House Approves Self-Defense Exception to Gun Bans

[demsrule4life]

The Illinois House Wednesday approved legislation to help people who use guns in self-defense despite local bans on weapons.


The legislation was introduced in response to the case of a Wilmette man who shot a burglar and was briefly charged with violating the local law against owning handguns.

http://www.wifr.com/home/headlines/668011.html

[iverglas]

1. "Critics say ...

"... it would make it easier for people to use illegal weapons and escape punishment."

Mm hm. One might even say it would provide an incentive to use one's illegally owned guns and claim self-defence, in order to pre-empt any attempt to charge one with an unlawful possession offence.

That legislation will end up a dog's breakfast. Presumably anyone who'd ever had a little bit of a scare would be able to claim possession for self-defence even if s/he hadn't ever used the weapon.

Up here, municipalities can't just go making criminal law -- and laws relating to possession of firearms are regarded as criminal law, thus ultra vires municipalities: not within their jurisdiction. Municipalities do occasionally try to do criminal law-type things, by ostensibly regulating rather than prohibiting certain activities or certain types of businesses, but they get their hands smacked if they're obviously prohibiting in the guise of regulation.

It can be frustrating for residents of municipalities with problems that the appropriate governments don't/won't address. Street prostitution is the classic example up here, where municipalities have to deal with the problems and consider there to be a vacuum in the criminal law which ties their hands; I guess firearms proliferation is a counterpart in the US.

.

[Pert_UK]

2. What the FUCK???

This doesn't make any sense.......You would be breaking a law only up to the moment when you shoot someone in self-defense, and then it was OK for you to have the gun after all...Is that what they're saying?

You are allowed to defend yourself with the weapon that isn't allowed, but not allowed the weapon?

With all due respect, it seems to me that there are many "law abiding gun owners" out there who only abide by the laws they like and this just makes it easier for them.

This ruling is arse-backwards as we say in the West Midlands. It would (arguably) make sense for someone to be given excemption from a gun-ban law IN ADVANCE, if they could prove a legitimate need for self-defense. The policy-makers are accepting that there are occasions when gun-ownership is acceptable, but have a policy that says it isn't. Rather than change that policy they make it OK to prove retrospectively that a gun was needed.

This is so screwed up...

[CO Liberal]

3. "This is so screwed up..."

Kinda sums up so many aspects of the pro-gun position, IMHO.

[demsrule4life]

4. What was it you said?

"In your dreams Dems"

Wilmette man who shot a burglar and was briefly charged with violating the local law against owning handguns.

:)

[CO Liberal]

6. I Said "Screwed Up"

That guy in Wilmette must have known that handguns were banned. He broke the law. End of story.

Once again, a pro-gunner is rushing to the defense of a lawbreaker who had a gun in his hand. Like I said, "screwed up".

[demsrule4life]

7. No what I ment was on another thread

I started a thread a month or two back that IL was considering this. I also said I would bet that Wilmette would drop charges against the home owner. Your reply was "in your dreams dems".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x38641

[CO Liberal]

21. So Now, Dems...

...I'm expected to remember everything I posted in the over 19,000 messages I've posted on DU????

:shrug:

[demsrule4life]

26. Not at all

I'm always ready to help. 19,000 posts? You really need to get out more.

[CO Liberal]

29. I've Been Posting at DU Since September 9, 2001

Two days before the 9/11 attacks.

19,362 posts (as of right now)

divided by 31 months

624.58 posts per month

Just under 21 posts a day - most of them one-liners.

[Cooper]

77. a better alternative?

<<Once again, a pro-gunner is rushing to the defense of a lawbreaker who had a gun in his hand. >>

once again, an anti-gunner is implying the guy would be better off dead than a "lawbreaker."

i guess civil disobedience is only for protests, right?

[MrBenchley]

8. Yup....

"law abiding gun owners" my ass....

[demsrule4life]

12. You never know what those Democrat strongholds will do next

[iverglas]

11. I say dog's breakfast ...

... you say dog's dinner?

Somebody asked me in Civil Rights, a while back, what "dog's breakfast" meant. I wasn't sure whether this made me an antique, or just furrin. ;)

.

[Columbia]

5. Chalk up another win for the good guys

:toast:

[Pert_UK]

9. Utter crap......

You'll notice that nobody on here has really made any comments about whether guns should be allowed for self-defense purposes. All the criticism is directed at the fact that the law-makers have created an incoherent, unworkable, idiotic and self-contradictory law.

That is surely not "another win for the good guys" but rather another indication that the US needs to give some serious attention to its legal system, especially in the area of firearms.

If you are pro-RKBA it doesn't do you any favours if you praise utterly moronic laws that allow guns - it just gives people who want better gun control more ammunition against you (so to speak).

[FatSlob]

15. I'll make the comment

Guns are the absolute most effective means of self-defense against a person or persons who wish to cause harm. There is no reason to prohibit them. Wilmette's handgun ban is idiotic, in fact, most prohibitions are just plain stupid. Perhaps Illinois is on the slippery slope to freedom, it may be contradictory, it may be weird, but it is a positive step. Yes, Illinois might be on the slippery slope to liberty.

[RoeBear]

17. You could even say that the Willimette gun ban is...

...discriminatory. It discriminates against women, senior citizens and the disabled; people who can't handle a two handed weapon like a rifle or a shot gun.

I wonder if any pro gun control person here would allow a disabled person the right to own a handgun there?

[slackmaster]

18. Ha! We need a one-armed person to come forward as our champion

Sounds good to me.

:shrug:

[Pert_UK]

19. Yes, that's right.....

Introducing contradictory, ridiculous and unappliable laws is clearly a step forward.

[FatSlob]

20. The slippery slope to freedom.

It is a step in the right direction. To end the contradiction, the senseless, asinine, authoritarian gun laws of the State of Illinois and its political subdivisions should be repealed.

[Columbia]

22. I consider all gun control laws unconstitutional

Those who break them (especially bans like this one), in my eyes, are forced to do so and are justfied in doing so.

IMO, any legislation that erodes further gun control is a step in the right direction.

[MrBenchley]

23. So much for "law abiding gun owners"

[CO Liberal]

24. And I Consider Your Position "Anarchy"

IMHO.

[iverglas]

25. nooo!

Anarchy can be a good thing.

What that position actually is, is anti-democratic, illiberal and regressive, I'm sorry to say.

Not that I would ever say that the *person* stating it is any of those things!

.

[Columbia]

27. I consider it civil disobediance

And necessary to change unjust and unconstitutional laws.

[MrBenchley]

31. Really?

Have you publicly broken a gun law and gone to jail?

Let us know how that goes.

[Columbia]

36. The Second Amendment to the US Constitution

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

All laws contrary are unconstitutional and deserve to be broken.

[MrBenchley]

39. So join the National Guard....

which the courts have ruled over and over is the well regulated militia spoken of there...

[demsrule4life]

41. And of course the National Guard did not exist

when the 2nd Amendment was written. But what are little details in the scheme of things.

[MrBenchley]

42. Neither did 37 of the states...

But the 13 well regulated state militias did...and they have evolved into the National Guard.

As the courts have recognized over and over and over and over.

[CO Liberal]

43. The Militia Was Replaced By The National Guard

Remember that back with the Bill of Rights was drafted, the majority of Americans were farmers. The thought was that if necessary, they could hand the reins of the plow horses to their wife or son, pick up their gun, and go fight.

The Industrial Revolution of the 1800s changed this. Now most people were working in factories or businesses. The economy would suffer if workers walked off their jobs to defend the country, so the National Guard came in to being.

[Columbia]

46. The economy is the least of your worries

If it is necessary to truly defend your state or country.

And no, I'm not talking about imperialistic endeavors either, the founding fathers were against a standing army.

[CO Liberal]

47. But Their Solution to "No Standing Army" Is No Longer Feasible

Hence the shift from militias to the National Guard.

[Columbia]

48. The National Guard might as well be a standing army

How are they to protect the security of a free state if they are serving Halliburton in Iraq and under federal jurisdiction?

The militia will remain, as always, the whole body of the citizenry.

Federalist 28 - http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/fed/fed_28.html

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all forms of positive government..."

"Projects of usurpation cannot be masked under pretenses so likely to escape the penetration of select bodies of men, as of the people at large."

Federalist 46 - http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/fed/fed_46.html

"To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence."

"Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors."

[CO Liberal]

49. The Federalist Papers Are Too Old to Be Relevant

Since they were written around the same time as the Constitution, they have the same basic flaw - they have no relevance in this matter to the needs of an industrialized society.

[MrBenchley]

52. Even more to the point...

when they discuss arms and the Second Amendment, they do so in terms of a well regulated state milita....not a bunch of flabby humholes with pistols in their pockets.

"We should recollect that the extent of the military force must, at all events, be regulated by the resources of the country. "

[Columbia]

53. No relevance??

Human nature will always remain the same. Governments may billow with power and arrogance if they are left unchecked. And the people will always need arms to keep them in check and usurp them as a last resort. That is something that is relevant and will always be relevant as long as humans walk the earth.

[Columbia]

56. More no relevance...

I guess that means we should just scrap the 1st Amendment too right? It isn't relevant to this day and age when communication can be spread around the world instanteously. That is just too much power for the common folk to have.

Same goes for the 4th Amendment. We are fighting a war on terrorism and all citizens must relinquish their right to reasonable search and seizure for the good of the general population. Those who resist are traitors.

Why not just scrap the whole Constitution and institute martial law? I bet that would reduce crime real fast. Who needs freedom when you can have safety?

[iverglas]

59. oh P-e-ert

I guess that means we should just scrap the 1st Amendment too right? It isn't relevant to this day and age when communication can be spread around the world instanteously. That is just too much power for the common folk to have.

Gosh, you'd almost have a point ... if anything CO Liberal had said had had anything to do with the common folk having or not having power.

What he said had to do with the needs of a modern society. If you want to argue that in a modern society, common folk don't need information and the right to disseminate and receive it, well YOU go right ahead. Just don't be pretending that anything that CO Liberal said leads to the conclusion that HE would say any such thing.

Same goes for the 4th Amendment. We are fighting a war on terrorism and all citizens must relinquish their right to reasonable search and seizure for the good of the general population. Those who resist are traitors.

It's possible that this could be true, i.e. arguable (opinions about matters of opinion are never actually "true") -- unlike your first "point", which made no sense at all.

It's possible that aliens will invade earth and that the only way for the human race to survive will be to root out the aliens and destroy them, and that some people are aiding and abetting the aliens, perhaps in the vain hope that *they* won't be vaporized. And so maybe it will be the case that the only way for the human race to survive will be to eliminate the right against unreasonable search and seizure so that the genocidal aliens can be found. And anybody who did resist arguably *would* be a traitor, to the human race.

So far, I haven't seen a good argument that such compelling circumstances and objectives exist in the "war on terror", but I'm not ruling out the possibility that one could be made in some circumstances. I really don't place my own interests in anything above my fellow citizens' or human beings' interests in everything.

Why not just scrap the whole Constitution and institute martial law? I bet that would reduce crime real fast.

Well, the wise person would say that even if it would reduce crime (which is debatable), it would cause countless other problems. Who ever said that crime was the ONLY problem, or reducing crime the ONLY goal??

Who needs freedom when you can have safety?

I'm always curious. Who needs freedom when s/he's dead?

But actually -- who does need freedom when s/he has safety?

The real point is that denying freedom cannot be counted on to guarantee safety, in all cases and in all respects, obviously. We regard freedom as the best tool for the individual to use to secure his/her own safety. But sometimes it is plainly necessary to restrict individuals' freedom in order to protect their own or others' or the public's safety.

But we simply do not agree that individuals should exercise their freedom, or should be permitted to exercise their freedom, in ways that seriously and unjustifiably infringe on other people's safety. No matter how much you might like to pretend that this is not so, it is.

.

[Columbia]

64. You miss the point entirely

And since you'll surely miss it again, I'm not going to bother.

[MrBenchley]

67. Actually she nailed the point good and truly

[MrBenchley]

51. Yeah, and the "well regulated militia" is still the National Guard

And the Federalist papers are talking about those well regulated militias, no matter how furiously you spin them...

[Columbia]

44. The National Guard is really ensuring the security of a free state too

By serving in Iraq under the jurisidiction of the federal government.

[MrBenchley]

45. Quick, declare it "unconstitutional"

and see what happens!

[MrBenchley]

28. Murder that guy?

Why, I consider those laws unconstitutional....(snicker)

The purpose of government is to restrict the rights of the state, not the rights of us law-abiding gun owners who want to plug some sumbitch cause we feel like it....<sarcasm>

[CO Liberal]

30. Rob That Bank??

I consider THAT law to be unconstitutional, too.

:-)

[MrBenchley]

32. When credit card fraud is outlawed...

only outlaws will steal your Visa number....

[demsrule4life]

33. It hasent happened in our country

States like Vermont and Alaska has not turned into an Anarchy. A hundred years ago when there was no real gun laws our country was not in an anarchy. There isnt anything in our history to back that up.

[MrBenchley]

34. Gee, dems...

That could be because we don't ACTUALLY pay attention when every Tom, Dick or Columbia rules a law "unconstitutional," no matter how peevish they feel.

"States like Vermont and Alaska has not turned into an Anarchy. "

[demsrule4life]

35. Geebe

Why dont you actually respond to the post.

[MrBenchley]

37. Gave it the response it deserved...

[demsrule4life]

38. That is because I'm right

and you don't know how to respond to that.

[MrBenchley]

40. Yeah, dems, you just keep telling yourself that...

[CO Liberal]

50. The People in Vermont and Alaska Are Obeying Their Laws

Columbia appears to be advocating the deliberatoe disobediance of all gun laws. There's a big difference there....

[MrBenchley]

54. He also seems to be proclaiming

that he can stamp his feet and declare laws unconstitutional...

He also seems to have no idea what "civil disobedience" means.

[Columbia]

55. I do not consider non-discriminatory carry laws unconstitutional

They are in keeping with the 2nd Amendment as a protection and not a prohibition of our right to keep and bear arms.

[CO Liberal]

69. Oh, I Get It

If you like a law, it's constitutional.

If you don't, it's unconstitutional.......

[FeebMaster]

70. That reminds me of a thread last week.

It's ok to have a referendum on concealed carry because people who oppose it don't consider it a right. It's not ok to have a referendum on abortion even though people who oppose it don't think it's a right.

I wish I had saved a link. I think it was in GD. Man, you leave DU for 5 days and everything goes to hell.

[Columbia]

74. No, you obviously don't

If it violates the constitution, it is unconstitutional.

If it does not, then it is not.

Non-discriminatory carry laws do not infirnge on the right to keep and bear arms - it is statutory protection of that right and therefore constitutional.

[Pert_UK]

58. Yes, well done, you are a genius.....

Guns are special, magical objects after all.

Unlike every single other thing in the whole of the US, they should not be subject to any legal restriction whatsoever.

"You have the right to bear arms and the right to arm bears, whatever the fuck you want to do..."

Criminals, the insane, the criminally insane and George Bush (but I repeat myself) should all be allowed to buy firearms and ammunition, not only without restriction but without registration or any record of what they are doing.

Children must not be prevented from experimenting with guns from an early age and yadda yadda yadda....

Thank you for your intelligent, well-developed and sensible contribution to the discussion.

[Columbia]

71. Criminals and guns

Why should felons who pay their debt to society have their rights taken away? If we don't think they can be responsible with firearms, how can we expect them to not buy them illegally anyway and use them in a criminal fashion?

The problem is that we do not rehabiliate the criminals before they are let loose. The prison system is overflowing from the drug war and a lot of the prisoners are non-violent drug offenders who should not be there in the first place. The ones we have to worry about, the ones who abuse the right to keep and bear arms, are let out early. They should be kept there until they are truly rehabilitated and after they are let out, they should regain their all their rights, including the right to vote, the right to keep and bear arms and all other constitutionally protected rights.

If more children were exposed to firearms, I belive there would actually be less firearms accidents even though it is already extremely low. Ignorance is the primary reason for these accidents. If children were just taught the 4 rules of firearms handling then these needless accidents will not occur with as much frequency.

[TX-RAT]

66. Justified in breaking the law?

[Columbia]

72. Yes

Do you think Rosa Parks was justified in breaking the law?

[Superfly]

10. You all know I am pro-RKBA to the core...

but this makes absolutely no sense. A person can be in violation of a <stupid> law up until the thing that causes the violation is used to otherwise lawful ends.

What should happen is the entire gun ban law should be repealed and the RKBA of citizens in IL restored without infringements.

[Pert_UK]

13. Good work 'fly.....

Glad you recognised the idiocy of the new law.

Of course I disagree with your second statement, but at least that would be coherent.

[Superfly]

16. Thanks...

This is an idiotic situation where I think the victims are both the person charged with illegal handgun possession and the common sense of the IL legislator.

[demsrule4life]

14. This is what happens when

state allow home rule for towns. End up with a quiltwork of stupid laws.

[Fescue4u]

57. Ohio has been this way for years.

Not EXACTLY in law, but in practice anyway.

Ohio has an "affirmative defense" to carrying a concealed weapon of a "prudent man".

Effectively, if carry and use it for self defense, you are ok ...but get caught concealing any othertime and its a felony.

Thats all changing in a few weeks though....Ohio Concealed carry becomes effective in April and the affirmative defense goes away to.

[Narf]

60. Mighty nice of them, eh?

Finally, the government gives the people permission to defend themselves!

[TX-RAT]

61. Illegal to own but legal to use?

Most ridiculous ruling I've ever heard of.Guarantees a legal nightmare.

[FrontPorchPhilosophr]

62. Actually, you could consider this a recognition of the 5th Amendment....

I am in violation of the city law by possessing a gun in my home. But no one KNOWS.....

An intruder breaks in and threatens me, I use my weapon in self defense. The police charge me with violating the city law....

One could MAKE the argument that my 5th Amendment rights against self incrimination have been violated, by the police, in using my self defense use of the gun AGAINST me, since, absent the illegal actions of a 3rd party, the police would not have KNOWN....

Extreme, perhaps, but no more extreme than many 1st Amendment cases cheerfully taken up by the ACLU.....:think:

[demsrule4life]

63. Actually not extreme

preatty much right on the point.

[iverglas]

65. yeah

Somebody would have FORCED that poor soul to be in illegal possession of a firearm and use it ... just like somebody FORCED that ex-con to acquire a firearm that he then couldn't register as required by law because he was barred from possessing a firearm and that would have been self-crimination ...

Ye gods and little fishies.

.

[demsrule4life]

68. The situation is messed up

And I don't understand why a state lets a town ban something that under state law is legal. Strange violating a town law which is legal under state law. It's enough to give someone a headache. Or drive someone back to drinking.

[lcordero]

73. My perspective

I hope that it goes through.

It's better to be judged by 12 than to be carried by 6.

[Columbia]

75. Welcome back!

Where you been lcordero?

Good to have you back!

:toast:

[lcordero]

76. thank you:)

I had to get away from here for at least a little while. This site is way too addictive along with being way too depressing.