Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 41

Thread: AB69 going before assembly next

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    wisconsin
    Posts
    461

    AB69 going before assembly next

    The bill as amended passed the committee on a vote of 6 to 2 (1 Democrat joining with all of the Republicans)

    Assembly Substitute Amendment 3 was approved - https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/201...ab69/asa3_ab69
    The bill will next go before the full State Assembly.
    The Legislative Council attorney that staffs the committee is not in today, but I am told they will be issuing a memo next week which will be posted to the Bill History website at: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/proposals/ab69

    List of registered Supporters and Opponents:
    http://ethics.state.wi.us/scripts/cu...sp?key=REGAB69

    (Text From Assembly Substitute Amendment 3)
    Under this substitute amendment, if a person used defensive force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, a court in a criminal case against the person 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 dwelling, motor vehicle, or, in the case of a business owner or operator, place of business of the person who used the force;
    2) the person was present in that dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business; and
    3) the person knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred.
    This presumption, however, does not apply if:
    1) the person who used the force was engaged in a criminal activity or was using his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business to further a criminal activity; or
    2) the individual against whom the force was used had identified himself or herself as a peace officer (or was or should have been known to be a peace officer) and was entering the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business in the performance of his or her official duties.
    Under the substitute amendment, 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 bodily harm to himself or herself or to another person and if:
    1) the individual against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering, or had already forcibly entered, the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business of the person who
    used the force;
    2) the person who used the force was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business; and
    3) the person who used the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred.
    Under the substitute amendment for purposes of civil immunity, a person is not presumed to have reasonably believed that the force was necessary if:
    1) the person who used the force was engaged in a criminal activity or was using his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business to further a criminal activity; or
    2) the individual against whom the force was used had identified himself or herself as a peace officer (or was or should have been known to be a peace officer) and was entering the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business in the performance of his or her official duties.
    Under the substitute amendment, 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.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Outdoorsman1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Silver Lake WI
    Posts
    1,249
    Ok.. I have a question...????

    Snip...

    2) the person was present in that dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business;
    This is used more than once... Does this mean that if someone is not at home and comes home to find an intruder in his house, then because he was not "present" at the time of the breakin, this statute will not apply..???

    Outdoorsman1
    "On the Plains of Hesitation bleach the bones of countless millions who, at the Dawn of Victory, sat down to wait - and waiting, died."

    George Cecil (18911970) American advertising copywriter

    Outdoorsman1
    Member: Wisconsin Carry Inc.
    Member: Silver Lake Sportsmans Club
    Wisconsin C.C.W. License Holder
    Utah State Permit Holder.
    Arizona State Permit Holder.

  3. #3
    Regular Member davegran's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,565
    Quote Originally Posted by Outdoorsman1 View Post
    Ok.. I have a question...????

    Snip...
    2) the person was present in that dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business;


    This is used more than once... Does this mean that if someone is not at home and comes home to find an intruder in his house, then because he was not "present" at the time of the breakin, this statute will not apply..???

    Outdoorsman1
    According to
    895.62AB69-ASA3,3,6 2(2) Except as provided in sub. (4), an actor is immune from civil liability arising
    3out of his or her use of force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily
    4harm if the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent
    5imminent death or bodily harm to himself or herself or to another person and either
    6of the following applies:


    AB69-ASA3,3,117 (a) The person against whom the force was used was in the process of
    8unlawfully and forcibly entering the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of
    9business, the actor was on his or her property or present in the dwelling, motor
    10vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or had reason to believe that an
    11unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.

    AB69-ASA3,3,1612 (b) The person against whom the force was used was in the actor's dwelling,
    13motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor
    14was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew
    15or had reason to believe that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the
    16dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business.
    (h) “Dwelling” means any premises or portion of a premises
    that is used as a home or a place of residence and that part of the
    lot or site on which the dwelling is situated that is devoted to resi-
    dential use. “Dwelling” includes other existing structures on the
    immediate residential premises such as driveways, sidewalks,
    swimming pools, terraces, patios, fences, porches, garages, and
    basements.
    It sounds to me like section (b) says you don't have to be present when the forcible entry occurs. You and the bad guy have to both be in the dwelling and you have to know that a forcible entry occurred before you can use deadly force.
    Last edited by davegran; 09-30-2011 at 10:05 PM.
    Dave
    45ACP-For when you care enough to send the very best-
    Fight for "Stand Your Ground " legislation!

    WI DA Gerald R. Fox:
    "These so-called 'public safety' laws only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage when it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that this decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over..."

    Remember: Don't make old People mad. We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    wi
    Posts
    112
    The problem is going to be, what does "forceable" mean. Do you have to show a jimmied lock or a broken window for you to be justified in your judgment of your level of force?

  5. #5
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Outdoorsman1 View Post
    This is used more than once... Does this mean that if someone is not at home and comes home to find an intruder in his house, then because he was not "present" at the time of the breakin, this statute will not apply..???
    If you know that the intruder is in your home before you enter it, you do not have a green light for the use of deadly force...

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Stoughton, WI
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by Interceptor_Knight View Post
    If you know that the intruder is in your home before you enter it, you do not have a green light for the use of deadly force...
    What if you know your family is inside?

  7. #7
    Regular Member davegran's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,565
    Quote Originally Posted by Interceptor_Knight View Post
    If you know that the intruder is in your home before you enter it, you do not have a green light for the use of deadly force...
    Not correct. Read it again:
    895.62AB69-ASA3,3,6 2(2) Except as provided in sub. (4), an actor is immune from civil liability arising
    3out of his or her use of force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily
    4harm if the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent
    5imminent death or bodily harm to himself or herself or to another person and either
    6of the following applies:


    AB69-ASA3,3,117 (a) The person against whom the force was used was in the process of
    8unlawfully and forcibly entering the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of
    9business, the actor was on his or her property or present in the dwelling, motor
    10vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or had reason to believe that an
    11unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.

    AB69-ASA3,3,1612 (b) The person against whom the force was used was in the actor's dwelling,
    13motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor
    14was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew
    15or had reason to believe that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the
    16dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business.
    Dave
    45ACP-For when you care enough to send the very best-
    Fight for "Stand Your Ground " legislation!

    WI DA Gerald R. Fox:
    "These so-called 'public safety' laws only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage when it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that this decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over..."

    Remember: Don't make old People mad. We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off.

  8. #8
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    I got this from my Rep. Is he right?

    Hi Paul,

    Good to hear from you!

    I am a co-sponsor of AB-69 and do support the stand-your-ground clause added to the bill. The stand-your-ground clause was added to the bill in substitute amendment 3 page 3 line 17-20. I have attached a copy for you to review. I am encouraged that Rep. Kaufert added this language into Sub. Amend. 3.

    AB-69 has now passed committee and is available for scheduling on the floor. I will be voting for this bill when it is placed before our body.

    Thank you for your continued support, Paul. I appreciate your dedication. Please feel free to let me know of any other questions or concerns.

    Sincerely,
    Steve Nass

    State Representative

  9. #9
    Regular Member Outdoorsman1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Silver Lake WI
    Posts
    1,249
    I could be wrong but I do not think he is right....

    I had a long telephone conversation the other night with my Rep. Samantha Kerkman. The call was about the resisting arrest issue but I brought up the Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground. She told me that that "Stand Your Ground" (as I explained it to her) (Florida's statute) would not be part of this Castle Doctrine Bill. She said something about being open to a future Stand Your Ground Bill but "one step at a time" and "the first step was to get the Castle Doctrine Bill passed". What your Rep. MIGHT have been refering to was Ms. Kerkman did say something about "Stand Your Ground" (no duty to retreat) was in the Castle Doctrine Bill but only applied to the areas that what was specifically spelled out in the Castle Doctine Bill and NOT to where ever you happened to be legally carrying when encountered by a threat.

    As stated... I could be wrong.

    Outdoorsman1

    Edited to add; This conversation took place the night before Castle Doctrine was goingup for debate in the Judiciary (?) Commitee... MAYBE an admendment was added during the debate.... but I highly doubt it...
    Last edited by Outdoorsman1; 10-04-2011 at 09:31 PM.
    "On the Plains of Hesitation bleach the bones of countless millions who, at the Dawn of Victory, sat down to wait - and waiting, died."

    George Cecil (18911970) American advertising copywriter

    Outdoorsman1
    Member: Wisconsin Carry Inc.
    Member: Silver Lake Sportsmans Club
    Wisconsin C.C.W. License Holder
    Utah State Permit Holder.
    Arizona State Permit Holder.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    I'm not seeing it either. From the looks of it, it seems there is no duty to retreat in those specific areas (car, home, business).
    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)

  11. #11
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Outdoorsman1 View Post
    I could be wrong but I do not think he is right....

    I had a long telephone conversation the other night with my Rep. Samantha Kerkman. The call was about the resisting arrest issue but I brought up the Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground. She told me that that "Stand Your Ground" (as I explained it to her) (Florida's statute) would not be part of this Castle Doctrine Bill. She said something about being open to a future Stand Your Ground Bill but "one step at a time" and "the first step was to get the Castle Doctrine Bill passed". What your Rep. MIGHT have been refering to was Ms. Kerkman did say something about "Stand Your Ground" (no duty to retreat) was in the Castle Doctrine Bill but only applied to the areas that what was specifically spelled out in the Castle Doctine Bill and NOT to where ever you happened to be legally carrying when encountered by a threat.

    As stated... I could be wrong.

    Outdoorsman1

    Edited to add; This conversation took place the night before Castle Doctrine was goingup for debate in the Judiciary (?) Commitee... MAYBE an admendment was added during the debate.... but I highly doubt it...
    Kerkman is right. Nass is mistaken, confusing not duty to retreat with Stand Your Ground.

    Nothing happened to SB69-ASA3, except a technical ammendment SB69-ASA3-AA2
    Last edited by BROKENSPROKET; 10-05-2011 at 06:14 AM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member davegran's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,565
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    I got this from my Rep. Is he right?
    Hi Paul,

    Good to hear from you!

    I am a co-sponsor of AB-69 and do support the stand-your-ground clause added to the bill. The stand-your-ground clause was added to the bill in substitute amendment 3 page 3 line 17-20. I have attached a copy for you to review. I am encouraged that Rep. Kaufert added this language into Sub. Amend. 3.

    AB-69 has now passed committee and is available for scheduling on the floor. I will be voting for this bill when it is placed before our body.

    Thank you for your continued support, Paul. I appreciate your dedication. Please feel free to let me know of any other questions or concerns.

    Sincerely,
    Steve Nass

    State Representative
    This is great; a co-sponsor of the bill doesn't know what it means or contains...Geezuz! (We need a smiley of a clown or somebody wearing a dunce cap...) I hope that you straighten him out, Paul.
    Dave
    45ACP-For when you care enough to send the very best-
    Fight for "Stand Your Ground " legislation!

    WI DA Gerald R. Fox:
    "These so-called 'public safety' laws only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage when it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that this decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over..."

    Remember: Don't make old People mad. We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off.

  13. #13
    Regular Member RR_Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    WI
    Posts
    172
    Under this substitute amendment, if a person used defensive force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, a court in a criminal case against the person 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:


    I like this, point of view of the defender is the key, not an outside observer. Just keep your mouth shut and let your lawyer do the talking and chances are they won't be able to jail you for defending yourself.


    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 dwelling, motor vehicle, or, in the case of a business owner or operator, place of business of the person who used the force;


    Those "And" should be "or". If I am sleeping in a tent in my back yard, and someone comes in, how can they "forcefully" enter? Open the zipper real fast? Quite lame, does not go far enough. I am supposed to know a window in the back had the screen cut before doing anything? What if my kid left a door unlocked? Opening a door and walking in is not forcible and according to this negates the right to defend oneself.



    2) the person was present in that dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business; and


    Weasel words nothing more. This should be completely removed. I need an accurate timeline of events to defend myself?


    3) the person knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred.


    Again, that should be an "OR". Better yet, just say "unlawful entry." If you are in my home and I didn't invite you that's all I need to know. Note, I am talking about my specific case where I am the only resident, unless my landlord has been sneaking in, there have only been two other people in my apartment in the last four years.


    This presumption, however, does not apply if:
    1) the person who used the force was engaged in a criminal activity or was using his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business to further a criminal activity; or


    Fair enough, those guys that shoot intruders trying to steal their pot grow operation are not off the hook. Though, they need to spell out the criminal types here, if they find out I made a mistake on my taxes it shouldn't apply.


    2) the individual against whom the force was used had identified himself or herself as a peace officer (or was or should have been known to be a peace officer) and was entering the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business in the performance of his or her official duties.



    "should have been known" as a peace officer is someone else's point of view. For some boot-lickers, the fact that someone is busting in the front door and yelling is reason enough to think it's a cop. This sentence makes this law crap. Completely useless, that phrase puts super-human expectations back on the defender of the home. Likewise, if I happen to be recording something, and some criminal breaks in and yells he's a police officer, and it gets on my recording, and I shoot him thinking I am defending myself anyway. Did I commit a crime? The vagueness of this is unacceptable to me.


    Under the substitute amendment, 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 bodily harm to himself or herself or to another person and if:


    1) the individual against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering, or had already forcibly entered, the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business of the person who used the force;


    Hmm... looks like businesses are not civilly immune. Not good for them and the people that work for them. Why the difference here? Is burglary two separate crimes when it's against a home verses a business?


    2) the person who used the force was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business; and


    Weasel words, need not be in here.


    3) the person who used the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred.


    Again, if you are in there and I didn't invite you it's go time.


    Under the substitute amendment for purposes of civil immunity, a person is not presumed to have reasonably believed that the force was necessary if:



    1) the person who used the force was engaged in a criminal activity or was using his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business to further a criminal activity; or


    Again, fair enough.


    2) the individual against whom the force was used had identified himself or herself as a peace officer (or was or should have been known to be a peace officer) and was entering the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business in the performance of his or her official duties.


    Again, complete crap. Someone else's standard as a third party who has all the facts and doesn't have to act without any chance to get them. This needs to read "successfully identified himself or as a peace officer" and the part in parens taken out completely.


    Under the substitute amendment, 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.



    Good. Your dirtbag relatives are going to have to pay for their chance to cash in on your life of crime and bad luck.


    Nigh useless in my opinion. No different than what is the de-facto standard now and pretty much zero benefit aside from a little bit of civil liability removed. I want a castle law with teeth, and NO WEASEL WORDS.
    "I can only be held responsible for my own stupidity." - Captain Nemo

  14. #14
    McX
    Guest
    how will this stuff apply if you are on a motorcycle, or a bicycle? They arent entering anything, aside from your personal space.

  15. #15
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    10-12. A. Referred to committee on Rules.This usually means it will be scheduled for a vote soon.http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/AB69hst.html

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    10-12. A. Referred to committee on Rules.This usually means it will be scheduled for a vote soon.http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/AB69hst.html
    And I would assume the "no duty to retreat" is not in there.
    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)

  17. #17
    McX
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by protias View Post
    And I would assume the "no duty to retreat" is not in there.
    Protias, i have spoken with them, and made sure they added no train horn honking to the bill. your out there guy.

  18. #18
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by protias View Post
    And I would assume the "no duty to retreat" is not in there.
    To pick a nit, it is in your home and in your car, just not 'wherever I am legally'.

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    To pick a nit, it is in your home and in your car, just not 'wherever I am legally'.
    I know the bill says no duty to retreat in your home, car, or business, but it says nothing about being out in public. That was the question I had.
    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)

  20. #20
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    tick tick tick tick................................

  21. #21
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    The day has finally come.

    Tuesday, November 1, 2011 at 11:00 am.

  22. #22
    Regular Member xenophon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    316
    Quote Originally Posted by BROKENSPROKET View Post
    The day has finally come.

    Tuesday, November 1, 2011 at 11:00 am.
    11/1 you say? That date seems.......familiar. Hrrrmmmmmmmmm.

    A good day indeed.

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    Quote Originally Posted by BROKENSPROKET View Post
    The day has finally come.

    Tuesday, November 1, 2011 at 11:00 am.
    Is this the last time the date will be changed?
    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)

  24. #24
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    NRA sent out a blast asking us to support AB 69 with the 'suder amendment'.

    http://www.nramedia.org/t/259050/6322815/8077/0/


    Anyone have a clue what that is?

  25. #25
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Don't assume I am correct, but I think whoever wrote the article is a bit uninformed. SB79, in my opinion, is dead and the Senate will take up AB69 after it passes the Assembly. Also, confused the authour, Rep. Kaufert with the Assembly Leader, Rep. Suder. Also, confuses the term 'ammendment' with 'bill'. I hope I am wrong and I CAN imagine Rep. Suder offering and ammendment to include 'Stand Your Ground'. AGAIN, I hope I am wrong.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •