• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Pursuing AB69, Castle Doctrine

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
I have learned a lot just reading in here... A year ago I wrote down all what I knew about law-making on a peice of paper, but then I needed to send a peice of mail so I licked the peice of paper and put it in the upper right hand corner of the envelope and dropped it in the mailbox....

Outdoorsman1

haha!
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
And here it is.

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/AB69hst.html

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/AB-69.pdf is the original in committee.

So... to read the whole thing, one needs to read these documents:

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/AB69-ASA1.pdf is amended by http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/AB69-ASA1-AA1.pdf

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/AB69-ASA2.pdf is amended by http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/AB69-ASA2-AA1.pdf and http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/AB69-ASA2-AA2.pdf

Since this is in committee, none of these have been approved yet. So... read the appropriate paths, figure out which one you like and write your Representative and the committee members.

I have not read these as of yet so I am looking for input from the masses.

I believe the committee hearing is on the 18th (this Thursday).
 
Last edited:

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
And here it is.

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/AB69hst.html

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/AB-69.pdf is the original in committee.

So... to read the whole thing, one needs to read these documents:

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/AB69-ASA1.pdf is amended by http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/AB69-ASA1-AA1.pdf

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/AB69-AA2.pdf is amended by http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/AB69-ASA2-AA1.pdf and http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/AB69-ASA2-AA1.pdf

Since this is in committee, none of these have been approved yet. So... read the appropriate paths, figure out which one you like and write your Representative and the committee members.

I have not read these as of yet so I am looking for input from the masses.

I believe the committee hearing is on the 18th (this Thursday).


All I see is 2 Ammendments offered by a Dem. that would make the bill worse by deleting the following:

895.62 (5) In any civil action, if a court finds that a person is immune from civil liability under sub. (2), the court shall award the person reasonable attorney fees, costs, compensation for loss of income, and other costs of the litigation reasonably incurred by the person.



AB69-ASA3 still has not be released by the authors that would make the bill better.
 
Last edited:

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
The Legislators better hurry up and get this through.

Right now, people are receiving training based on our current self-defense laws.

And if a person unneccisarily hesitates because they did not know the changes that AB69 makes, that may hesitation cost them their life.

Even when AB69 passes, those that received training before it does, may not know the truth about self=defense laws, even though they got training.

This waiting is frustrating.

AB69 and SB93 should have went hand in hand, even if we had to wait a little longer to get SB93 passed. I am thinking of all the people that will be misinformed because they won't know the changes AB69 will make. I hope that is why the DOJ won't release CWL applications until Nov. 1, so that they can have all the information with it that AB69 makes when it passes.
 
Last edited:

davegran

Regular Member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
1,563
Location
Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wiscon
All I see is 2 Ammendments offered by a Dem. that would make the bill worse by deleting the following:
895.62 (5) In any civil action, if a court finds that a person is immune from civil liability under sub. (2), the court shall award the person reasonable attorney fees, costs, compensation for loss of income, and other costs of the litigation reasonably incurred by the person.

AB69-ASA3 still has not be released by the authors that would make the bill better.
We must be looking at different bills; the way I read his amendments they will remove the following language from page 4:
10and forcibly entering the actor's residence, the actor was present in the residence,
11and the actor knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was
12occurring.


8any of the following applies:
9 1. The person against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully

13 2. The person against whom the force was used was in the actor's residence
14after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the residence, and
And so page 4 would look like this after the amendments; I didn't renumber the lines so you can more easily follow what has been changed:
compensation for loss of income, and other costs of the litigation reasonably incurred
2by the person.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document?cite=proposaltext/2011/REG/AB69, s. 2 3Section 2. 939.48 (1m) of the statutes is created to read:
4 939.48 (1m) (a) If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely
5to cause death or great bodily harm, the court shall presume that the actor
6reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great
7bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim under sub. (1) and
15the actor knew or reasonably believed that the person had unlawfully and forcibly
16entered the residence.
17 (b) The presumption described in par. (a) does not apply if any of the following
18applies:
19 1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity or was using his or her residence
20to further a criminal activity at the time.
21 2. The person against whom the force was used was a peace officer who entered
22or attempted to enter the actor's residence in the performance of his or her official
23duties. This subdivision applies only if at least one of the following applies:
24 a. The officer identified himself or herself to the actor before the force described
25in par. (a) was used by the actor.
I used the printed version of AB69, not the PDF.
 
Last edited:

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
We must be looking at different bills; the way I read his amendments they will remove the following language from page 4:And so page 4 would look like this after the amendments; I didn't renumber the lines so you can more easily follow what has been changed:I used the printed version of AB69, not the PDF.

Don't forget, substitute amendments cause the original bill to be discarded. So, one would need to read substitute amendment 1 with it's proposed amendment and the substitute amendment 2 with it's 2 amendments to see what it actually says.
 

Outdoorsman1

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2011
Messages
1,249
Location
Silver Lake WI
What About Stand Your Ground...???????

I am still not seeing anything regarding “Stand Your Ground” in this Bill. All I see is it covers dwellings, vehicles, and places of business for the business owner. Is it too late to included Stand Your Ground as an amendment to this bill..?? Or... Will we have to deal with getting stand your ground in it own separate Bill..???

Either way…

This morning, I sent another an E-mail to my Rep. (Samantha Kerkman) with the Stand Your Ground question / recommendation with a cut and paste of Florida’s statute. I also mentioned the question of the “Open Carry” in a vehicle confusion that was asked of the AG (different thread)….

Finally I asked her when she plans on being at the Kenosha County Fair as I live real close and would like to stop in and say hello face to face. As she already knows I am an avid Open Carrier, I even asked the question… “I wonder if they will allow Open Carry at the fair…lol”

I will report any replies here....

Outdoorsman1
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
OK. Amendment 1 to substitute amendment 1 just removes the reimbursement of attorney fees if the defendant is found immune.

Same thing for amendment 2to substitute amendment 2.

So, that is the only thing new today.
 
Last edited:

bmwguy11

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
461
Location
wisconsin
And here it is.


So... to read the whole thing, one needs to read these documents:

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/AB69-ASA1.pdf is amended by http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/AB69-ASA1-AA1.pdf

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/AB69-ASA2.pdf is amended by http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/AB69-ASA2-AA1.pdf and http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/AB69-ASA2-AA2.pdf

Since this is in committee, none of these have been approved yet. So... read the appropriate paths, figure out which one you like and write your Representative and the committee members.

I have not read these as of yet so I am looking for input from the masses.

I believe the committee hearing is on the 18th (this Thursday).

For the first link, AB69-ASA1, the amendment from a democrat removes the line that states someone who is found immune from civil liability shall be awarded legal fees, etc, they incurred fighting the civil suit.


For the 2nd link, AB69-ASA2, the 1st amendment from a republican adds basically "no duty to retreat" clause in the 1st amendment. "the finder of fact may not consider whether
the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force" It's basically stand your ground, but is still only applied to home, car, business.

The 2nd amendment is the same as the democrat submitted to ASA1.
 
Last edited:

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
I'm hopelessly lost! I have no idea what AB69 looks like, might look like, or will look like! God I hate lawyer-speak! :banghead:

None of us know exactly until SB69-ASA3 is released. Then we will be able to see all the changes they have been working on.

It will take me a little while, but I will explain it all when I get back from a job interview.
 

Outdoorsman1

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2011
Messages
1,249
Location
Silver Lake WI
BROKENSPROKET said...

It will take me a little while, but I will explain it all when I get back from a job interview.

Good Luck on the job interview.. I hear it is brutal out there....

bmwguy11 said

It's basically stand your ground, but is still only applied to home, car, business.

Agreed, but we need real Stand Your Ground that applies to anywhere you (legally) happen to be....

Outdoorsman1
 

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
"No" on the public hearings being held. I don't know about SB79, since I don't remember any public hearing on that; but I know for a fact that the public hearing that was scheduled for AB69 was canceled.

You posted this on 7/10/11 and I am suprised I missed it.

You are mistaken. Public hearings were held on both. I watched them.

AB69 on 5/26/11 Watch it here: http://www.wiseye.org/videoplayer/vp.html?sid=5798
SB79 on 6/02/11 Watch it here: http://www.wiseye.org/videoplayer/vp.html?sid=5837
 
Top