Open carry firearms.. Our 2nd amendment right!!

[Emma]

That has to be incorrect....

It is incorrect:



Illinois General Assembly - Full Text of Public Act 093-1048

Public Act 093-1048

SB2165 Enrolled LRB093 15639 RLC 41247 b

AN ACT concerning criminal law.

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,
represented in the General Assembly:

Section 5. The Criminal Code of 1961 is amended by adding
Section 24-10 as follows:

(720 ILCS 5/24-10 new)

Sec. 24-10. Municipal ordinance regulating firearms;
affirmative defense to a violation. It is an affirmative
defense to a violation of a municipal ordinance that prohibits,
regulates, or restricts the private ownership of firearms if
the individual who is charged with the violation used the
firearm in an act of self-defense or defense of another as
defined in Sections 7-1 and 7-2 of this Code when on his or her
land or in his or her abode or fixed place of business.

Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon
becoming law.


Effective Date: 11/16/2004

Affirmative defenses do not directly attack an element of the crime but provide either justification for the conduct or some other legally recognized approach to undermining the charge.

IOW, even in places that DO prohibit or restrict gun ownership, this statute allows the defense to claim self-defense as a justification for breaking those laws (i.e. someone charged under the prohibitive gun law).


Missourian is an honest guy. I'm sure he'll concede this point.

Thanks Emma, allow me to return the compliment and say the same about you.

Even when we disagree, I always look forward to and enjoy reading your contributions.

I do agree with the synopsis of this legislation.

The unfortunate part is President Obama voted against it.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/93/senate/09300SB2165_03252004_020000T.pdf

Therefore the fact remains, Barack Obama no vote would have allowed criminal prosecution people who use firearms in self-defense.

Ah. Ok. That wasn't clear reading the snippet you posted. ETA: I noticed quite a few voted no. Do you know the reasoning behind their no votes? Not allowing self-defense as a defense in a trial makes no sense to me. And (if I recall correctly) this was vetoed and over-ridden by the legislature. Weird. Do you know what the original statute was?

 

[Emma]

right to open carry is a States Rights issue. The fed hasn't got any business sticking it's noses in State's business.

I disagree. If you were correct, then a state could just ban all guns... period. The 2nd recognizes and protects the right of the individual to bear arms. The 14th clearly incorporates the Federal protection onto the States ["No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."] I think a state needs to force SCOTUS to rule as such. Perhaps a very conservative, pro-gun state (AZ maybe? they have open carry... but they're on the 9th circuit. Maybe a state from the 10th) should pass an amendment banning all guns of any type. It will be overturned on appeal, and then the state can appeal to SCOTUS. Force the Court's hand to rule that the 14th indeed incorporated the 2nd.

 

[Missourian]

Ah. Ok. That wasn't clear reading the snippet you posted. ETA: I noticed quite a few voted no. Do you know the reasoning behind their no votes? Not allowing self-defense as a defense in a trial makes no sense to me. And (if I recall correctly) this was vetoed and over-ridden by the legislature. Weird. Do you know what the original statute was?

I tried to find the original statute, but didn't have any luck.

 

[The Rabbi]

right to open carry is a States Rights issue. The fed hasn't got any business sticking it's noses in State's business.

I disagree. If you were correct, then a state could just ban all guns... period. The 2nd recognizes and protects the right of the individual to bear arms. The 14th clearly incorporates the Federal protection onto the States ["No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."] I think a state needs to force SCOTUS to rule as such. Perhaps a very conservative, pro-gun state (AZ maybe? they have open carry... but they're on the 9th circuit. Maybe a state from the 10th) should pass an amendment banning all guns of any type. It will be overturned on appeal, and then the state can appeal to SCOTUS. Force the Court's hand to rule that the 14th indeed incorporated the 2nd.

There is a case like this pending in the Supreme Court already. I can't remember the name but it is against the city of Chicago, which in fact does outright ban handguns.

 

[JD_2B]

OpenCarry.org - State Information For Wisconsin

Well, Wisconsin is an open carry state.. They have a big problem with concealed carry. I agree completely!! =))

Apparently Pennsylvania is the same..
http://paopencarry.org/

 

[The Rabbi]

OpenCarry.org - State Information For Wisconsin

Well, Wisconsin is an open carry state.. They have a big problem with concealed carry. I agree completely!! =))

Apparently Pennsylvania is the same..
Pennsylvania Open Carry Gun Laws, Information, Fliers and Forum - paopencarry.org

My understanding is Wisconsin does not have a permit scheme. Maybe the state constituition guarantees something but in practice anyone open carrying is going to jail.
Some states allow concealed carry but not open. TX is one of them.

 

[Emma]

My state allows open carry. And I don't think they should have permits for concealed.

 

[The Rabbi]

My state allows open carry. And I don't think they should have permits for concealed.

Do you mean no one should be allowed to conceal carry or everyone should be allowed to conceal carry?

 

[Alvin]

The "rights of an Englishman" apparently no longer includes the most basic human right, the right to self defense. Britons that defend their homes with firearms are feeling the full weight of the law come down on their heads and these fine folks were once "law abiding" but since the laws are restrictive that claim can no longer be made. Austrailia and New Zealand are also expericing similiar conditions. Canada is experiencing an increase in drug related gun crimes. Is Mexico heterogeneous? Has restricting lawfull gun ownership paid dividends in Mexico?

Wrong on self defence, it's still the law in Britain.
Any use of a firearm for self defence will attract interest in the status of that firearm. However that will not negate a claim of self defence.
Australia is not experiencing similar conditions. It has its own conditions. Details of all forms of crime in Australia (reported/recorded) can be found here:

Australian Institute of Criminology - Home - go to the research and check for yourself.

Canada (particularly Toronto) is experiencing an increase in gun crimes, it has to do with the drug trade into the US. So criminals are obtaining firearms unlawfully and using them to perpetrate crimes. That's what armed criminals do.

I have no knowledge of the demographics of Mexico. Nor do I have a clue about their firearms laws. I only know from news reports that the drug trade is a huge problem in Mexico - if the consumer country legalised much of the stuff being consumed then the cartels in Mexico might go under financially and that would be a good thing.

Many Britons were law abiding until legislation banning firearms changed their status and the status of their property. I can recall the case of a gent from Norfolk, Tony Martin that shot two intruders in his where one died. Martin is now serving a life sentence.

I do not usually check links but I did the one you posted, it seemed like a fools errand. In 1996 most private gun ownership was outlawed with a relatively short amnesty period after that period most gun owners are violating the law.

Here is a little from the vast amount of info supporting my point which you claim is "wrong."

Here are the basic rules for self-defense in Britain:

"You are permitted to protect yourself with a briefcase, a handbag, or keys. You should shout “Call the Police” rather than “Help.” Bystanders are not to help. They have been taught to leave such matters to the professionals. If you manage to knock your attacker down, you must not hit him again or you risk being charged with assault."

"A homeowner who discovered two robbers in his home held them with a toy gun while he telephoned the police. When the police arrived they arrested the two men, and also the homeowner, who was charged with putting someone in fear with a toy gun. An elderly woman who scared off a gang of youths by firing a cap pistol was charged with the same offense."

Despite my disagreement with you, I am content to leave your perceptions intact.

This is not strictly correct.
The law defines a firearm as any device capable of propelling a projectile down a barrel with a muzzle velocity greater than 1 joule.

Then there is the perception idea. This is basically the situation where a firearm is a firearm if the person it's being pointed at believes it to be.

The use of firearms for personal protection is permitted, however it must follow a strict force matrix. Basically you can protect your self only to the extent of the threat. In the instance with the old lady and the cap pistol, the intruder was unarmed, and she threatened his life.

The law is not written for such a situation, and in this instance it sucked. But it is the law.
In the instance of Tony Martin, he shot an unarmed intruder, the court found that he used an unnecessary level of force, and charged him accordingly.

 

[The Rabbi]

How did he know he was unarmed?

 

[Alvin]

How did he know he was unarmed?

He shot him didn't he. I don't know about you, but I tend to be looking at what I'm shooting at.

 

[The Rabbi]

How did he know he was unarmed?

He shot him didn't he. I don't know about you, but I tend to be looking at what I'm shooting at.

I ask again: How did Tony Martin know the man, who was breaking into his house, whom he shot, was unarmed?

 

[Alvin]

How did he know he was unarmed?

He shot him didn't he. I don't know about you, but I tend to be looking at what I'm shooting at.

I ask again: How did Tony Martin know the man, who was breaking into his house, whom he shot, was unarmed?

Because he was looking at him when he pulled the trigger........

 

[The Rabbi]

He shot him didn't he. I don't know about you, but I tend to be looking at what I'm shooting at.

I ask again: How did Tony Martin know the man, who was breaking into his house, whom he shot, was unarmed?

Because he was looking at him when he pulled the trigger........

I could stand right next to you and you would not know whether I was armed or not. Not seeing a weapon does not equate to unarmed. Under the circumstances, one would about have to assume the intruders were armed.

 

[Alvin]

I ask again: How did Tony Martin know the man, who was breaking into his house, whom he shot, was unarmed?

Because he was looking at him when he pulled the trigger........

I could stand right next to you and you would not know whether I was armed or not. Not seeing a weapon does not equate to unarmed. Under the circumstances, one would about have to assume the intruders were armed.

The law does not allow you to kill some one based on an assumption.

 

[The Rabbi]

Because he was looking at him when he pulled the trigger........

I could stand right next to you and you would not know whether I was armed or not. Not seeing a weapon does not equate to unarmed. Under the circumstances, one would about have to assume the intruders were armed.

The law does not allow you to kill some one based on an assumption.

Well yeah actually it does. In this case the assumption was that the intruder(s) were intending to cause death or serious bodily harm. That makes lethal force a legitimate option.

 

[Alvin]

I could stand right next to you and you would not know whether I was armed or not. Not seeing a weapon does not equate to unarmed. Under the circumstances, one would about have to assume the intruders were armed.

The law does not allow you to kill some one based on an assumption.

Well yeah actually it does. In this case the assumption was that the intruder(s) were intending to cause death or serious bodily harm. That makes lethal force a legitimate option.

This was in the UK. - The law does not allow you to kill someone based on an assumption. The intruder was unarmed, he was shot. And in the event of a brake in, you are not allowed to shoot someone as it is an excessive use of force. The basic idea is that stuff like TVs etc - aren't worth killing over.

 

[The Rabbi]

The law does not allow you to kill some one based on an assumption.

Well yeah actually it does. In this case the assumption was that the intruder(s) were intending to cause death or serious bodily harm. That makes lethal force a legitimate option.

This was in the UK. - The law does not allow you to kill someone based on an assumption. The intruder was unarmed, he was shot. And in the event of a brake in, you are not allowed to shoot someone as it is an excessive use of force. The basic idea is that stuff like TVs etc - aren't worth killing over.

And that's why Britain is fucked up beyond repair.
If someone is breaking into your house while you are at home, they are not after a TV. They will likely hurt or kill you in the process. This is why such a circumstance allows deadly force in most of the U.S.
This doctrine, a man's home is his castle, of course originated in English common law. Sad to see Englishmen reduced to drones with no rights in such a short time.

 

[Alvin]

Well yeah actually it does. In this case the assumption was that the intruder(s) were intending to cause death or serious bodily harm. That makes lethal force a legitimate option.

This was in the UK. - The law does not allow you to kill someone based on an assumption. The intruder was unarmed, he was shot. And in the event of a brake in, you are not allowed to shoot someone as it is an excessive use of force. The basic idea is that stuff like TVs etc - aren't worth killing over.

And that's why Britain is fucked up beyond repair.
If someone is breaking into your house while you are at home, they are not after a TV. They will likely hurt or kill you in the process. This is why such a circumstance allows deadly force in most of the U.S.
This doctrine, a man's home is his castle, of course originated in English common law. Sad to see Englishmen reduced to drones with no rights in such a short time.

Do you know when the last time a burglar in the UK used a firearm in the comission of their crime?
It's pretty much unheard of.
And the UK is doing quite well as far as I can see. Gun crime is on the rise in the UK as it is here, but crimes comitted using firearms tend to be between criminals, and not the general population.

ANd that idea of "they want to hurt you" is quite frankly false. It's too much hassle.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Because he was looking at him when he pulled the trigger........

I could stand right next to you and you would not know whether I was armed or not. Not seeing a weapon does not equate to unarmed. Under the circumstances, one would about have to assume the intruders were armed.

The law does not allow you to kill some one based on an assumption.

Break into my house while I am home and I can promise you that you will never break into another. And I could give a shit if you are armed or not. I am not about to give you the opportunity to take the first shot.