davegran
Regular Member
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:
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!
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.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,
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