• 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

davegran

Regular Member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
1,563
Location
Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wiscon
It took me several days to research and compose this letter to the Judiciary and Ethics Committee Members, who are working on AB69. I tried to cite successful legislation from other states that could be incorporated into the framework of AB69 to result in a strong Castle Doctrine with a good Stand Your Ground provision and an additional section to give us the latitude to draw our weapon without firing if that was the best option at the time and not be charged with brandishing or DC. Here it is:

Dear Judiciary and Ethics Committee Members,

I am 68 years old and a life-long resident of the great state of Wisconsin. Over the years I have witnessed the growing problems with violence and crime in our state. Because of this, I strongly believe it is essential that the people of Wisconsin are legally able to defend themselves and their families under the Constitution of Wisconsin. I am very pleased to see the passage of SB-93, the Concealed Carry bill.

Furthermore, I am totally in favor of the swift passage of AB-69, the Castle Doctrine bill, which I believe to be an important companion bill to SB-93. As we continue to Open Carry and eventually start to Conceal Carry, we very much need good protection from frivolous law suits by criminals or their families. The news stories
in other states of law breakers actually profiting in civil suits arising from their crimes need to be absent in Wisconsin, so thank you for your hard work on this important bill.

The bill already has some good provisions, but many of Wisconsin's law-abiding citizens think it is crucial to include a "stand your ground" section in AB69, much like Florida's Statute Section 776.013:

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif] [SIZE=-1]"(3) [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."[/SIZE]
[/FONT]
In addition, AB-69 needs some language that would allow us to use non-deadly force without penalty for the purpose of preventing an assault; a "safety valve", if you will, for use in a confrontation or attack that allows less than deadly force without being charged with a crime. To allow a citizen to draw their weapon for the purpose of discouraging an attacker. New Hampshire has such language in their recently amended Stand Your Ground law. From http://www.nhliberty.org/bills/view/2011/SB88

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]"TITLE LXII
[/FONT] [FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
NH CRIMINAL CODE
CHAPTER 627
JUSTIFICATION

627:4 Physical Force in Defense of a Person. –

I. A person is justified in using non-deadly force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful, non-deadly force by such other person, and he may use a degree of such force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose. However, such force is not justifiable if:
(a) With a purpose to cause physical harm to another person, he provoked the use of unlawful, non-deadly force by such other person; or
(b) He was the initial aggressor, unless after such aggression he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so, but the latter notwithstanding continues the use or threat of unlawful, non-deadly force; or
(c) The force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not authorized by law."

[/FONT] [FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]"Definitions:[/FONT][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
IV. “Non-deadly force” means any assault or confinement which does not constitute deadly force. The act of producing or displaying a weapon shall constitute non-deadly force."[/FONT]


Thank you very much for taking the time to study and understand my concerns; I sincerely hope that this bill with the additions that I mentioned will soon become law.
With SB-93 and AB-69 in place, Wisconsin will become one of the leaders of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in the United States with model legislation for both honoring her citizen's Constitutional Rights and for allowing them to legally protect themselves and their loved ones from harm.

Sincerely,
I also copied the author of AB69, Rep. Kaufert. We did so damn well in maintaining pressure on our legislators about SB93 that I'm hoping we can do the same thing with this bill.

We didn't get all we wanted but by God we sure got their attention and just about had our way until we were double-crossed at the end by you-know-who.... Let's not let that discourage us, but instead stimulate us to even more action and more pressure than before! We need this bill to protect us from the blowback of defending ourselves and our loved ones. Let's fight for it!

By Oleg Volk
118d25d.jpg

 

jpm84092

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Messages
1,066
Location
Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
Some Modifications

The Castle Doctrine Bill could use some additional modifications to be more like the Utah Castle Doctrine Law.

1) Castle Doctrine extends to your motor vehicle. A person can carry a firearm, loaded or unloaded, open or concealed, without need of a Concealed Firearm Permit. A person attempting to enter said occupied motor vehicle without permission is assumed to do so for the purpose of commission of a forcible felony (to rape, pillage or plunder) and deadly force is justified to prevent such criminal activity (occupied vehicles only).

2) A person who enters a residence, or attempts to enter a residence, in a violent or surreptitious manner, is assumed to be in said home for the purpose of a forcible felony (translation: He/She is there to commit bodily harm to you and all of your family and/or rape, pillage, and plunder) and the use of deadly force is justified to prevent such forcible felony.

3) A residence is where you commence life's activities. Thus, it may be a home, apartment, condominium, RV, tent, or even a cardboard box if that is where you sleep at night.
 

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
Just ot recap:
AB69 is the Assembly bill.
SB79 in the Senate bill.
They are companions.
Public Hearings were already held on both.
Next is the Executive Session in the Judiciary Committee of each House.

WE have to watch the Leg. Committee Schedule for when the Assembly and Senate Judiciary Committees will hold Executive Sessions on each bill. All ammendments that improve the bill will be passed in the Executive Session of each committee and they have been working on the ammendments to better craft it. When they hit the floor of each house, they will go throught the motion of tabling all Anti-Self Defense ammendments to pass it from the Assembly and the Senate.
 

ksks

Regular Member
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
112
Location
wi
1. in any other place where he or she has a right to be
2. A person who enters a residence, or attempts to enter a residence, in a violent or surreptitious manner, is assumed to be in said home for the purpose of a forcible felony (translation: He/She is there to commit bodily harm to you and all of your family and/or rape, pillage, and plunder) and the use of deadly force is justified to prevent such forcible felony.

Couldn't agree more. Both of these are critical.

Good job Dave. Thanks for your work.
 

davegran

Regular Member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
1,563
Location
Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wiscon
Just ot recap:
AB69 is the Assembly bill.
SB79 in the Senate bill.
They are companions.
Public Hearings were already held on both.
....
"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. It is still in the Committee on Judiciary and Ethics. In fact I just got the first answer from my letter to all the members of the committee:
Mr. XXX,

Thank you for your message, however, any suggestions for changes to AB 69 need to be directed to the bill's author, Representative Kaufert.

Sincerely,

Ginger Mueller
Committee Clerk
Office of Representative Jim Ott
That's o.k., since I sent Rep. Kaufert a copy also. He has also added some amendments to the original. My one, insignificant voice won't do anything; but if you all join in the fight for AB69 and SB79, we'll get some results. :monkey
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
Received this from a source:

Assembly Bill 69 - https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/proposals/ab69Assembly
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Committee on Judiciary and Ethics
The committee will hold an executive session on the following items at the time specified below:
Thursday, August 4, 2011
11:01 AM
417 North (GAR Hall)
State Capitol

Assembly Bill 69
Relating to: the privilege of self-defense.
By Representatives Kaufert, Mursau, Jacque, LeMahieu, Ziegelbauer, Nass, Kerkman, Williams, Spanbauer, Petryk, Knodl, Petrowski, Kestell, Steineke, August, Litjens, A. Ott, Danou, Tauchen, Krug, Strachota, Ripp, Honadel, Farrow, Thiesfeldt, Van Roy and Ballweg; cosponsored by Senators Wanggaard, Leibham, Holperin, Lazich, Cowles, Olsen, Vukmir, Grothman, Hansen, Galloway, Darling, Harsdorf, Hopper, Taylor and Moulton.
Representative Jim Ott

Chair

Let's let the members know what we want.
 

Outdoorsman1

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2011
Messages
1,249
Location
Silver Lake WI
I am curious...

I am curious as to the part of...

To allow a citizen to draw their weapon for the purpose of discouraging an attacker.

I do understand the concept, but my firearm stay's in it's holster unless I intend to use it.

If "I HAVE A GUN" and / or " STOP OR I WILL SHOOT" does not do it, then I can't say I did not warn them... that is if there is even time for a verbal warning... if not, well then I guess they get NO warning....

Just Sayin....

Outdoorsman1
 
Last edited:

SkunkHunter

New member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
5
Location
, ,
Better hope this gets passed quickly. There's no telling if the Republicans will still be in charge after the recall elections. IMO, the unions are pretty well organized and they are likely to knock off a few Republicans. Regardless of the outcome, they will definitely go after Walker as soon as his first year is up.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
Better hope this gets passed quickly. There's no telling if the Republicans will still be in charge after the recall elections. IMO, the unions are pretty well organized and they are likely to knock off a few Republicans. Regardless of the outcome, they will definitely go after Walker as soon as his first year is up.

My prediction is that we come out of the recalls with the same balance of power and that there will NOT be a recall election for Walker. They may try to get signatures but will fall short.
 

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
My prediction is that we come out of the recalls with the same balance of power and that there will NOT be a recall election for Walker. They may try to get signatures but will fall short.

I want your prediction to be right, but I have heard some conservative analysts say that IF they maintain momentum, Walker WILL face a recall election.
 
Last edited:

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
I saw a few days ago that AB69 is scheduled for an Exective Session, but SB79 is not yet. Maybe the Senate plans on taking AB69 after it passes the Assembly and letting SB79 die in committee.
 

davegran

Regular Member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
1,563
Location
Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wiscon
I am curious as to the part of...

To allow a citizen to draw their weapon for the purpose of discouraging an attacker.

I do understand the concept, but my firearm stay's in it's holster unless I intend to use it.

If "I HAVE A GUN" and / or " STOP OR I WILL SHOOT" does not do it, then I can't say I did not warn them... that is if there is even time for a verbal warning... if not, well then I guess they get NO warning....

Just Sayin....

Outdoorsman1
According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2000, Bureau of Justice Statistics,
Every day, 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes are prevented just by showing a gun. In less than 0.9% of these instances is the gun ever actually fired.
If you are carrying concealed, how are you going to convince the bad guy that you are really carrying and not just bluffing?
 

davegran

Regular Member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
1,563
Location
Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wiscon
Received this from a source:

Assembly Bill 69 - https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/proposals/ab69Assembly
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Committee on Judiciary and Ethics
The committee will hold an executive session on the following items at the time specified below:
Thursday, August 4, 2011
11:01 AM
417 North (GAR Hall)
State Capitol

Assembly Bill 69
Relating to: the privilege of self-defense.
By Representatives Kaufert, Mursau, Jacque, LeMahieu, Ziegelbauer, Nass, Kerkman, Williams, Spanbauer, Petryk, Knodl, Petrowski, Kestell, Steineke, August, Litjens, A. Ott, Danou, Tauchen, Krug, Strachota, Ripp, Honadel, Farrow, Thiesfeldt, Van Roy and Ballweg; cosponsored by Senators Wanggaard, Leibham, Holperin, Lazich, Cowles, Olsen, Vukmir, Grothman, Hansen, Galloway, Darling, Harsdorf, Hopper, Taylor and Moulton.
Representative Jim Ott

Chair

Let's let the members know what we want.
I sent this letter to all the members earlier this month:
Dear Judiciary and Ethics Committee Members,

I am 68 years old and a life-long resident of the great state of Wisconsin. Over the years I have witnessed the growing problems with violence and crime in our state. Because of this, I strongly believe it is essential that the people of Wisconsin are legally able to defend themselves and their families under the Constitution of Wisconsin. I am very pleased to see the passage of SB-93, the Concealed Carry bill.

Furthermore, I am totally in favor of the swift passage of AB-69, the Castle Doctrine bill, which I believe to be an important companion bill to SB-93. As we continue to Open Carry and eventually start to Conceal Carry, we very much need good protection from frivolous law suits by criminals or their families. The news stories
in other states of law breakers actually profiting in civil suits arising from their crimes need to be absent in Wisconsin, so thank you for your hard work on this important bill.

The bill already has some good provisions, but many of Wisconsin's law-abiding citizens think it is crucial to include a "stand your ground" section in AB69, much like Florida's Statute Section 776.013:

[SIZE=-1]"(3) [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."[/SIZE]

In addition, AB-69 needs some language that would allow us to use non-deadly force without penalty for the purpose of preventing an assault; a "safety valve", if you will, for use in a confrontation or attack that allows less than deadly force without being charged with a crime. To allow a citizen to draw their weapon for the purpose of discouraging an attacker. New Hampshire has such language in their recently amended Stand Your Ground law. From http://www.nhliberty.org/bills/view/2011/SB88

"TITLE LXII

NH CRIMINAL CODE
CHAPTER 627
JUSTIFICATION

627:4 Physical Force in Defense of a Person. –

I. A person is justified in using non-deadly force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful, non-deadly force by such other person, and he may use a degree of such force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose. However, such force is not justifiable if:
(a) With a purpose to cause physical harm to another person, he provoked the use of unlawful, non-deadly force by such other person; or
(b) He was the initial aggressor, unless after such aggression he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so, but the latter notwithstanding continues the use or threat of unlawful, non-deadly force; or
(c) The force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not authorized by law."


"Definitions:
IV. “Non-deadly force” means any assault or confinement which does not constitute deadly force. The act of producing or displaying a weapon shall constitute non-deadly force."


Thank you very much for taking the time to study and understand my concerns; I sincerely hope that this bill with the additions that I mentioned will soon become law.
With SB-93 and AB-69 in place, Wisconsin will become one of the leaders of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in the United States with model legislation for both honoring her citizen's Constitutional Rights and for allowing them to legally protect themselves and their loved ones from harm.

Sincerely,
and this is representative of the type of answer I got:
Mr. -----------,


Thank you for your message, however, any suggestions for changes to AB 69 need to be directed to the bill's author, Representative Kaufert.

Sincerely,

Ginger Mueller
Committee Clerk
Office of Representative Jim Ott
 
Last edited:

Outdoorsman1

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2011
Messages
1,249
Location
Silver Lake WI
According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2000, Bureau of Justice Statistics, If you are carrying concealed, how are you going to convince the bad guy that you are really carrying and not just bluffing?

As stated in other threads... I am an open carrier and plan on being a open carrier after I get the permit for the school zone thing....that being said....

I would have absolutley no concern if the BG thought I was bluffing or chose to belive me... That would be HIS choice and would find out real fast if he had made the correct decision or not.... His problem not mine...

I guess it boils down to the concept that the firearm stays in the holster unless it is going to be used.... A concept that I happen to agree with...

Outdoorsman1
 
Last edited:

Outdoorsman1

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2011
Messages
1,249
Location
Silver Lake WI
As stated in other threads... I am an open carrier and plan on being a open carrier after I get the permit for the school zone thing....that being said....

I would have absolutley no concern if the BG thought I was bluffing or chose to belive me... That would be HIS choice and would find out real fast if he had made the correct decision or not.... His problem not mine...

I guess it boils down to the concept that the firearm stays in the holster unless it is going to be used.... A concept that I happen to agree with...

Outdoorsman1

After thinking about this overnight, I realized I was basing my opinion as a true "Open Carrier" with an automatic assumption that the firearm would be holstered on my hip (as it is in public) and that IN PUBLIC, I adhere to my conviction of the firearm not leaving the holster unless I have already made the decision to use it. Home defense is a different matter. As I sleep with my pistol on the nightstand and my 12 GA. close by, obviously I would not have the firearm holstered when approaching an intruder... or if the intrusion happened while my firearm was holstered (open carry around the house every day), I would expect to be able to draw the firearm while investigating the intrusion.. So it is for these reasons that I would agree to be able to draw a weapon should be included in the "Castle Doctrine" Bill....

Outdoorsman1
 

davegran

Regular Member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
1,563
Location
Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wiscon
We need a provision to allow showing or drawing the weapon without penalty

In his well-regarded, ground-breaking book, IN THE GRAVEST EXTREME: The Role of the Firearm in Personal Protection, Masaad Ayoob relates how in several confrontations with bad guys, just uncovering his weapon without drawing it was the deal-changer for the punks. A few years ago we had the situation where a [STRIKE]Milwaukee[/STRIKE] Racine bicyclist was being attacked by four hoodlums until he drew his weapon and yelled, "Gun!"

If, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in the 99 out of 100 cases of stopping an attack with a gun when the gun isn't fired, we need some kind of protection against nuisance arrests for brandishing (yes, I know that "Brandishing" doesn't appear in the statutes, but it sounds better than the tabloid-inspired, "Waving a gun around...")
.
 
Last edited:

Outdoorsman1

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2011
Messages
1,249
Location
Silver Lake WI
In his well-regarded, ground-breaking book, IN THE GRAVEST EXTREME: The Role of the Firearm in Personal Protection, Masaad Ayoob relates how in several confrontations with bad guys, just uncovering his weapon without drawing it was the deal-changer for the punks. A few years ago we had the situation where a Milwaukee bicyclist was being attacked by four hoodlums until he drew his weapon and yelled, "Gun!"

If, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in the 99 out of 100 cases of stopping an attack with a gun when the gun isn't fired, we need some kind of protection against nuisance arrests for brandishing (yes, I know that "Brandishing" doesn't appear in the statutes, but it sounds better than the tabloid-inspired, "Waving a gun around...")
.

I could be wrong but I think maybe the bicyclist was n Racine...?????

E.T.A. - Quick search = http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2009/05/10/armed-bicycle-rider-defends-self-against-multiple-attackers/

Simply "uncovering" a firearm to "inform" someone that you are armed, is different than actuall drawing the firearm from the holster... but hey... at least after re-thinking my origianl position, I am now agreeing with what you say...

Outdoorsman1
 
Last edited:

Outdoorsman1

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2011
Messages
1,249
Location
Silver Lake WI
I remember that. He wasn't charged at the time which was a nice outcome for the guy but we'll see if is charged or not.

Yep, I reember it too. Born and raised in Racine... Was living there when it happend. Thats how come I knew it happend there.

Not living there anymore...

Outdoorsman
 
Top