-
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 is being voted on in assembly right now
- Thread starter bmwguy11
- Start date
amendment to watch
http://legis.wisconsin.gov/insession/insessiondocs/docs/AB69-ASA3-AA4.pdf
AA4
By young and coggs, democrats. They basically want to make it so that it removes your car from the bill.
http://legis.wisconsin.gov/insession/insessiondocs/docs/AB69-ASA3-AA4.pdf
AA4
By young and coggs, democrats. They basically want to make it so that it removes your car from the bill.
Last edited:
rep kessler complaining about why they are bringing up castle doctrine during the jobs session. also complaining about them allowing CCW permit holders to carry in the assembly gallery.
And ranting about how someone somewhere in some gallery shot someone during a voting session or something. apparently thinks that if they had a sign posted that it would have somehow stopped this. and now he's using the gonzales case as an argument too.
And ranting about how someone somewhere in some gallery shot someone during a voting session or something. apparently thinks that if they had a sign posted that it would have somehow stopped this. and now he's using the gonzales case as an argument too.
Outdoorsman1
Regular Member
While I was there today I stopped in my Reps. (Kerkman) office to talk to her about Castle Doctrine and to remind her about the E-mails I sent her with Floridas "Stand YOur Ground" law... She said she remembered them and will keep it in mind today....
Outdoorsman1
Outdoorsman1
Coggs: It would be unfortunate if some of our teens who decide to steal a car would get shot in the course of that action even though they are wrong, it's not right for someone to get shot over a car.
And no, I'm not making that sh*t up.
And no, I'm not making that sh*t up.
Last edited:
Rep Taylor complaining about castle doctrine during jobs session. Now saying that no member of the state bar can come up with a single case or instance where someone wasn't able to defend themselves without issue in the state of wisconsin, so the castle doctrine isn't necessary. Now complaining about how the bill would allow someone to kill another person just because that person broke into someone's home and that's wrong, as it provides no recourse for the "victim's families" (victim being the criminal). She has an amendment that she's trying to push that would allow families of these "victims" to sue for killing said criminal during their criminal act.
She now claims that in florida neighbors just shoot neighbors because of castle doctrine and it's all a big problem in florida blah blah blah.
She now claims that in florida neighbors just shoot neighbors because of castle doctrine and it's all a big problem in florida blah blah blah.
Brass Magnet
Founder's Club Member
Blow-hards.......
McNutty
Regular Member
I witnessed her comments as well. I think she's mentally ill.
Also, in Florida, neighbors are killing neighbors.
Brass Magnet
Founder's Club Member
Last edited:
E6chevron
Regular Member
That's great!
Tuesday morning, after the recess for Dem. and Rep. caucuses, they were predicting that AB69 would not be voted on until 10 or 11pm.
davegran
Regular Member
Not so great....
Not so great; they took out vehicle protection and didn't include Stand Your Ground.
No, vehicle protection was left in. They tabled the amendment by the democrats that removed "motor vehicle".
The bill AB69 with ASA3 was passed.
http://legis.wisconsin.gov/insession/insessiondocs/docs/AB69-ASA3.pdf
Use of force in response to unlawful and forcible entry into a
dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business; civil liability immunity.
Last edited:
I don't think I'm alone in saying...
...I'm not going to take a scumbags life over my truck unless they tried to use it as a weapon. If the situation allowed I would; possibly, place myself, pistol in hand, in a position that a law enforcement officer would take and try to stop the theft. But shoot, I don't think so. Just think of the mess. boar out.
...I'm not going to take a scumbags life over my truck unless they tried to use it as a weapon. If the situation allowed I would; possibly, place myself, pistol in hand, in a position that a law enforcement officer would take and try to stop the theft. But shoot, I don't think so. Just think of the mess. boar out.
If I'm in my car with my 2 year old strapped into the child seat, I will fire against someone who would attempt to steal my vehicle if I feared that they were going to take it and run with my 2 year old still in it, or if I feared for the life of me or my child.
Last edited:
Wolf1477
Regular Member
Darn skippy! Will I shoot at someone trying to get into my unoccupied truck? More than likely no, depending on other circumstances. But, if anyone is in the vehicle, you can bet your tail I'm going to do whatever is necessary to prevent it.
I'm not going to risk the lives/well being of my family and/or friends because some "poor, misunderstood carjacker" decides he/she/it needs my vehicle more than I do and decides to try to take it.