BROKENSPROKET
Regular Member
tick tick tick tick................................
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
AB69 going before assembly next
- Thread starter bmwguy11
- Start date
BROKENSPROKET
Regular Member
The day has finally come.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011 at 11:00 am.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011 at 11:00 am.
xenophon
Regular Member
Is this the last time the date will be changed?
paul@paul-fisher.com
Regular Member
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?
http://www.nramedia.org/t/259050/6322815/8077/0/
Anyone have a clue what that is?
BROKENSPROKET
Regular Member
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.
paul@paul-fisher.com
Regular Member
I believe (and hope) you are wrong. Kaufert amendment had already been adopted in committee.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk
davegran
Regular Member
They believe that Rep. Suder will offer the amendment when the bill is before the Assembly.
I don't know what in the hell this means! Anybody have a clue? It sure doesn't sound like Stand Your Ground to me.
BROKENSPROKET
Regular Member
Dave, my blood sugar must have been low when I read it. I read it again and now I get it. Suder will offer and ammendment to include "Stand Your Ground".
I like I said, I can thoroughly imagine Scott bringing an ammendment like that.
I think that it is better this way. If the ammendment fails, we can still get 'Castle Doctrine', but if 'Stand Your Ground' was added in committee and the bill fails for that reason, we would not get 'Castle Doctrine' either. Maybe I should not have said that, Oak and Handy might give me a beating. :uhoh:
I like I said, I can thoroughly imagine Scott bringing an ammendment like that.
I think that it is better this way. If the ammendment fails, we can still get 'Castle Doctrine', but if 'Stand Your Ground' was added in committee and the bill fails for that reason, we would not get 'Castle Doctrine' either. Maybe I should not have said that, Oak and Handy might give me a beating. :uhoh:
davegran
Regular Member
Greg, If you get "Stand Your Ground" out of this gobblygook
then I must have NO blood sugar.... I can't make any sense out of it at all!
rcawdor57
Campaign Veteran
Still Time To Email Our Reps & Senators. Here Is My Email From A Few Days Ago...
The hardest part was copying and pasting their email addresses into my email program.
Subject: Amend AB 69 "Castle Doctrine" To Include "Any Place A Person May Legally Be"
Dear Senator/Representative,
AB 69 is scheduled for the Assembly floor on 1 November for a vote.
As of now Representative Kaufert refuses to expand the legislation to
"Any place a person may legally be". Without this amendment the law
will be severely handicapped and not protect the majority of honest
citizens who may have to use some form of self defense when in public.
Look at any person who physically cannot defend themselves either due
to age, injury or some form of physical disablement; If that person
cannot run from their attacker(s) and must use a weapon to defend
themselves and the end result is the death or severe injury of the
attacker(s) then the victim of the crime can be arrested and charged by
the police and sued in civil court by the same person(s) who committed
the crime. Is this justice? The "Castle Doctrine" must extend to
wherever the person has the legal right to be and not be limited to a
few places.
Another scenario is that of a family out in public. The father,
mother or children are attacked. Do you expect them to run? We have
the "privilege" of self defense but we need the "right" to protect
ourselves no matter where we are and not have to worry about being
arrested or sued in civil court for saving our own life or the lives of
our family members.
I urge you to add to AB 69 an amendment to expand the legislation to
"Any place a person may legally be". This would be similar to many
other states Castle Doctrines including the state of Florida which has
the best Castle Doctrine in the United States in my opinion.
Respectfully,
XXX
The hardest part was copying and pasting their email addresses into my email program.
Subject: Amend AB 69 "Castle Doctrine" To Include "Any Place A Person May Legally Be"
Dear Senator/Representative,
AB 69 is scheduled for the Assembly floor on 1 November for a vote.
As of now Representative Kaufert refuses to expand the legislation to
"Any place a person may legally be". Without this amendment the law
will be severely handicapped and not protect the majority of honest
citizens who may have to use some form of self defense when in public.
Look at any person who physically cannot defend themselves either due
to age, injury or some form of physical disablement; If that person
cannot run from their attacker(s) and must use a weapon to defend
themselves and the end result is the death or severe injury of the
attacker(s) then the victim of the crime can be arrested and charged by
the police and sued in civil court by the same person(s) who committed
the crime. Is this justice? The "Castle Doctrine" must extend to
wherever the person has the legal right to be and not be limited to a
few places.
Another scenario is that of a family out in public. The father,
mother or children are attacked. Do you expect them to run? We have
the "privilege" of self defense but we need the "right" to protect
ourselves no matter where we are and not have to worry about being
arrested or sued in civil court for saving our own life or the lives of
our family members.
I urge you to add to AB 69 an amendment to expand the legislation to
"Any place a person may legally be". This would be similar to many
other states Castle Doctrines including the state of Florida which has
the best Castle Doctrine in the United States in my opinion.
Respectfully,
XXX
Packfanatic
Regular Member
wrote to my Rep
I just emailed my rep as well on this issue.
I just emailed my rep as well on this issue.
BROKENSPROKET
Regular Member
I caught that to, but I overlooked it a typo/grammatical error. This is why. If the take the quote verbatim and thoroughly accurate, then you would have to assume that AB69, while giving persons in thier home, business or vehicle greater self-defense protections, is in fact taking away self-defense protections from current law for the areas NOT covered by AB69 as it is written now. That is not happening. It is even possible that it was intentionally written ambiguosly to keep opponents offgaurd, while informing those that have the sense to read into it a little. Also, what else could Rep. Suder offer as an ammendment than the one thing that we have been hammering or legislators about?
paul@paul-fisher.com
Regular Member
OK. Saw the suder amendment. It is NOT stand your ground. The NRA rep predicted it would pass today with the Suder amendment.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/19481227/11a15182.pdf
If the link doesn't work, give it a minute or two.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/19481227/11a15182.pdf
If the link doesn't work, give it a minute or two.
It passed today, but no stand your ground amendment was even offered.
Oh and according to the democrats this bill "allows people to just shoot people for no reason" and "florida has terrible problems with neighbors shooting neighbors because of their castle doctrine" and "what about the poor teenagers who are ONLY trying to steal your car, they shouldn't be shot for stealing your car"
Oh and according to the democrats this bill "allows people to just shoot people for no reason" and "florida has terrible problems with neighbors shooting neighbors because of their castle doctrine" and "what about the poor teenagers who are ONLY trying to steal your car, they shouldn't be shot for stealing your car"
davegran
Regular Member
The bill is gutted.
And they stripped vehicle protection out of it.... The bill is gutted! We can only hope that the Senate adds in Stand Your Ground and reinstates vehicle protection; but of course that won't happen. :banghead:
paul@paul-fisher.com
Regular Member
Huh?
I guess I'm confused.
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2011/data/AB69-ASA3.pdf
+
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2011/data/AB69-ASA3-AA2.pdf
+
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2011/data/AB69-ASA3-AA3.pdf
passed.
From the summary of the amendment "his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business"
Last edited:
Jason in WI
Regular Member
The best part is she knows full well that AB69 only applies if you are occupying your car and not just someone stealing it from your driveway. I just can't believe they are trying to protect car jackers
:banghead::cuss:!And if your getting car jacked you are usually threatened with a firearm or some other deadly weapon, otherwise you would just roll up the window and drive away
. I suppose it's not FAIR I have my car and am not sharing it, spread the wealth I guess........
davegran
Regular Member
Oops! I was somehow looking at the original AB69 dated March 30, 2011.... Sorry for the rantings of a confused old fart. Thanks to you and bmwguy11 for pushing my walker out of traffic....