• 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.

Senate Bill 79

Running Wolf

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
391
Location
Corner of No and Where
I received notification that SB79 has been introduced by Wanggaard that is "An Act to create 895.62 and 939.48 (1m) of the statutes; relating to: the privilege of self-defense." I can't find the actual bill only the history.

Has anyone seen the bill itself?

I don't like the sound of "the privilege of self-defense" when it is already a right. And I don't like the idea of creating more statutes. But I'll reserve further judgement until I see the verbiage being introduced. This might be unrelated to concealed carry or even to firearms in general . . .
 

CalicoJack10

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
559
Location
Arbor Vitae
"castle doctrine" self defense bill introduced in WI Assembly

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/AB-69.pdf

<snip>

Under this bill, if a person used defensive force that was intended or likely to
cause death or great bodily harm, the court must presume that the person reasonably
believed that the force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself
or herself or to another person if: 1) the individual against whom the force was used
was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering, or had already unlawfully and
forcefully entered, the residence of the person who used the force; 2) the person was
present in that residence; and 3) the person knew or reasonably believed that an
unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred.

<snip>

I don't know if the wording is the same, but I know that I recognized the statutes from this post.
 
Last edited:

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
I received notification that SB79 has been introduced by Wanggaard that is "An Act to create 895.62 and 939.48 (1m) of the statutes; relating to: the privilege of self-defense." I can't find the actual bill only the history.

Has anyone seen the bill itself?

I don't like the sound of "the privilege of self-defense" when it is already a right. And I don't like the idea of creating more statutes. But I'll reserve further judgement until I see the verbiage being introduced. This might be unrelated to concealed carry or even to firearms in general . . .

Hmmm... Normally you click on the link at the top of the history and it shows you the actual bill.
 

smithman

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
718
Location
Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA
It's unfortunate but in Wisconsin defense of property by itself using deadly force is generally not legal. This is probably why the bill title has the words "privilege" in it.

The bill really needs to say "wherever you are legally able to be" to go beyond just the interior of your house. The bill is a step in the right direction, but definitely not enough. This kind of change doesn't usually happen overnight but it can if the right bill is introduced. Does anybody still think that Republicans always get it right even with the issues they are supposed to be experts on?
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,310
Location
SE, WI
It's unfortunate but in Wisconsin defense of property by itself using deadly force is generally not legal. This is probably why the bill title has the words "privilege" in it.

The bill really needs to say "wherever you are legally able to be" to go beyond just the interior of your house. The bill is a step in the right direction, but definitely not enough. This kind of change doesn't usually happen overnight but it can if the right bill is introduced. Does anybody still think that Republicans always get it right even with the issues they are supposed to be experts on?
We do have the right though:

"The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose." - Article 1, Section 25
 

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
I don't like the sound of "the privilege of self-defense" when it is already a right.

Relax! Newsflash: While we commonly refer to the "right" to self-defense, strictly speaking under state law self-defense is a "privilege" and not a right. This is nothing new!

See the self-defense statute, 939.48:

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/Stat0939.pdf

The term "privilege" has a special legal definition: "a special benefit, exemption from a duty, or immunity from penalty, given to a particular person, a group or a class of people."

Under the law one does not have an absolute right to use violent force against another person. However under certain circumstances the law recognizes that violent force is justifiable, and if the criteria are met, one may invoke the privilege of self-defense to avoid the penalties one normally suffers for using violence against another person. So in a technical legalese way it makes sense to refer to self-defense as a privilege. It's just the way lawyers talk. Maybe one of our Administrators will weigh in if my non-lawyerly explanation is inadequate.
 
Top