WI gets castle doctrine law- the sky is faling- the sky is falling

[diesel driver]

Well now I know that if I ever come upon your place sometime to hold up a sign "I am Revolution from CC" while I stand outside your personal signs, and hope I don't hear a caulking ksouknd. *wide eyed*



Let's go, Walker!! *clap clap- clap clap clap*

The leftists in this state are losing their minds.

You have 200 yards of driveway to get to my door.  Plenty of time for me to identify you as friend or foe.   

If you bring beer, you won't need the sign!   

[diesel driver]

I live in the outer 'burbs of a regional city.

There's a daylight-hours police station 10 minutes away.

If I were to ring in a break'n'enter , disturbance , domestic etc call - the BEST I could hope for it 20 minutes.

Ring them up and tell them I just shot a home invader and they'll be there to lock me up faster than you can spit.

Do you have a ban on ALL firearms in Australia, or just handguns?

[FlaGator]

I think the libs fear the castle doctrine because they know that it reduces the number of democrats available to vote once they get out of prison.

[LC EFA]

Do you have a ban on ALL firearms in Australia, or just handguns?

Neither are actually outright *banned*.

You can get a licence for non-autoloading rifles easily enough - I have said license and a couple of rifles that I'm competent with.

You can get a licence for a handgun with a lot more expense, time (you've gotta attend regular competition shoots) and so on. I don't have this license for a variety of reasons - the biggest one is that you aren't allowed to carry , ever , for any reason.

Both of which are moot points.

We have what is known as a "Duty to retreat" - and self defence is likely to land you in the slammer. If you get caught

[Revolution]

"Duty to retreat??" Pardon me, sir, but I've never heard of such a stupid f*cking idea in my life. Well, maybe I have, but they escape me at the moment. 

You have 200 yards of driveway to get to my door.  Plenty of time for me to identify you as friend or foe.  

If you bring beer, you won't need the sign!  

You've seen my pic on the forum, have you not? (Way better looking than any male DUmmie. )

Just in case, what's your favorite brand?  

[Evil_Conservative]

Well now I know that if I ever come upon your place sometime to hold up a sign "I am Revolution from CC" while I stand outside your personal signs, and hope I don't hear a caulking ksouknd. *wide eyed*



Let's go, Walker!! *clap clap- clap clap clap*

The leftists in this state are losing their minds.

They sure are upset there.  Only being back for a few days and you just feel it.  It makes me happy. 

[diesel driver]

"Duty to retreat??" Pardon me, sir, but I've never heard of such a stupid f*cking idea in my life. Well, maybe I have, but they escape me at the moment. 

You've seen my pic on the forum, have you not? (Way better looking than any male DUmmie. )

Just in case, what's your favorite brand?  

Surprise me.

Anything but PBR!

[catsmtrods]

Personally I don't give **** what the law is. I have two signs on the front and back door. Never mind the dog BEWARE OF THE OWNER and If your found here at night you will be found here in the morning. I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

[diesel driver]

Personally I don't give **** what the law is. I have two signs on the front and back door. Never mind the dog BEWARE OF THE OWNER and If your found here at night you will be found here in the morning. I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

                                                   
What you said.

I saw one in a convenience store window that said:  "This store protected by .357 three nights a week.  You guess which nights."  It was in a rougher part of this particular town, and one of the clerks DID open carry a .38 on his belt. 

I asked him if he was expecting trouble, or preventing it.  He said, "Yes."   

Never heard of an holdups there, although the one down the street got hit 1-2 a month.

I like:  "It's better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it."

[Carl]

Here is a part of NYs convoluted law.

Sec. 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.
 1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless:
 (a) The latter`s conduct was provoked by the actor himself with intent to cause physical injury to another person; or
 (b) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case his use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if he has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical force; or
 (c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat
 by agreement not specifically authorized by law.
 2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) He reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he knows that he can with complete safety as to himself and others avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating; except that he is under no duty to retreat if he is:
 (i) in his dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or In other words I have to give them a chance to escape.
 (ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to section 35.30; or
 (b) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or robbery; or
 (c) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of section 35.20.

Sec. 35.20 Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises and in defense of a person in the course of burglary.
 1. Any person may use physical force upon another person when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such other person of a crime involving damage to premises. He may use any degree of physical force, other than deadly physical force, which he reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose, and he may use deadly physical force if he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of arson.
 2. A person in possession or control of any premises, or a person licensed or privileged to be thereon or therein, may use physical force upon another person when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such other person of a criminal trespass upon such premises. He may use any degree of physical force, other than deadly physical force, which he reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose, and he may use deadly physical force in order to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of arson, as prescribed in subdivision one, or in the course of a burglary or attempted burglary, as prescribed in subdivision three.
 3. A person in possession or control of, or licensed or privileged to be in, a dwelling or an occupied building, who reasonably believes that another person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling or building, may use deadly physical force upon such other person when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of such burglary.
 4. As used in this section, the following terms have the following meanings:
 (a) The terms "premises," "building" and "dwelling" have the
 meanings prescribed in section 140.00;
 (b) Persons "licensed or privileged" to be in buildings or upon other premises include, but are not limited to, police officers or peace officers acting in the performance of their duties.
This basically says you have to fully identify whoever is in your home,their presence alone is not satisfactory

Sec. 35.25 Justification; use of physical force to prevent or terminate larceny or criminal mischief. A person may use physical force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted
 commission by such other person of larceny or of criminal mischief with respect to property other than premises.

Which pretty much means any action you take can be prosecutable.
Now if I wake up to someone in my house at 2:00 AM there is a pretty good chance that person will go out in a bag.
There is also a very likely chance I will get taken out in handcuffs.
What an effed up state.

[I_B_Perky]

The old guy that lived across the street from my parents had a sign in his screen door that said "This house protected by Smith and Wesson .357". He told dad that the insurance company made him take it down.

Personally I think the firearm companies ought to have a home security company by the same name. Imagine it:  "This house protected by Smith and Wesson Security company." Insurance companies couldn't say shit then. 

[Gratiot]

The old guy that lived across the street from my parents had a sign in his screen door that said "This house protected by Smith and Wesson .357". He told dad that the insurance company made him take it down.

Personally I think the firearm companies ought to have a home security company by the same name. Imagine it:  "This house protected by Smith and Wesson Security company." Insurance companies couldn't say shit then. 

While humorous, I'm of the view that signs like that are just advertising for burglars to rob your home when you're gone.  As they know that you have prime items to steal, firearms.

[NHSparky]

We have what is known as a "Duty to retreat" - and self defence is likely to land you in the slammer. If you get caught

Damn, and here I was getting ready to move down there.

[Gratiot]

Damn, and here I was getting ready to move down there.

The pay is phenomenal for our line of work, and our skill sets fast track us with the immigration process.  I seriously looked into it a few years ago.

[NHSparky]

The pay is phenomenal for our line of work, and our skill sets fast track us with the immigration process.  I seriously looked into it a few years ago.

Define, "phenomenal."  Like mid six-figure phenomenal?

[LC EFA]

Define, "phenomenal."  Like mid six-figure phenomenal?

Just hazarding a guess at your specific trade here - but for most experienced and qualified electrical trades you can get FIFO mine work based out of most major cities starting at at least 100K/pa.  Good superannuation, 5 weeks annual leave and in many cases an even-time roster.

[AprilRazz]

While humorous, I'm of the view that signs like that are just advertising for burglars to rob your home when you're gone.  As they know that you have prime items to steal, firearms.

We have an NRA sign in the window and it is common knowledge that we have guns in the house and do carry. The houses next to us and we have never been broken into. The rest of the area is another story.

[Gratiot]

Define, "phenomenal."  Like mid six-figure phenomenal?

When I looked into it, there was a company offering $180-270k, depending on your background.  While there are some people who earn the lower range of that, here in the states with our skill sets, their compensation was without insane overtime.  That was a few years ago though, when Australia was desperate for certain skilled trades and engineering talent, I'm not sure how it is now.  I remember just power plant control room operators, which we're both likely qualified for or were, was $140-180k, on a less than 40 hour work week.  

We have quite a few people, on the non-nuclear side clear $200k, and one individual actually cleared $250k last year... but those were all wages earned by working 24/7 all year... It's not the same over there.

Granted, the cost of living over there is significantly higher, but their dollar does bounce around parity with ours now.

We've had a number of people also travel on work-contracts in the middle east, making even more, albeit... they usually had to work long hours and were stuck in foreigner housing projects.

[NHSparky]

We've had a number of people also travel on work-contracts in the middle east, making even more, albeit... they usually had to work long hours and were stuck in foreigner housing projects.

Long hours in the housing project isn't that bad a deal if I'm making $300K/year and shipping most of that home.  Hell, I could retire in five years at that rate.

[Gratiot]

Long hours in the housing project isn't that bad a deal if I'm making $300K/year and shipping most of that home.  Hell, I could retire in five years at that rate.

For some apparent reason, most of the Middle East countries would limit you to one to three year contracts, than order you to leave their country.  A few years ago we hired a man from India, who spent over a decade working in the Middle East, but he was having to jump countries on a regular basis, and finally ran out.  He had some fascinating stories though about the experience.

[AprilRazz]

Long hours in the housing project isn't that bad a deal if I'm making $300K/year and shipping most of that home.  Hell, I could retire in five years at that rate.

Considering that that income is not taxable as well. When we were on the other side of the Suez we paid no federal income tax on whatever we made while we were out there.