Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com

Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/)
-   Concealed Carrying & Personal Protection (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f17/)
-   -   AB69 Wisconsin!! (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f17/ab69-wisconsin-51028/)

JonM 11-02-2011 02:36 AM

AB69 Wisconsin!!
 
AB69 passes with a 71-24 heavily bipartisan vote!! castle doctrine is one vote from passage!! it goes to the senate tomorrow.

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/insession/insessiondocs/docs/AB-69.pdf

Quote:

Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau
In general, a person who uses force in self−defense or in the defense of another
person may not be convicted of a crime stemming from that use of force. This law
applies only when: 1) the amount of force used is reasonable; and 2) the person uses
that force to prevent or stop what he or she reasonably believes is an unlawful
interference with himself or herself or another person, such as the crime of battery.
Current law specifies that a person may use force that is intended or likely to cause
the death of or great bodily harm to another individual only if the person reasonably
believes that using such force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or great
bodily harm to himself or herself or another person.
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. This presumption,
however, does not apply if: 1) the person who used the force was engaged in a criminal
activity or was using his or her residence to further a criminal activity; or 2) the
individual against whom the force was used had identified himself or herself as a
1
2
2011 − 2012 Legislature − 2 − LRB−0392/1
PJH:jld:rs
ASSEMBLY BILL 69
peace officer (or was or should have been known to be a peace officer) and was
entering the residence in the performance of his or her official duties.
Under the bill, a person who uses force that is intended or likely to cause death
or great bodily harm is immune from civil liability if the person reasonably believed
that the force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or
herself or to another person and if: 1) the individual against whom the force was used
was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering, or had already forcibly
entered, the residence of the person who used the force; 2) the person who used the
force was present in the residence; and 3) the person who used the force knew or had
reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred.
Under the bill for purposes of civil immunity, a person is not presumed to have
reasonably believed that the force was necessary if: 1) the person who used the force
was engaged in a criminal activity or was using his or her residence to further a
criminal activity; or 2) the individual against whom the force was used had identified
himself or herself as a peace officer (or was or should have been known to be a peace
officer) and was entering the residence in the performance of his or her official duties.
Under the bill, if a court finds that person who is sued in civil court is immune
from liability, the person is entitled to attorney fees, court costs, compensation for
income loss, and other expenses the person incurred to defend himself or herself
against the civil action.

lonewolf101 11-02-2011 01:11 PM

Hey Jon I herd on the radio this AM their some defense liers that are against it and some other people - but it be INTERESTING!.

JonM 11-02-2011 03:04 PM

Yeah lots of bar association types are against having a huge gravy train dry up.

Current law its about 150,000$ in court cost lawyercosts and home repair frome the cops ripping your house apart.

Under the ab69 its about 15,000$ for homerepair after the police chop up your walls and flooring for a justified shooting.

The lawyers lose a lot of money

lonewolf101 11-02-2011 05:18 PM

yeah they do!!! but law abiding need a saftynet to go along with the CCW permit.

JonM 11-02-2011 09:59 PM

oh i agree. a justified shoot where the goblin is dead and its ruled self defense, the remaining goblins shouldnt be allowed to loot the victim and finish destroying his/her life

lonewolf101 11-03-2011 12:13 PM

Well Jon I'm not saying people should walk around like 'Paul Kersey" BUT at lest people who get their CCW can chose NOT to be a VICTUM.

JonM 11-03-2011 12:19 PM

Ab69 goes before the senate today. Evidently the democratic shenanigans to block the mining project and jobs in wisconsin delayed it by a day

neilage66 11-03-2011 01:45 PM

I'm ever hopeful.

JonM 11-03-2011 09:29 PM

it passed the senate with one ammendment which means it has to either be stripped out or have the assembly re-vote to adopt the ammendment.

basically some super-genius want worker instead of officer....

JonM 11-04-2011 02:43 AM

ive been listening to the wisconsin assembly waiting on news of ab69 and they just voted on sb228. from what i understand if gov walker signs it wisconsin can now carry uncased unloaded rifles shotguns bows and xbows in vehicles!! sweeeet!!

quickly we are repealing 130 years of tyranny!!

need to get out ye olde truck rifle again!!


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:12 PM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.