JerryD
Regular Member
I believe we need a strong Castle Doctrine law to go along with whatever repeal or CCW bill that comes down the pike.
TX, I know FL has a "stand your ground" law, but I'm not familiar with it. I think AZ has a pretty decent one. From my [limited] knowledge, TX is still the best.What state has a well written castle doctrine that we could possibly use as a model for ours.
Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Call your legislator. Request them to bring legislation to repeal 941.23 and include the castle Doctrine in that legislation.
Lets keep the repeal of 941.23 as CLEAN as possible.
The problem with the legislative process in this country is there are too many complex bills introduced that don't allow a true up or down vote on an issue of principle, but instead complicate the issue and give people who support part of the bill reason to vote against it because they don't support ALL of the bill.
We need a CLEAN SIMPLE repeal of 941.23. Castle Doctrine is a complex issue that is VERY important, but lets not make the mistake of trying to marry it to a repeal of 941.23 and COMPLICATE the debate on the floor of the statehouse when a repeal of 941.23 comes up.
Lets keep the repeal of 941.23 as CLEAN as possible.
The problem with the legislative process in this country is there are too many complex bills introduced that don't allow a true up or down vote on an issue of principle, but instead complicate the issue and give people who support part of the bill reason to vote against it because they don't support ALL of the bill.
We need a CLEAN SIMPLE repeal of 941.23. Castle Doctrine is a complex issue that is VERY important, but lets not make the mistake of trying to marry it to a repeal of 941.23 and COMPLICATE the debate on the floor of the statehouse when a repeal of 941.23 comes up.
Here is the Federal Election Commission 2008 Campaign Guide for Nonconnected Committees, all 134 pages of it, digested law. http://www.fec.gov/pdf/nongui.pdf IncludingWe are never going to know if we don't try. WCI needs to kick into lobby mode before the NRA beats us too it with a new bill that comes complete with permits, fees and mandated training.
That's some of the federal law on lobbying, PACs and campaign financing. The Wisconsin Government Accountability Board - GAB (heh heh heh) - has GAB-510, 511, 513.FEC said:The reader is encour-aged also to consult the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (2 U.S.C. §431 et seq.), Commission regulations (Title 11 of the Code of Federal Regulations), Commission advisory opinions and applicable court decisions.
That's "castle doctrine" passed by a different Assembly than will next sit.Repeal 941.23
Resurrect THIS from the Senate committee it's dead in, having already been passed by the Assembly, and go for it.
Add DL sticker for those out of state who need something warm/fuzzy to make them feel safe from WI travellers[sic].