Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 38

Thread: *breaking news*

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Oshkosh, Wisconsin, United States
    Posts
    19

    *breaking news*

    Governor Walker to sign the Castle Doctrine Bill on Wednesday, Dec. 7th!!!!!

  2. #2
    Regular Member Sorcice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    382
    Quote Originally Posted by gomir View Post
    governor walker to sign the castle doctrine bill on wednesday, dec. 7th!!!!!
    woot!

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709
    Without stand your ground, it's barely worth the paper it's printed on. This isn't a BIG step at all, it's a very tiny one.

  4. #4
    McX
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Gomir View Post
    Governor Walker to sign the Castle Doctrine Bill on Wednesday, Dec. 7th!!!!!
    a day that will live in infamy, at least as far as the criminals are concerned.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, United States
    Posts
    49
    That's my birthday. Small or big it's a gift I like!

  6. #6
    Regular Member AaronS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,497
    Quote Originally Posted by bnhcomputing View Post
    Without stand your ground, it's barely worth the paper it's printed on. This isn't a BIG step at all, it's a very tiny one.
    I have to agree.
    Looks like we are going to get one more law that needs to be fixed, again. And once again we know this new law is broken before it ever even gets passed...

    Not so sure this bill makes a good gift, but Happy Birthday Mike!
    Last edited by AaronS; 11-30-2011 at 08:55 PM. Reason: Wish Mike a happy B-day.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    West Bend, WI
    Posts
    308
    Is it left open for Permit #1 Van Hollen to interpret? If it is, it could go either way.....
    You can speak softy and carry a big stick, but I'll stick to my guns.

    Member - Wisconsin Carry, Inc. http://ww.wisconsincarry.org
    Member of West Bend Barton Sportsman's Club - http://www.wbbsc.com

  8. #8
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by bnhcomputing View Post
    Without stand your ground, it's barely worth the paper it's printed on. This isn't a BIG step at all, it's a very tiny one.
    You really can't believe that. This is a BIG game changer for those who have to use deadly force in thier dwelling, business or vehicle. Granted, it didn't go as faw as we needed it to this time, those that have gone bankrupt to defend themselves in criminal court, and/or been sued by the perp or thier family, would find your statement very contemptuous.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Lurchiron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Shawano,WI.
    Posts
    1,011
    Quote Originally Posted by McX View Post
    a day that will live in infamy, at least as far as the criminals are concerned.
    "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." (Yamamoto 1941)

    Attachment 7508 "Damn right" (Lurch 2011)


    I feel better now ...
    Bale da Hay

    "Have you Spanked a leftist today; it's the Right thing to do!!!"


    Within the gates before a man shall go,
    (Fully warily let him watch,)
    Full long let him look about him;
    For little he knows where a foe may lurk,
    And sit in the seats within.

    Havamal (Bellows translation)

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Without stand your ground, it's barely worth the paper it's printed on.

    Quote Originally Posted by bnhcomputing View Post
    Without stand your ground, it's barely worth the paper it's printed on. This isn't a BIG step at all, it's a very tiny one.
    I agree,
    Wasn't it Lena Taylor who fought hard to keep the "anywhere you are legally able to be" clause out? I guess she doesn't want people to defend themselves against her band of crooks.

  11. #11
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Nutczak View Post
    I agree,
    Wasn't it Lena Taylor who fought hard to keep the "anywhere you are legally able to be" clause out? I guess she doesn't want people to defend themselves against her band of crooks.
    Stand Your Ground was never introduced, so she did not have to fight to keep it out, because it was never in. All that discussion happened between legislators, so we can only speculate what happened.

  12. #12
    Regular Member jpm84092's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,068
    NRA has a press release on AB69. The press release says the bill includes "no duty to retreat" which is the often the same as "stand your ground".

    My question: Which is correct; NRA Press Release or previous post expressing disappointment in not having "stand your ground" language?

    Link: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=7187

    Question answered: I got a copy of the Bill and the "no duty to retreat" is limited to the home, business, or vehicle and thus is not really a "stand your ground" law in the sense that I typically use when teaching. The next step then is to get legislation that includes "stand your ground in and on any place you have a lawful right to be".
    Last edited by jpm84092; 12-01-2011 at 04:21 PM.
    My cats support the Second Amendment. NRA Life Member, NRA Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, & Personal Protection - NRA Certified Range Safety Officer, Utah BCI Certified Concealed Firearm Permit Instructor.
    "Permission Slips" from Utah, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Arizona, and Florida. _ Verily, thou shalt not fiddle with thine firearm whilst in the bathroom stall, lest thine spouse seek condolences from thine friends.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by jpm84092 View Post
    NRA has a press release on AB69. The press release says the bill includes "no duty to retreat" which is the often the same as "stand your ground".

    My question: Which is correct; NRA Press Release or previous post expressing disappointment in not having "stand your ground" language?

    Link: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=7187

    Question answered: I got a copy of the Bill and the "no duty to retreat" is limited to the home, business, or vehicle and thus is not really a "stand your ground" law in the sense that I typically use when teaching. The next step then is to get legislation that includes "stand your ground in and on any place you have a lawful right to be".
    I was wondering the same thing. While not perfect I see this as a very good step. If I'm in my home, business OR vehicle, I don't have to run, I can meet force with force and can't be sued for it or "hope" I don't get charged. Thanks Gov Walker.

  14. #14
    Regular Member davegran's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,565

    Post The broad meaning of "Dwelling"

    Quote Originally Posted by svelectric View Post
    I was wondering the same thing. While not perfect I see this as a very good step. If I'm in my home, business OR vehicle, I don't have to run, I can meet force with force and can't be sued for it or "hope" I don't get charged. Thanks Gov Walker.
    Not only "in your home", but in your "Dwelling".
    895.62 (2) Except as provided in sub. (4), an actor is immune
    from civil liability arising out of his or her use of force
    that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily
    harm if the actor reasonably believed that the force was
    necessary to prevent imminent death or bodily harm to
    himself or herself or to another person and either of the
    following applies:
    (a) The person against whom the force was used was
    in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering the
    actor’s dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, the
    actor was on his or her property or present in the dwelling,
    motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew
    or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible
    entry was occurring.
    895.62(b) “Dwelling” has the meaning given in s. 895.07 (1)(h).
    895.07 (1)(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.
    My driveway happens to be 900 feet long.... So if my wife walks out to the mailbox and somebody attacks her, she can pull out her concealed weapon and defend herself with immunity. That is close to "Stand Your Ground".
    Last edited by davegran; 12-01-2011 at 09:05 PM. Reason: Driveway Measurement
    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.

  15. #15
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by svelectric View Post
    I was wondering the same thing. While not perfect I see this as a very good step. If I'm in my home, business OR vehicle, I don't have to run, I can meet force with force and can't be sued for it or "hope" I don't get charged. Thanks Gov Walker.
    I aggree with you, but Hubert Hoffman says that AB69 is barely worth the paper its printed on.

  16. #16
    Regular Member detroit_fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Monroe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    Quote Originally Posted by jpm84092 View Post
    NRA has a press release on AB69. The press release says the bill includes "no duty to retreat" which is the often the same as "stand your ground".

    My question: Which is correct; NRA Press Release or previous post expressing disappointment in not having "stand your ground" language?

    Link: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=7187

    Question answered: I got a copy of the Bill and the "no duty to retreat" is limited to the home, business, or vehicle and thus is not really a "stand your ground" law in the sense that I typically use when teaching. The next step then is to get legislation that includes "stand your ground in and on any place you have a lawful right to be".
    It is a step in the right direction, but if they would have just changed "home, business, or vehicle" to "anywhere you have a legal right to be" it would be a much better bill. Our law in MI reads like this-

    780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.

    Sec. 2.

    (1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:

    (a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

    (b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.

    (2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.
    Last edited by detroit_fan; 12-01-2011 at 06:48 PM.

  17. #17
    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 detroit_fan View Post
    It is a step in the right direction, but if they would have just changed "home, business, or vehicle" to "anywhere you have a legal right to be" it would be a much better bill. Our law in MI reads like this-

    780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.

    Sec. 2.

    (1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:

    (a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

    (b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.

    (2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.
    Do you have immunity from civil suits?
    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.

  18. #18
    Opt-Out Members scm54449's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Marshfield, WI
    Posts
    221
    Quote Originally Posted by davegran View Post
    Not only "in your home", but in your "Dwelling".My driveway happens to be 700 feet long.... So if my wife walks out to the mailbox and somebody attacks her, she can pull out her concealed weapon and defend herself with immunity. That is close to "Stand Your Ground".
    I am struggling with the language in 895.62 (2) which states, "The person against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering the actor’s dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business", and "the actor knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring." How does a "forcible entry" occur if someone approaches you on your property and verbally states their desire to turn your brains into something to be flushed down the drain at the local meat market? While the definition of "dwelling" in 895.7(1)(h) provides a liberal definition of "dwelling", the wording of 895.62 speaks of unlawfully and forcibly entering a dwelling, vehicle, or place of business. I don't see anything remotely resembling "stand your ground" here but I am happy to gain knowledge from opinions of others who are better versed in the law than I am.
    Member of Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
    Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultus habebunt...

  19. #19
    Regular Member detroit_fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Monroe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    Quote Originally Posted by davegran View Post
    Do you have immunity from civil suits?
    Yes we do.-

    PA 314 states that a person who defends himself (or in defense of another individual) with deadly force or less than deadly force anywhere he has a right to be is immune from civil liability for damages.


    PA 312 provides attorney fees to a defendant if a civil suit is filed and the court determines that the defendant is immune from civil liability under PA 314.

  20. #20
    Opt-Out Members scm54449's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Marshfield, WI
    Posts
    221
    Quote Originally Posted by detroit_fan View Post
    Yes we do.- PA 314 states that a person who defends himself (or in defense of another individual) with deadly force or less than deadly force anywhere he has a right to be is immune from civil liability for damages. PA 312 provides attorney fees to a defendant if a civil suit is filed and the court determines that the defendant is immune from civil liability under PA 314.
    Unfortunately, you have posted in the Wisconsin forum. For better or worse, Michigan law is not the "law of the land" in Wisconsin.
    Member of Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
    Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultus habebunt...

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by BROKENSPROKET View Post
    I aggree with you, but Hubert Hoffman says that AB69 is barely worth the paper its printed on.
    I agree with Brokensproket and others that this is a big improvement over prior self defense law in WI.

  22. #22
    Regular Member johnny amish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    High altitude of Vernon County, ,
    Posts
    1,025
    Quote Originally Posted by bnhcomputing View Post
    Without stand your ground, it's barely worth the paper it's printed on. This isn't a BIG step at all, it's a very tiny one.
    I could not agree more. With that being said it 235 years to get in this country where we are at today, it will probably take that and then some to get back to a nation that cherish liberties and freedom.
    Last edited by johnny amish; 12-01-2011 at 11:19 PM.
    "To sin by silence, when we should protest makes cowards out of men."
    Ella Wheeler Cox


    We must contact our lawmakers today, tomorrow and the next day to remind them of Constitutional Carry.
    Laws are not written because of the actions of many, they are wrtiten because of the inactions of many.

  23. #23
    Regular Member detroit_fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Monroe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    Quote Originally Posted by scm54449 View Post
    Unfortunately, you have posted in the Wisconsin forum. For better or worse, Michigan law is not the "law of the land" in Wisconsin.
    I was replying to davegran asking if Michigan residents had civil immunity. When I said "we" I was referring to MI residents, sorry if I was not clear.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    There was no duty to retreat before this new law.............

    So, they changed what now?

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    Nutczac: I agree. There never has been a statute that requires that a person retreat from danger. The closest any come is the statement in the defense of self or others statute that implies that the minimum force required to defuse the situation should be used. That statement is of course subjective. The only thing that specific "stand your ground" language in AB69 would have brought to the table is not needing to prove we or a third party was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. There would be a presumption of innocense.

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
  •