"Castle Doctrine" under attack.

There's plenty of talk in Madison and the rest of the state about repealing the castle doctrine law in WI. I just emailed my state reps to let them know I dont want it repealed. I dought that it would be, but it never hurts to let them know. Here's a site I use to find contact info for all the criminals...I mean elected officials. http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

Keep it short, and to the point. All I wrote was that I was in favor of the the law and did not want it repealed.

Simple!

Let them know.

Not a bad idea.

There may be "talk" in Madison, but there hasn't been any support for that around here.

And since the legislature isn't in session, nothing is going to happen any time soon.

What the F is going on in Wisconsin...?

I am getting sick of the butt hurt crybaby bitching from a select few of a minority opinion that feel entitled to decide how the state should be run.

What next? Let's have a recall...

Not Wisconsin. Madisonistan.

wouldn't surprise if people from both parties want to do away with it, there is at least one "pro-gun" state senators that wants to change the training requirement to require more training to get a CCW permit and he said they would address that after the recalls.

It's not going to be repealed. Please stop buying into the hysteria and anti crowd's rabble rousing.

I'm not "buying into hysteria". I'm simply letting my elected officials know how I feel about this. Whether someone "thinks" it will happen or not really does not matter. We should be hammering our elected officails every chance we get. Our gun rights are better now BECAUSE we let them known how we feel. So don't poo poo ideas like this. If your not part of the solution, your the problem

not sure if its going to matter or not as far as ass holes getting it reapealed, but...

there is a lot of liberal outcry here in madison, alot of peaple that have never seen a firearm accept on a policeman's belt are freaking out,

normally I would just laugh at them but something on the wind smells wrong here... and I dont like it.

hope its just my very healthy paranoia gland at work, but there are alot of cowards here, cowards who beleive that the only reasonable responce to an assault is cowardess even in your own home

even at the expence of your lovedones and or property, "thats what the police are for".

and they really passionately feel that those who stand up to attackers/home invaders are just as dangerous to them as the perpatrators themselves

and i hope it just blows over but they do seem to be gathering momentum, and as i said before i dont like it.

Never be complacent. It was a fight to get CC and Castle Law and unfortunately in this state it will continue being a fight to keep it. Thing is prosecuters in the past (before castle law) wouldn't have filed charges in cases where a homeowner takes out an unwelcomed visitor. Castle Law hasn't changed anything except now it's in writing. Repealing castle law is pure loonacy from a logical standpoint, but we should never underestimate the loony left.

I agree with WI57. Unfortunately, the ideas in Madisonstan are spreading statewide.

I feel it too. I mentioned it in my thread about moving to Appleton how Madison is nowhere near as great a town as it used to be. It feels like Shitcago to me, and I hated every minute of my 8 years of living there because of the people.

Hence, my move to Appleton.

Remember that State Senator Van Wanggaard of Racine is being recalled. He was responsible for castle doctrine in WI.

He's also responsible for introducing bills that give police "special" privileges, such as being able to arrest people for non-criminal offenses (speeding, loose dog, etc) and giving immunity to said police officers. That bill was withdrawn. Then there was the law he introduced that would allow off duty and former police officers to have the ability to carry on school grounds, or on posted property. That died (for now) with the end of the legislative session. He may have "given" us castle doctrine, but he's not really our friend anymore.

taken note of. thanks.

It's odd, the vast majority of people I know are conservative, yet it seems like the state leans farther left. I don't understand how people can be against protection of your home and your own wellbeing. That's just... stupid.

He also recently sad that he believes that the training requirement needs to be revisited on CCW and should be made stricter than it is now....there is more but for now that is all

So you put pressure on him in a primary in another 2 years, we all know where that scumbag Pat Lehman stands.

He also co-sponsored a bill that would suspend a person's driver's license for a DUI that occurs off-road on an ATV, snowmobile, or boat. Talk about a slippery slope...a person's driver's license should NEVER be penalized for anything that does not involve driving on a public roadway in a car or truck. And he has also been very wishy-washy on gun rights. Fuck VanWhinegard.

Im in touch with a lot of our GOP senators and reps on a regular basis. There is no talk of any kind of repeal that is legit. Remember that to repeal, the libs have to control the house, the senate, and the gov. Even if by some craziness they get the gov and senate, they still don't have the house. So no repeal. And with the elections in November it is very likely the GOP will get the senate back even if they lose it.

He was victim of a snow job by law enforcement. When they found out, they pulled the bill. Van wangaard is a good republican. You may not agree with evey little thing he does, but that doesn't mean he isn't your "friend".

Do you have a cite for this? I've never heard him say anything like that. I'm curious where and when he said it.

Really a "victim"? When they found out? who is they? He sponsored the bill, which means he or someone in his office wrote it. Here is a link to the full text of SB 555 You do realize he would have directly benefited from passing this bill? Are you a staffer or work on his campaign? You do realize "good republicans" have passed or signed into law most of the gun control acts to happen in the last 30 years or so?

He said it about 5 weeks ago in front of a few hundred firearms owners at a local gun club meeting. Anyone else in attendance care to confirm?

The police and others who were wanting the bill lied to the politicians about its purpose and need. When it was discovered, "they" killed it. Im curious... How would wangaard have benefitted from this bill? Also do you have a cite for your statement that republicans are "responsible for most gun control bills the past 30 years?". Cuz last I checked most bills allowing ccw, reducing gun control, etc are being passed by republicans.

If he really said that, it's unfortunate. It would be good to get clarification as to whether or not he really thinks the training requirements need to be more strict or greater than present.

That said I'd still vote for him if I were in his district. Because any democrat will be far worse.

You do realize Van is a retired cop/ detective don't you? What was the hidden purpose of the bill that eluded the bill sponsor? I could give you all the Cites you want but why don't you do a little research yourself and look up gun control in the following years 1986, 1989, and 2005. You obviously aren't going to believe anything I tell you anyway.

You can keep telling yourself that 2nd Amendment rights is a is a republican vs democrat thing, the reality is that the republican party just needs the votes of gun owners enough that they throw them a bone every now and then.

And for the record i don't dislike Van, he is a very nice guy. I'm just looking at things for what they are.

I'm not sure what van wangaard being an ex cop has to do with anything? I'm assuming you are trying to imply that all cops are pro gun control? There are plenty of cops who are very pro gun, pro 2nd amendment, pro castle doctrine, etc. Some members of this forum are just such LEOs.

The bill was argued necessary under the premise that it would help protect police from "frivolent" lawsuits. In fact, they even cited a case involving Krysta Sutterfeld. The lie though is that the bill would have not changed the outcome in her case, and in other such cases they cited. It was a snow job to say the least.

As for the timeline of gun control, you said "most gun control acts were passed by republicans over the last 30 years". You then listed 3 years of the last 30 years (one of which was actually done mostly by democrats not republicans). So, you're just expecting us to take your word for it or "look it up" ourselves. We aren't the ones making such claims, so the burden of proof is on you. If you provided cites or facts for your statements, I'd believe you. Instead you said "why don't you do a little research".

Ok, I'll oblige. And what do I find when I look it up? It's the exact opposite of what you claimed. Most gun control over the last 30 years have been passed by democrats.

1968 - democrats - gun control passed
The Gun Control Act of 1968 - "...was enacted for the purpose of keeping firearms out of the hands of those not legally entitled to possess them because of age, criminal background, or incompetence." –– Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms The Act regulates imported guns, expands the gun-dealer licensing and record keeping requirements, and places specific limitations on the sale of handguns. The list of persons banned from buying guns is expanded to include persons convicted of any non-business related felony, persons found to be mentally incompetent, and users of illegal drugs.

1986 - republicans, but a mixed bag. Some was control some was relax of control.
The Armed Career Criminal Act (Public Law 99-570) increases penalties for possession of firearms by persons not qualified to own them under the Gun Control Act of 1986.
The Firearms Owners Protection Act (Public Law 99-308) relaxes some restrictions on gun and ammunition sales and establishes mandatory penalties for use of firearms during the commission of a crime.
The Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act (Public Law 99-408) bans possession of "cop killer" bullets capable of penetrating bulletproof clothing.

1990 - democrats - gun control passed
The Crime Control Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-647) bans manufacturing and importing semiautomatic assault weapons in the U.S. "Gun-free school zones" are established carrying specific penalties for violations.
Note that George Bush signed the act into law, which was passed by a democratic controlled house and senate, but made a public statement that he did not agree with the parts of the act that unnecessarily constrain the discretion of state and local governments, particularly when it came to gun control as well as the GFSZ. But because he felt the bill accomplished many good things, and he did not have the ability to line item veto, he signed it. (At worst this was a RINO move, but, the democrats had enough control they could override a full veto)

1994 - democrats - gun control passed
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Public Law 103-159) imposes a five-day waiting period on the purchase of a handgun and requires that local law enforcement agencies conduct background checks on purchasers of handguns. (ATF's Brady Law web site.)
The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322) bans all sale, manufacture, importation, or possession of a number of specific types of assault weapons.

1997 - conservatives - gun control defeated
The Supreme Court, in the case of Printz v. United States, declares the background check requirement of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act unconstitutional.

1998 - republicans - gun control defeated
An amendment requiring a trigger lock mechanism to be included with every handgun sold in the U.S. is defeated in the Senate.

1999 - democrats - gun control passed
By a 51-50 vote, with the tie-breaker vote cast by Vice President Gore, the Senate passes a bill requiring trigger locks on all newly manufactured handguns and extending waiting period and background check requirements to sales of firearms at gun shows.

Etc and so on.

So, maybe I have missed a whole bunch of stuff that would make your statement true, but considering the major gun control legislation in our country such as the brady act, gun control act, etc, were all passed by democrats, I think you get my point. If you're going to make such a statement as "republicans are responsible for most gun control legislation in the past 30 years", then you should provide information to support that, since it is contrary to what most know to be true.

And this belief about republicans is based upon....?

alright lets try to connect the dots for you,

Do you remember saying this?
Bmwguy11 "He was victim of a snow job by law enforcement.", "The police and others who were wanting the bill lied to the politicians about its purpose and need. When it was discovered, "they" killed it. Im curious... How would wangaard have benefitted from this bill?" "I'm not sure what van wangaard being an ex cop has to do with anything?"

So what you're saying is in the 2 paragraphs in SB 555, which allows RETIRED and off duty cops to carry guns in places that are legally marked prohibiting the carrying of firearms, that was sponsored by retired Cop (Van) was only written and sponsored because he was a victim of a snow job and lied to by police and "others" (those who would have benefited) from the passage of this bill? and that he wouldn't have benefited from the passage of this law at all?

You really think a guy who has spent 30 years on the PD in one of the shittiest cities in wisconsin, taught police science at the local community college, and spent 8 years on the county board couldn't tell when he was being lied to or "snow balled" before sponsoring a very simple piece of legislation?


Ill be back to finish this up, have to get some work done first.

Me and you are talking about two different bills. I'm talking about the first bill racv8r mentioned.

I might point out that VW didn't do anything to actually kill his own bill. It was only after the cosponsors started pulling their names (including removing one name who never agreed to cosponsor in the first place) in reaction to their angry constituents, that the the bill was withdrawn. Technically, the bill could have gone out for a vote again, since it passed committee. VW did not kill his bill, so he probably thinks it was still a good idea.

Yes, the COMMITTEE was the victim of a snow job. Not VW. He didn't research it, or if he did, he didn't care. The committee didn't research it either obviously, probably taking the stand of "well, if it made it this far, and was written by a former policeman for the benefit of police, then it must be good". Never mind that the Brookfield PD were the primary pushers of this bill...you know, the PD that got sued and lost over how they handled the rights of a gun owner.

What was amazing was how obviously stupid this bill was to the average person once they read it. No legal mumbo jumbo to hide in. Same for his "special carry privileges" bill.

I see what you mean.

Looks like this thread kinda took on a life of it's own. Anyway here is the response I got from my state rep. Janet Bewely.

Hello David,



The Governor signed the Caste Doctrine into law just this past December, and I do not anticipate any activity this year to repeal it.



I voted in favor of conceal carry, as it is a constitutional issue involving the right to bear arms. I did not vote for castle doctrine, as it involves jucidial issues best left to the courts. Citizens currently have the right to defend themselves, and no person has ever been convicted of homicide in this state for shooting an intruder. I do not think the legislature should set rules regarding judicial prodedures and presumption of self-defense.



I must be honest with you, and state that I would vote in favor of a repeal if such a law comes before the Assembly next session.



Thanks for contacting me. I expect there are many issues on which we agree, this just isn't one of them.



Best wishes,



Janet

Appears she, like most democrats, are ignorant of what castle actually does and does not do.

Copyright © 1996 - 2013 :: AR15.Com LLC :: All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.