Pursuing AB69, Castle Doctrine

[BROKENSPROKET]

History of AB69

I am not getting into to specifics of the bill, ammendments or substitute ammendments, just an basic overview and interpretation.

To start out with, a short lesson for those who may not understand this yet.

When a bill is introduced, it is assigned a number in the order it was introduced. If it is introduced by a Representative in the Assembly, it starts with “AB” for Assembly Bill and when it is introduced by a Senator from the Senate, it starts with ‘SB’ for Senate Bill.

When an amendment is offered to a bill, it is assigned a number numerically in the order it was offered, similar the way bills are assigned numbers.

An amendment offered to an Assembly Bill or AB, is called and “Assembly Amendment” or AA. So the first amendment offered to the 69th Assembly bill offered would look like AB69-AA1. The second amendment offered would be AA2 to AB69, or AB69-AA2.

The system is the same for a Senate Bill, or SB, and an amendment is called “Senate Amendment” or SA. So the first Senate Amendment offered to a Senate Bill like SB79 would be SA1 to SB79 or SB79-SA1.

Sometimes, rather than offering an “Amendment” which would amend the language of the “Bill”, the author of the bill may offer a “Substitute Amendment” which replaces or substitutes all the language of the original or preceding bill for the language in the Substitute Amendment.

The first “Assembly Substitute Amendment” to AB69, or ASA1 to AB69, would look like AB69-ASA1. Essentially, AB69-ASA1 replaces the original AB69.

The same goes for the Senate. The first “Senate Substitute Amendment” or SSA1 to SB79, would look like SB79-SSA1. Essentially, SB79-SSA1 replaces the original SB79.

In committee, all ‘Amendments’ and ‘Substitute Amendment’s must be given a motion and seconded to be read and voted on. If there is no motion and a second, the ‘Amendment’ or ‘Substitute Amendment’, is dead in committee. And there has been no Executive Session on AB69 as of yet, so no ‘Amendment’ or ‘Substitute Amendment’ have been acted on. And several of them won’t be, and I will get to that.

Now lets look at the History of AB69

AB69 was introduced by Rep. Kaufert on 3/30/11

The Public Hearing for AB69 was on 5/26/11. Watch it here: http://www.wiseye.org/videoplayer/vp.html?sid=5798

As a separate point of interest, the Senate version, SB79 had its Public Hearing on 6/2/11. Watch it here: http://www.wiseye.org/videoplayer/vp.html?sid=5837. SB79 has had no action on it since so I assume they will just be taking AB69 after it passes the Assembly.

On 6/3/11, Rep. Kaufert offered AB69-AA1 and AB69-AA2.

On 6/7/11, four days later, Rep. Kaufert offered AB69-ASA1. (Since this is a Substitute Amendment, I assume that his two previous amendments SB69-AA1 and AB69-AA2 are dead and those changes are included in AB69-ASA1 instead.)

The very next day, on 6/8/11, Rep. Kaufert offered AB69-ASA2. This tells me he made more siginicant changes and AB69-ASA1 is now dead.

An Executive Session on AB69 was scheduled for 6/9/11 by the Assembly Committee on Judiciary and Ethics after the Public Hearings on AB106, AB109 and AB156.

On 6/9/11, the Executive Session on AB69 of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary and Ethics was canceled at the very last minute by request of the author, Rep. Kaufert, to paraphrase Rep. J.Ott, “to make sure we are particularly on point with what we want to accomplish with this bill.”

The next Executive Session on AB69 for the Assembly Committee on Judiciary and Ethics that was scheduled for 8/4/11 was rescheduled to 8/18/11 to make some or all of the changes all our phones calls, emails, letters and personal conversations asked for. Word from Rep. Kerkman’s office is that that the word ‘privelage’ in the title of the bill is being changed to ‘right’ and ‘Stand Your Ground’ is being included and I assume that AB69-ASA2 is dead and all these changes will wrapped up in AB69-ASA3.

On 8/2/11, Rep. Craig, offered and Assembly Ammendment to AB69-ASA2-AA1. I sure hope they include this amendment in AB69-ASA3.

On 8/15/11, Rep. Hebl offered the first anti-self-defense amendment. He actually offered two, but each are the same to cover both AB69-ASA1 and AB69-ASA2. So, he offered AB69-ASA1-AA1 and AB69-ASA2-AA2.

That is all at this moment. I am awaiting Rep. Kaufert to offer AB69-ASA3 with everything we want in it.

I imagine Rep. Hebl will again offer his amendment as AB69-ASA3-AA1.

That is my take on it all.

 

[davegran]

I am not getting into to specifics of the bill, ammendments or substitute ammendments, just an basic overview and interpretation.

....

That is my take on it all.

Thanks for the very clear explanation, BROKENSPROKET.

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

OK, ASA3 (Assembly Substitute Amendment) has been released. Once again, I haven't read it.

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/AB69-ASA3.pdf

 

[protias]

OK, ASA3 (Assembly Substitute Amendment) has been released. Once again, I haven't read it.

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/AB69-ASA3.pdf

I did a quick search through it and there is no stand your ground language or protection while on foot. It looks like it only protects you in your home, business, and car.

 

[EXTREMEOPS1]

I hope you loaded open carry in your own house

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

Loaded open carry in your own house is the way to go not just open carrying unless its illegal in your state?

 

[protias]

Loaded open carry in your own house is the way to go not just open carrying unless its illegal in your state?

This is WI, not Commiefornia or ILLinois. We carry loaded here.

 

[protias]

I'm trying to understand this text better:

1. The officer identified himself or herself to the actor before the force described
in sub. (2) was used by the actor.
2. The actor knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering
or attempting to enter his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business was a
peace officer.

So if the person yells out "police" or breaks in wearing a police uniform, how are we to truly know if that person is a police officer or not?

 

[rcawdor57]

You Won't Know Until It Is Too Late...Either It IS A P.O. Or It Is A Home Invader....

I'm trying to understand this text better:



So if the person yells out "police" or breaks in wearing a police uniform, how are we to truly know if that person is a police officer or not?

You won't know until it is too late. This exact scenario plays out every day across the U.S. and many people are hurt, robbed and dead because the people yelling "police" as they kicked in the door were not the "police".

The best way to deal with this scenario is for the police across the entire U.S. to stop their "No Knock Warrants" in the middle of the night and do their homework BEFORE kicking in the wrong door.

 

[Outdoorsman1]

Loaded open carry in your own house is the way to go not just open carrying unless its illegal in your state?

Being legal in WI. I do carry (fully) loaded (12+1) around the house, around the yard, anywhere and anytime it is legal... and as far as open carry, that legal thing covers a lot (not all) of areas in WI...

Outdoorsman1

PS: I used to think that WI. unload, case, uncase, load law for vehicle carry was about the stupidest law I ever heard of until I read somewhere that CA. only allows UNLOADED open carry...( I could be wrong on that as I have not studied much on CA. law.)..

 

[davegran]

Business as usual - screwed again....

I don't need an interpreter to see that there is no Stand Your Ground language in this amendment. So we're screwed again! I thought Rep. Kaufert was supposed to be on the side of our natural rights and all the protection that they guaranteed us. This piece of cr@p is what took two weeks to come up with? I hope you guys in his district are going to give him an earfull; I am certainly going to make my "displeasure" known to him and all the members of the Judicial Committee (You'll notice I left "Ethics" off the name of the committee because there's no ethics present there....).

 

[BROKENSPROKET]

Well, let's take this, just like we did with SB93 and we will keep working on our legislators. I for the life of me cannot comprehend that we had to wait two and a half months longer to get this 'half-measure'.

I suppose they cannot cut the criminal defense attorneys for 'victimns' off cold turkey. :sacrasm: :banghead:

This one should have been considerably easier for them to understand than Constitutional Carry.

 

[Outdoorsman1]

I just sent basically a WTF and :banghead: :banghead: E-mail to my Rep.

And

davegran
Business as usual - screwed again....

I TOTALLY agree... It is becoming painfully obvious that no matter how many E-mails are sent, and contacts made so OUR voice can be heard... the message falls on deaf ears.. Just look at our "promised" "Constitutional Carry" Bill.

They get what they want and all we get is screwed.....

No wait... we DID get Concealed Carry...with frickin PERMITS REQUIRED... oh yea.. we also got the TRAINING REQUIERED thing as well....

No wait... we DID get to LEGALLY OPEN CARRY HOLSTERED ON OUR HIP'S in a vehicle... BUT THEN AGAIN.... MAYBE NOT...

Sorry about all the shouting.... but then again... MAYBE NOT....

Outdoorsman1

 

[BROKENSPROKET]

I just sent basically a WTF and :banghead: :banghead: E-mail to my Rep.

And



I TOTALLY agree... It is becoming painfully obvious that no matter how many E-mails are sent, and contacts made so OUR voice can be heard... the message falls on deaf ears.. Just look at our "promised" "Constitutional Carry" Bill.

They get what they want and all we get is screwed.....

No wait... we DID get Concealed Carry...with frickin PERMITS REQUIRED... oh yea.. we also got the TRAINING REQUIERED thing as well....

No wait... we DID get to LEGALLY OPEN CARRY HOLSTERED ON OUR HIP'S in a vehicle... BUT THEN AGAIN.... MAYBE NOT...

Sorry about all the shouting.... but then again... MAYBE NOT....

Outdoorsman1

I suppose it doesn't matter how many emails we sent when the Criminal Defense Attorneys have a lobbyist at the captial, making sure they don't lose the victimns as clients.

 

[Outdoorsman1]

I suppose it doesn't matter how many emails we sent when the Criminal Defense Attorneys have a lobbyist at the captial, making sure they don't lose the victimns as clients.

I was just letting off a little steam...I am (sorta) better now...

I do understand and suppose that our e-mails make a difference. If they did not, then things could / would be a lot worse. My point was that it seems that no matter how many e-mails we send, in the end, "They" do what they want regardless of what "We" want...

But let the battle continue... you can loose a few battles and eventually still win the war....

Outdoorsman1

 

[HandyHamlet]

I'm trying to understand this text better:



So if the person yells out "police" or breaks in wearing a police uniform, how are we to truly know if that person is a police officer or not?

Is says "Peace Officer". Since the militarization of the Cops you have nothing to worry about. Badge or not, whoever is coming through your door is most definitely not a "Peace" Officer.

 

[Captain Nemo]

Did the NRA sell us out again? Remember folks what the NRA want's the NRA get's. The driving force behind 95% of politicians is re-election. The last thing any of them want to do is lose a good NRA rating, especially in a hunting tradition state such as Wisconsin, and thus the NRA member support. At the Baldwin workshop the NRA reps were profound in their support of "stand your ground" it was one of the key priorities listed. Perhaps our emails are better directed toward the NRA/ILA. This time don't let them brow beat us into thinking that the only way it will pass is if it is voted on as written. That is what we were told when ACT 35 was going to the floor without constitutional carry. ACT 35 passed both houses by better than a two to one ratio. Hard for me to believe that the vote would have deteriorated to "failed to pass" on the formalities of the lax permit and training requirements injected at the last minute. A half a loaf is not better than no loaf if the half-loaf is spoiled. Welcome to the world of sheep. My nose hurts. I wish they wouldn't pull on the chain so hard.

 

[BROKENSPROKET]

Did the NRA sell us out again? Remember folks what the NRA want's the NRA get's. The driving force behind 95% of politicians is re-election. The last thing any of them want to do is lose a good NRA rating, especially in a hunting tradition state such as Wisconsin, and thus the NRA member support. At the Baldwin workshop the NRA reps were profound in their support of "stand your ground" it was one of the key priorities listed. Perhaps our emails are better directed toward the NRA/ILA. This time don't let them brow beat us into thinking that the only way it will pass is if it is voted on as written. That is what we were told when ACT 35 was going to the floor without constitutional carry. ACT 35 passed both houses by better than a two to one ratio. Hard for me to believe that the vote would have deteriorated to "failed to pass" on the formalities of the lax permit and training requirements injected at the last minute. A half a loaf is not better than no loaf if the half-loaf is spoiled. Welcome to the world of sheep. My nose hurts. I wish they wouldn't pull on the chain so hard.

This one has nothing, ASBOLUTELY NOTHING, to do with the NRA selling us out.

Tell me how the NRA would profit from the Legislature not passing 'Stand Your Ground'.

ALL blame can go to the State Bar of Wisconsin - Criminal Law Section. Follow the money. Criminals will plead out, but innocent victimns that used dealdy force to protecth themselves will sell everthing and go inot debt to fight prosecution. Immediate family may even to into debt to help. That's alot of money that criminal defense lawyers and civil litigations lawyers on each side will lose out on if we got 'Stand Your Ground'. They are already losing cases for self-defense in the home, land, business and vehicle.

 

[Captain Nemo]

Each is entitled to their own opinion. My real concern is that in Hamdan the WSSC ruled that it is a burden on the defendant to prove that he/she was in imminent danger of physical harm or death before they can claim a privilege of self defense. In other words guilty until proven innocent. I present the following excerpts from Hamdan. I suppose this info better fits with Dave Gran's opnion than mine. Without a stand your ground provision in public there is still extreme risk in using deadly force and claiming a privilege of self defense. The information I post has no direct correlation to open carry or concaled carry.It only addresses the privilege of self-defense. Nollie put the gun in his waist band. It was argumentatively visible.

Under AB69 if Nollie was in his vehicle and and one of the four youths made serious threats to his safety and he responded with deadly force the state would have to prove his actions were not justified. If he had been forced to do so outside of his vehicle he would have to prove himself innocent.

¶31. Similarly,§939.45(2), which incorporates by reference the privileges of self-defense, defense of others, defense of property, and protection against retail theft, is not available to Hamdan.11 In Nollie, we refused to recognize a privilege to carry a concealed weapon without satisfying the stringent requirements of statutory self-defense.12 Nollie, 249 Wis.2d538, ¶27. We held that the defendant's assertions that he was in a high crime neighborhood, that he was in a vulnerable position while changing his tire, and that he was faced with a potential threat (four young men were allegedly nearby, being loud and profane) were insufficient to constitute an imminent and specific threat under the self-defense privilege statute. Nollie, 249 Wis.2d538, ¶23-25.

¶32. Hamdan argues that the concerns that inspired him to carry a concealed weapon in his store were specific and imminent, based on his past experiences with crime and the high incidence of crime in the neighborhood, thus making his actions privileged. Nollie made it clear, however, that such general assertions are insufficient to support a defense of privilege. As we stated, "To allow an individual to claim self-defense under such circumstances would essentially allow anyone walking in a 'high crime neighborhood' to conceal a weapon--a situation that...would eviscerate the legislature's intent in making carrying a concealed weapon a crime." Id., ¶26.13 ( My comment. Carry of a concealed weapon by a private citizen is still a crime unless a person has a state issued privilege to do so. The WSSC ruling above stays intact even with enactment of ACT 35. )

12 In Nollie, the defendant alleged that he took a gun out of the trunk of his car, loaded it, and put it in his waistband when he got out of the car to change his tire in a dangerous neighborhood, because he was worried that four men standing on the corner might try to rob him. State v. Nollie, 2002 WI 4, ¶8, 249 Wis.2d538, 638 N.W.2d280. Nollie had been the victim of several crimes in the neighborhood, including an armed robbery in which he had been physically assaulted. Id., ¶7. We held that to sustain a claim of self-defense the defendant must show that:

(1) the defendant had an actual and reasonable belief that there was an actual or imminent unlawful interference with the defendant's person; (2) the defendant had the actual and reasonable belief that the threat or use of force was necessary; and (3) that the defendant used only such threat or force as he actually and reasonably believed was necessary.

In my opinion AB69 is of marginal value without stand your ground, for whatever reasons it was not included.

 

[BROKENSPROKET]

Executive Committee ofn AB69 will be on live is a few minutes. Watch it here: http://www.wisey.org/

 

[BROKENSPROKET]

WTF? They just canceled the Executive Session on AB69 and pushed it back to Sept. 1. :banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead: