Quote Originally Posted by 1FASTC4 View Post
    Actually, as it's written is very broad and thus quite good. They just need to extend this to your vehicle as well. Of course, a good "stand your ground" law must follow.
    Agreed
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  10. #10
    Regular Member anmut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Stevens Point WI, ,
    Posts
    879
    Quote Originally Posted by safcrkr View Post
    http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/AB-69.pdf

    <snip>

    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 to himself
    or herself or to another person 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 reasonably believed that an
    unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred.


    <snip>
    Very good step in the right direction. Lets get some names of people in charge of this issue as it goes through the process and let the letter, email and phone calls begin!

  11. #11
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by anmut View Post
    Very good step in the right direction. Lets get some names of people in charge of this issue as it goes through the process and let the letter, email and phone calls begin!
    Well, the authors are at the top of the bill. Luckily, Representative Nass, my rep is on the list. We can ask our Senators to be setup as a co-sponsor, I believe.

  12. #12
    Regular Member civilwarguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    elkhorn wi
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    Well, the authors are at the top of the bill. Luckily, Representative Nass, my rep is on the list. We can ask our Senators to be setup as a co-sponsor, I believe.
    I know who i am calling on Tues. and if needed Wed. and Thurs.

  13. #13
    Regular Member CalicoJack10's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Arbor Vitae
    Posts
    559
    It is nice to know that Wisconsin is finally finding fault in the idea that if someone comes into our homes we are still supposed to run away.
    I am Calico Jack,,,, And I approve this message!
    (Paid for by the blood of patriots, and Calico Jack Defense)
    Calico Jack Defense

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Under your bed
    Posts
    542
    Lame. It's almost worded like they were going to have to convince a Democratic majority to vote on it. I mean it's a great step from what we have now but I expected we deserve more.

  15. #15
    Regular Member johnny amish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    High altitude of Vernon County, ,
    Posts
    1,025
    Looks like a very small step in the right direction.
    Why is the act of self defense a privilage?
    I will be contacting my rep. early next week to talk with him about this. I would think because he was one who has recently recieved death threats he might be eager to address this.
    "To sin by silence, when we should protest makes cowards out of men."
    Ella Wheeler Cox


    We must contact our lawmakers today, tomorrow and the next day to remind them of Constitutional Carry.
    Laws are not written because of the actions of many, they are wrtiten because of the inactions of many.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran Flipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by johnny amish View Post
    Looks like a very small step in the right direction.
    Why is the act of self defense a privilage?
    I will be contacting my rep. early next week to talk with him about this. I would think because he was one who has recently recieved death threats he might be eager to address this.
    Here is an article discussing "rights". Quote:

    "Civil rights are those which have no relation to the establishment, support, or management of the government. These consist in the power of acquiring and enjoying property, of exercising the paternal and marital powers, and the like. It will be observed that every one, unless deprived of them by a sentence of civil death, is in the enjoyment of his civil rights, which is not the case with political rights; for an alien, for example, has no political, although in the full enjoyment of his civil rights.

    These latter rights are divided into absolute and relative. The absolute rights of mankind may be reduced to three principal or primary articles: the right of personal security, which consists in a person's legal and uninter-rupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, his health, and his reputation; the right of personal liberty, which consists in the power of locomotion, of changing situation, or removing one's person to whatsoever place one's inclination may direct, without any restraint, unless by due course of law; the right of property, which consists in the free use, enjoyment, and disposal of all his acquisitions, without any control or diminution, save only by the laws of the land."

    http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/q167.htm

    If personal security is considered by law as a right, perhaps the statute should refer to personal security.

    What bothers me is the "reasonably believe that death or great bodily harm" requirement gives a DA the ability to charge an individual for protecting themselves. It gets back to the old you cannot use deadly force to protect property debate. To not get charged what are the parameters that that would be considered "reasonable?"

    When this type of legislation was introduced in the last session I asked Fleebagger Senator Miller to support it. He said he would not because it did not require the individual to show self defense.

    If someone who is unarmed kicks down your door and you kill them immediately shooting from another room is that reasonable?

    You hear a noise, investigate, see someone you do not know in you home, you shoot them, you say that you feared that you would be harmed, there is no sign of forceable entry as you left the doors unlocked, is that reasonable?

    You hear a noise, investigate, see someone, you hide in an bedroom, call 911, say you are scared, individual starts to leave you shoot him/her in the back, no sign of forceable entry, is that reasonable?

    Same thing, except burglary tools were found, no evidence that forceable entry occurred.

    The proposed language should be be changed to get rid of the term "forceable" and just refer to "unlawful entry," with the meaning of unlawful entry defined as entering without permission or implied permission.
    Last edited by Flipper; 04-02-2011 at 10:08 AM.
    When in danger you can dial 911 and hope for the police to arrive a few minutes later armed with guns.
    Why do police carry guns?

    The Joyce Foundation funded firearm control empire:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...lFundingR1.png

    "Everything that we see is a shadow cast by that which we do not see." - Martin Luther King Jr.

  17. #17
    Regular Member CalicoJack10's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Arbor Vitae
    Posts
    559
    Quote Originally Posted by Motofixxer View Post
    Yes I agree it's a step in the right direction, but it's too restrictive to a "residence"
    Actually 939.48 already identifies the use of force for self defense outside the home.

    http://legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/Stat0939.pdf

    Being that this is going to be 939.48(1)(m) it would seem to me that this is an attempt to cover the "In the home" aspect of self defense. They do not, however, address the "Stand your ground" aspect of self defense as pointed out in this thread.

    As the laws sit, they are very definite on what the individual can or can not do. I personally would like to see this go through, and as there are 30 sponsors/co-sponsors, I would say that it will likely be passed as that is a majority of the house by itself. That is if they don't do the politician shuffle and decide at the last minute to not vote for it, or suspend it indefinitely.

    This law would allow a person to defend their home without the "Duty To Retreat" that is an average part of the items that they try and use against law abiding citizens. I would say that this is a huge step in the rite direction.

    But thats just my opinion.
    Last edited by CalicoJack10; 04-02-2011 at 10:14 AM.
    I am Calico Jack,,,, And I approve this message!
    (Paid for by the blood of patriots, and Calico Jack Defense)
    Calico Jack Defense

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170
    What about us small business owners, there are still no protections against prosecution and civil cases if we are forced to defend ourselves and our employees at our place of business. Maybe I should just keep a cot in the attic and say it is my home?

  19. #19
    Regular Member Lady Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by Motofixxer View Post
    Yes I agree it's a step in the right direction, but it's too restrictive to a "residence"
    Need to define your garage as part of your residence. That's the way most states that have this do...though the garage has to be attached in order to be considered.

  20. #20
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779
    Quote Originally Posted by Flipper View Post
    Here is an article discussing "rights". Quote:

    " These consist in the power of acquiring and enjoying property...
    That's not what the Supreme Court says.
    "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
    Abraham Lincoln

    "Some time ago, a bunch of lefties defied the law by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, resulting in their arrests. Last week, a bunch of them pulled the same stunt and - using patented Lefist techniques - provoked the Park Police into having to use force to arrest them."
    Alexcabbie

  21. #21
    McX
    Guest
    weak bill, but better than nothing. i'll accept it if it comes with a CheeseBurger.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Baraboo, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    89
    I'm no politician, but allow me to write a better bill. I'll give myself 1 minute, starting now.

    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 to himself
    or herself or to another person and cannot have legal or civil suit charges brought
    against them under any circumstance if the person using defense force was at any location
    they are legally allowed to occupy.


    There, it took two minutes, because I had to transcribe the first part and then my wife asked what I was typing, so I had to explain it to her.
    Last edited by SIGdude; 04-02-2011 at 11:47 AM.

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran Flipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by SIGdude View Post
    I'm no politician, but allow me to write a better bill. I'll give myself 1 minute, starting now.

    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 to himself
    or herself or to another person and cannot have legal or civil suit charges brought
    against them under any circumstance if the person using defense force was at any location
    they are legally allowed to occupy.


    There, it took two minutes, because I had to transcribe the first part and then my wife asked what I was typing, so I had to explain it to her.
    Very good. Too bad the LRB cannot find some orginal thoughts in their Madison based brains.
    When in danger you can dial 911 and hope for the police to arrive a few minutes later armed with guns.
    Why do police carry guns?

    The Joyce Foundation funded firearm control empire:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...lFundingR1.png

    "Everything that we see is a shadow cast by that which we do not see." - Martin Luther King Jr.

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran Flipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by HandyHamlet View Post
    That's not what the Supreme Court says.
    I recall reading in one of cases where there was a discussion of "right" vs. privilage, but I can't find it.
    When in danger you can dial 911 and hope for the police to arrive a few minutes later armed with guns.
    Why do police carry guns?

    The Joyce Foundation funded firearm control empire:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...lFundingR1.png

    "Everything that we see is a shadow cast by that which we do not see." - Martin Luther King Jr.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Resdon111's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Sussex, WI
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by SIGdude View Post
    ...and cannot have legal or civil suit charges brought against them under any circumstance if the person using defense force was at any location they are legally allowed to occupy.
    While it doesn't cover legally occupied space, it does cover civil liability
    Under the bill, a person who uses force that is intended or likely to cause death
    or great bodily harm is immune from civil liability if the person reasonably believed
    that the force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or
    herself or to another person and if: 1) the individual against whom...

    ...

    Under the bill, if a court finds that person who is sued in civil court is immune
    from liability, the person is entitled to attorney fees, court costs, compensation for
    income loss, and other expenses the person incurred to defend himself or herself
    against the civil action.
    If an American is to amount to anything he must rely upon himself, and not upon the State - Theodore Roosevelt

    Civilian Sheepdog
    Wisconsin Carry Member

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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