Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Senate Bill 79

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran Running Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Corner of No and Where
    Posts
    431

    Senate Bill 79

    I received notification that SB79 has been introduced by Wanggaard that is "An Act to create 895.62 and 939.48 (1m) of the statutes; relating to: the privilege of self-defense." I can't find the actual bill only the history.

    Has anyone seen the bill itself?

    I don't like the sound of "the privilege of self-defense" when it is already a right. And I don't like the idea of creating more statutes. But I'll reserve further judgement until I see the verbiage being introduced. This might be unrelated to concealed carry or even to firearms in general . . .
    When rights are outlawed only outlaws will have rights.

    Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. - Hanlon's Razor

    No American citizen should be willing to accept a government that uses its power against its own people. - Catherine Engelbrecht

  2. #2
    Regular Member CalicoJack10's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Arbor Vitae
    Posts
    559
    "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>

    I don't know if the wording is the same, but I know that I recognized the statutes from this post.
    Last edited by CalicoJack10; 04-29-2011 at 11:11 AM.
    I am Calico Jack,,,, And I approve this message!
    (Paid for by the blood of patriots, and Calico Jack Defense)
    Calico Jack Defense

  3. #3
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by Running Wolf View Post
    I received notification that SB79 has been introduced by Wanggaard that is "An Act to create 895.62 and 939.48 (1m) of the statutes; relating to: the privilege of self-defense." I can't find the actual bill only the history.

    Has anyone seen the bill itself?

    I don't like the sound of "the privilege of self-defense" when it is already a right. And I don't like the idea of creating more statutes. But I'll reserve further judgement until I see the verbiage being introduced. This might be unrelated to concealed carry or even to firearms in general . . .
    Hmmm... Normally you click on the link at the top of the history and it shows you the actual bill.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran Running Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Corner of No and Where
    Posts
    431
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    Hmmm... Normally you click on the link at the top of the history and it shows you the actual bill.
    That's been my experience also. Apparently the PDF the link is referring to doesn't exist in that location. Does an assembly bill have a corresponding senate bill? Perhaps SB79 refers to AB69, as CalicoJack suggested.
    When rights are outlawed only outlaws will have rights.

    Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. - Hanlon's Razor

    No American citizen should be willing to accept a government that uses its power against its own people. - Catherine Engelbrecht

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    721
    It's unfortunate but in Wisconsin defense of property by itself using deadly force is generally not legal. This is probably why the bill title has the words "privilege" in it.

    The bill really needs to say "wherever you are legally able to be" to go beyond just the interior of your house. The bill is a step in the right direction, but definitely not enough. This kind of change doesn't usually happen overnight but it can if the right bill is introduced. Does anybody still think that Republicans always get it right even with the issues they are supposed to be experts on?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    North Central Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    768
    Review this thread and posts
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...in-WI-Assembly

    Is it the Senate Version of the Assembly Bill?

  7. #7
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by phred View Post
    Review this thread and posts
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...in-WI-Assembly

    Is it the Senate Version of the Assembly Bill?
    I am not sure. I was under the impression that one house has to act on it and then once it is passed it is sent over to the other. I suppose there can be two competing version and once both houses pass it it gets reconciled in committee.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    Quote Originally Posted by smithman View Post
    It's unfortunate but in Wisconsin defense of property by itself using deadly force is generally not legal. This is probably why the bill title has the words "privilege" in it.

    The bill really needs to say "wherever you are legally able to be" to go beyond just the interior of your house. The bill is a step in the right direction, but definitely not enough. This kind of change doesn't usually happen overnight but it can if the right bill is introduced. Does anybody still think that Republicans always get it right even with the issues they are supposed to be experts on?
    We do have the right though:

    "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose." - Article 1, Section 25
    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)

  9. #9
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668
    Quote Originally Posted by Running Wolf View Post
    I don't like the sound of "the privilege of self-defense" when it is already a right.
    Relax! Newsflash: While we commonly refer to the "right" to self-defense, strictly speaking under state law self-defense is a "privilege" and not a right. This is nothing new!

    See the self-defense statute, 939.48:

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

    The term "privilege" has a special legal definition: "a special benefit, exemption from a duty, or immunity from penalty, given to a particular person, a group or a class of people."

    Under the law one does not have an absolute right to use violent force against another person. However under certain circumstances the law recognizes that violent force is justifiable, and if the criteria are met, one may invoke the privilege of self-defense to avoid the penalties one normally suffers for using violence against another person. So in a technical legalese way it makes sense to refer to self-defense as a privilege. It's just the way lawyers talk. Maybe one of our Administrators will weigh in if my non-lawyerly explanation is inadequate.
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran Running Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Corner of No and Where
    Posts
    431
    The PDF is available now. It is indeed the Senate version of the Assembly "castle doctrine" bill . . .
    When rights are outlawed only outlaws will have rights.

    Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. - Hanlon's Razor

    No American citizen should be willing to accept a government that uses its power against its own people. - Catherine Engelbrecht

Posting Permissions

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