"castle doctrine" self defense bill introduced in WI Assembly

GLOCK21GB · Apr 9, 2011

I am always saying that the political system in this country is broken far beyond repair, I am one of the only ones saying it's time for the BIG RESET yet most here say, chill out, relax dude, the system is not broken, all we have to do is elect conservatives & everything will be alright, we are free in this Country, we must work through the system, This not a Police state, blah, blah, blah, etc, etc, etc...... YET LOOK at what we have now, A batch of "conservatives" a Majority in the Senate, the Assembly & control of the Governors chair...YET we keep getting the SAME OLD politicians that do what they want & IGNORE THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE THAT JUST ELECTED THEM INTO OFFICE... so now I will get the same canned response from the Majority ....then we will elect them out next time & everything will be solved....UMMM, NO...that's what we did this time.....& what ?? has been solved ?? Nothing business as usual in Madison just this time from a new batch of BSers with their own agendas........

Now I go about my life & wait for the people to wake up....no I will not be holding my breath

smithman · Apr 9, 2011

This bill isn't bad but it really doesn't help all that much. The courts already see the residence as requiring maximum protection from PC police searches, etc. Everybody is aware that they have the most control when they are inside their residence. What Wisconsin needs is a stand your ground law wherever you are legally able to be.

Many people elected the republicans as the lesser of two evils. We can't expect them to get it right all of the time, but what is right here is easily fixed by a few actions:
1. repeal CC prohibition
2. repeal carry restrictions
3. draft and pass a stand your ground law

It is really that simple, BUT our representatives tend to make things way to complicated. Just look at the mess of laws we have on our books in this state alone. Our founding fathers would spit in our faces for letting our government make this many laws of which they don't have the constitutional authority to do.

GLOCK21GB · Apr 9, 2011

smithman said:
This bill isn't bad but it really doesn't help all that much. The courts already see the residence as requiring maximum protection from PC police searches, etc. Everybody is aware that they have the most control when they are inside their residence. What Wisconsin needs is a stand your ground law wherever you are legally able to be.

Many people elected the republicans as the lesser of two evils. We can't expect them to get it right all of the time, but what is right here is easily fixed by a few actions:
1. repeal CC prohibition
2. repeal carry restrictions
3. draft and pass a stand your ground law

It is really that simple, BUT our representatives tend to make things way to complicated. Just look at the mess of laws we have on our books in this state alone. Our founding fathers would spit in our faces for letting our government make this many laws of which they don't have the constitutional authority to do.

Our founding fathers would be doing more than that, if they were here now. They would be yet again raising their armies.

Flipper · Apr 11, 2011

Alaska "stand your ground" bill advances. The newspaper article gives a concise definition of "stand yourground" as "place(ing) the duty to retreat on the criminal or person who means to do harm."

Quote:

"The state of Alaska already recognizes the right to use deadly force in self-defense. It also states there is a duty to retreat. If a person knows they can do so safely they are required to retreat.

“Well, you know, hindsight is pretty good,” Neuman said. “Who knows if you have the ability to retreat safely or not? The person who is in that incident at that time is the only person who can make that decision, not a judge or a jury.”

Neuman stated the bill places the duty to retreat on the criminal or person who means to do harm and has left the justification for the use of deadly force unchanged. "

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=15000

Peacekeeper · Apr 11, 2011

Flipper said:
Alaska "stand your ground" bill advances. The newspaper article gives a concise definition of "stand yourground" as "place(ing) the duty to retreat on the criminal or person who means to do harm."

Quote:

"The state of Alaska already recognizes the right to use deadly force in self-defense. It also states there is a duty to retreat. If a person knows they can do so safely they are required to retreat.

“Well, you know, hindsight is pretty good,” Neuman said. “Who knows if you have the ability to retreat safely or not? The person who is in that incident at that time is the only person who can make that decision, not a judge or a jury.”

Neuman stated the bill places the duty to retreat on the criminal or person who means to do harm and has left the justification for the use of deadly force unchanged. "

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=15000

This is what we need. Criminals have enough "rights". It's time for the law obeying citizen to have some.

McX · Apr 11, 2011

Peacekeeper said:
This is what we need. Criminals have enough "rights". It's time for the law obeying citizen to have some.

agreed, and ditto!

civilwarguy · Apr 11, 2011

I spoke with my rep. on the phone today and pointed out the residence restriction. I then pointed out the issue this causes for bussiness owners, someone being carjacked, and vacation homes or visiting friends/family. He didnt have a copy of the bill infront of him but said he would look into it and call me back personally to discuss what he had found and what he was going to do to try and rectify the problems (he said these issues didnt even occur to him)....... As i plus i also talked to him about GFZ and he said when he calls me back he will also look to see if anyone is drafting anything to solve this problem and if not would welcome any ideas that we may have.

GLOCK21GB · Apr 11, 2011

civilwarguy said:
I spoke with my rep. on the phone today and pointed out the residence restriction. I then pointed out the issue this causes for bussiness owners, someone being carjacked, and vacation homes or visiting friends/family. He didnt have a copy of the bill infront of him but said he would look into it and call me back personally to discuss what he had found and what he was going to do to try and rectify the problems (he said these issues didnt even occur to him)....... As i plus i also talked to him about GFZ and he said when he calls me back he will also look to see if anyone is drafting anything to solve this problem and if not would welcome any ideas that we may have.

Excellent !!

Captain Nemo · Apr 12, 2011

Copy of an email I sent to all sponsors of AB-69

Dear representative:

I have reviewed AB-69 the “castle Doctrine” bill that was recently introduced to the Assembly and for which you are a chief sponsor. AB-69 is definitely a step in the right direction. It is time that law-abiding citizens are not criminalized for defending themselves and their family while supposedly secure in their own homes. As welcome as the bill is it does fall short of being complete. As I detect it only provides protection if the person perpetrating a crime forcefully enters a residence. It does not provide protection for a business owner protecting his/her business or property. In the 2003 case of Hamdan the Wisconsin Supreme Court (WSC) ruled that a business owner has the constitutional right to carry a concealed firearm in order to provide security of his/her business and property. Unfortunately AB-69 does not protect them from criminalizing themselves if they use a firearm to do so. AB-69 also does not address a growing problem in this country, car-jacking. With the escalated value of cars and trucks car-jacking appears to be the “crime of the moment”. A person should have the authority to protect their expensive investment without fear of incrimination. AB-69 does not incorporate a “stand your ground” provision. It presumes that if a person encounters a threat in public their first responsibility is to retreat or suffer legal consequences and needing to prove they were in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. Finally, AB-69 does not provide support for a person protecting property other than his/her residence. It does not address other property such as garages, barns, machine sheds, lake cabins, tents, campers, motor homes and things of the like. I’m sure that those were but over-sights when AB-69 was drafted and that AB-69 will be adjusted to accommodate those deficiencies.

Peacekeeper · Apr 12, 2011

How about being able to defend yourself ... just walking down the street. I enjoy photography. I should run everytime some thug decides to make my camera his own? I DON'T THINK SO!!!!

Flipper · Apr 12, 2011

Building on the Captain's work, I sent the following to Representative Marklein (51st Assembly District):

I am pleased to see that a bill, AB-69, has been introduced providing a "Castle Doctrine" providing protections against unfounded criminal charges and civil liability when a home invasion has occurred. AB-69 is definitely a step in the right direction. It is time that law-abiding citizens are not criminalized or face financial ruin for defending themselves and their family while supposedly secure in their own homes. I ask that you consider becoming a co-sponsor of the bill.

AB-69 requires unlawful and forcible entry before the provisions of the bill would apply. The "forcible entry" language is a concern in situations where the threat comes from a person unlawfully in someone's home without forcible entry occurring. As you well know, many people in our area, right or wrong, do not secure their doors and windows at all times.

I ask that you would support an amendment to AB-69 removing the "forcible entry" provision and define "unlawful entry" as entry by a person or persons without the legal right to be on the property even though force to gain entry was not used.

As welcome as the bill is, it does fall short of being complete. It only provides protection if the person perpetrating a crime unlawfully and forcefully enters a residence. It does not provide protection for a business owner protecting his/her business or property.

The Wisconsin Constitution provides in Article 1, Section 25, Wisconsin citizens with the right to right to keep and bear arms for security. In the 2003 case of Hamdan, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that a business owner has the constitutional right to carry a concealed firearm in order to provide security of his/her business and property. Unfortunately AB-69 does not protect them from criminalizing themselves if they use a firearm to do so.

AB-69 does not incorporate a “stand your ground” provision. The Constitution right to be secure should exist outside one's residence and business, and should include when one is in a vehicle. With the escalated value of cars and trucks car-jacking appears to be the “crime of the moment."

Under current law if a person encounters a threat in public or outside their residence, their first responsibility is to retreat or suffer legal consequences and needing to prove they were in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. The duty to retreat should be on the criminal or person who means to do harm.

Finally, AB-69 does not provide support for a person protecting property other than his/her residence. It does not address other property such as garages, barns, machine sheds, lake cabins, vehicles, tents, campers, motor homes and things of the like.

Hopefully those were oversights when AB-69 was drafted and that AB-69 will be adjusted to accommodate those deficiencies.

paul@paul-fisher.com · Apr 12, 2011

Flipper said:
Building on the Captain's work, I sent the following to Representative Marklein (51st Assembly District):

I am pleased to see that a bill, AB-69, has been introduced providing a "Castle Doctrine" providing protections against unfounded criminal charges and civil liability when a home invasion has occurred. AB-69 is definitely a step in the right direction. It is time that law-abiding citizens are not criminalized or face financial ruin for defending themselves and their family while supposedly secure in their own homes. I ask that you consider becoming a co-sponsor of the bill.

AB-69 requires unlawful and forcible entry before the provisions of the bill would apply. The "forcible entry" language is a concern in situations where the threat comes from a person unlawfully in someone's home without forcible entry occurring. As you well know, many people in our area, right or wrong, do not secure their doors and windows at all times.

I ask that you would support an amendment to AB-69 removing the "forcible entry" provision and define "unlawful entry" as entry by a person or persons without the legal right to be on the property even though force to gain entry was not used.

As welcome as the bill is, it does fall short of being complete. It only provides protection if the person perpetrating a crime unlawfully and forcefully enters a residence. It does not provide protection for a business owner protecting his/her business or property.

The Wisconsin Constitution provides in Article 1, Section 25, Wisconsin citizens with the right to right to keep and bear arms for security. In the 2003 case of Hamdan, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that a business owner has the constitutional right to carry a concealed firearm in order to provide security of his/her business and property. Unfortunately AB-69 does not protect them from criminalizing themselves if they use a firearm to do so.

AB-69 does not incorporate a “stand your ground” provision. The Constitution right to be secure should exist outside one's residence and business, and should include when one is in a vehicle. With the escalated value of cars and trucks car-jacking appears to be the “crime of the moment."

Under current law if a person encounters a threat in public or outside their residence, their first responsibility is to retreat or suffer legal consequences and needing to prove they were in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. The duty to retreat should be on the criminal or person who means to do harm.

Finally, AB-69 does not provide support for a person protecting property other than his/her residence. It does not address other property such as garages, barns, machine sheds, lake cabins, vehicles, tents, campers, motor homes and things of the like.

Hopefully those were oversights when AB-69 was drafted and that AB-69 will be adjusted to accommodate those deficiencies.

Good job!

Just one slight correction. Other assembly members become co-authors. Senators become co-sponsors.

If this were a Senate bill, the opposite would be true.

Flipper · Apr 13, 2011

Looks like Pennsylvania is going to have a Castle Doctrine.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11102/1138815-100.stm

Like this quote:

Article Tools EmailPrint
State House approves "Castle Doctrine"
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
By Tracie Mauriello, Post-Gazette Harrisburg Bureau

HARRISBURG -- The state House this afternoon overwhelmingly approved a bill expanding people's right to defend themselves and their families.

The legislation removes the obligation to first seek a reasonable attempt to get away before using lethal force in self-defense.

"Now there will be no duty to retreat. You can defend yourself," said bill sponsor Scott Perry, R-York.

"Right now citizens have to spend precious moments and precious seconds ... determining whether to run to the next room, the next building or around the car," he said in an interview after the House vote. "That's not a decision that we want our citizens having to make at the critical moment when it might be the difference between life and death."

The provisions apply to law-abiding people anywhere they have a legal right to be.

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11102/1138815-100.stm#ixzz1JQg2edxu

Flipper · Apr 13, 2011

Looks like Pennsylvania is going to have a Castle Doctrine - Stand Your Ground:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11102/1138815-100.stm

From the article

The legislation removes the obligation to first seek a reasonable attempt to get away before using lethal force in self-defense.

"Now there will be no duty to retreat. You can defend yourself," said bill sponsor Scott Perry, R-York.

"Right now citizens have to spend precious moments and precious seconds ... determining whether to run to the next room, the next building or around the car," he said in an interview after the House vote. "That's not a decision that we want our citizens having to make at the critical moment when it might be the difference between life and death."

The provisions apply to law-abiding people anywhere they have a legal right to be.

Flipper · Apr 22, 2011

AB-69 Tracking Site

You can track the bill's status here:

http://wi.opengovernment.org/sessions/2011-regular-session/bills/ab-69

AaronS · Apr 22, 2011

You can see why it is called "castle" law.
This bill is better then nothing, but it has no mention of any sort of "stand your ground" law.
I think it is a shame, because it looks to me that "stand your ground" would fit right into this bill...
Again, I guess it is a start, if we get it to pass...

GLOCK21GB · Apr 22, 2011

AaronS said:
You can see why it is called "castle" law.
This bill is better then nothing, but it has no mention of any sort of "stand your ground" law.
I think it is a shame, because it looks to me that "stand your ground" would fit right into this bill...
Again, I guess it is a start, if we get it to pass...

Once they hold the public hearings on it..we can go & tell them we want a Stand your ground law... then bring a copy of Florida's Stand your ground law with & read the entire thing on the floor

apierce918 · Apr 24, 2011

I had emailed my rep and told her about the additions that should be added to the bill (basically what has been discussed in this thread, stand your ground, expand to vehicle and anywhere you have a right to be etc. etc.), she was a co-sponsor and called me back saying that she forwarded them on to the author of the bill to try and get some amendments. I don't know when that stage will take place though.

oak1971 · Apr 24, 2011

well its something to build on at least.

Flipper · Apr 29, 2011

Here is the State of Washington's. Very simply stated, but it took a state supreme court decision to make it broadly applicable. Lesson for Wisconsin as to what to avoid?

From http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.050

RCW 9A.16.050
Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.

Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.

[1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.16.050.]

From http://www.mastersconnection.com/forum2/view_topic.php?id=1010

Washington - The statute in Washington state appear to be very simply and broadly stated. [17]

The law allows use of deadly force in the lawful defense of oneself, a family member, or any other person, when there is reasonable ground to prevent action(s) of the person slain to commit a felony or to do injury or harm, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or in the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, on those in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.

Washington state doesn’t have a specific Castle Doctrine law, but has no duty to retreat as precedent was set when the State Supreme Court found "that there is no duty to retreat when a person is assaulted in a place where he or she has a right to be."[18][19]

"castle doctrine" self defense bill introduced in WI Assembly

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

McX

Guest

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Campaign Veteran

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran