Today's quiz:

1) Just exactly what problem are lawmakers trying to solve with a proposal to extend new legal protections to people who shoot intruders in their homes, vehicles or businesses?

2) What is it about the current system that isn't working?

3) How many homeowners are sitting in jail because they were simply defending themselves against intruders inside their houses?

The answers are:

1) There is no problem.

2) The current system works just fine.

3) None.

There is no need to change state law to allow for a "castle doctrine" defense ("castle doctrine" as in "your home is your castle"). Indeed, doing so could put some innocents in greater danger. This bill needs to die.

The above answers come by the way, from Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm and the Criminal Law Section of the State Bar of Wisconsin, made up of more than 600 prosecutors, judges, criminal defense lawyers and academics. That's a reliable set of expert witnesses.

Under the proposal, which was expected to be taken up by the Assembly on Tuesday, courts in criminal cases and civil lawsuits would presume in most cases that property owners using deadly force had acted reasonably against anyone unlawfully inside their residence, whether they were armed or threatening or not.

Under current law, a person can't seek to kill or wound someone unless he or she reasonably believes such action is necessary to prevent the same type of injury to himself or herself.

Chisholm told the Journal Sentinel that's a good standard that's been well-developed over the past 50 years and that it provides adequate protection for those acting in self-defense. He also said the bill "seems to introduce ambiguity that will make it difficult for law enforcement to make fine distinctions."

The Criminal Law Section said in a two-page memo sent to Assembly members that the bill could result in such unforeseen consequences as providing a defense for irrational people armed with deadly force. The memo also said, "At present, no member of the Criminal Law Section of the State Bar, which is made up judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys and academics, can come up with a single case wherein a homeowner was charged with a crime for defending himself or herself from a home intruder."

State Rep. Dean Kaufert (R-Neenah) said the bill would strengthen the right of self-defense and that homeowners don't always have time to check whether an intruder is trying to hurt them.

True, but there needs to be a reasonable standard for self-defense. As disturbing as breaking and entering is for the homeowner, it doesn't deserve the death penalty. Current law provides that reasonable standard. And if the new law could provide cover for irrational people or abusive spouses, as the Criminal Law Section fears, it's not worth enacting.

As Chisholm and the Criminal Law Section both put it, this is a solution in search of a problem - and a potentially deadly solution. Defeat Assembly Bill 69.

Do you support the "castle doctrine"? To be considered for publication as a letter to the editor, e-mail your opinion to the Journal Sentinel editorial department.