What are the characteristics of an armed person???

[Natural Citizen]

indeed armed, and made motions that could indicate using his firearm against the police.

He was minding his own business before he was accosted and manhandled by your men with guns who were sent from the government. Clearly, there are better ways of approaching a person than sending a group of armed men to walk up to him and start shaking him down.

Here is a still frame close-up of the gun:

Heres a close up of Illinois Constitution with regard to gun rights.

ARTICLE I
BILL OF RIGHTS
SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That's what you're supporting, Mr. 2nd amendment guy. You;re suporting a defined path by which the Illinois State Government can strip away what the U.S. Constitution promises “shall not be infringed.”

Do you feel good about yourself? Do you feel like one of those patriots we hear so much about?

I'm just going to assume you didn't see his 4th, 5th, and 10th amendments violated prior to his public execution either.

Heck, do you think the Framers wouldn't have sought space to pop a musket ball in a tyrant's ass if they were attacking? I have a silver dime that says they'd get 1776 with the quickness. I contend that those men sent wit hguns fro mthe government would have been limited strictly. They sure as heck wouldn't bow down, lick their boots and make excuses for them, I'll guarantee you that much.

The solution is to amend the Illinois constitution in favor of the Individual's 2nd amendment..Mr. 2nd amendment guy....and less in favor of specifically defining a path by which the Illinois State Government can strip away what the U.S. Constitution promises “shall not be infringed” and in this case, by public execution. That's the solution. Mr. Bolshevik guy is more fitting if you ask me. Because you clearly do not understand freedom.

And while we're taking frames...The Federalist (numbers 28 by Hamilton and 46 by Madison)...Read em. Because something seems awfully backward about your wisdom.

That's all I'm going to say about it. You people can have the thread.

 

[Natural Citizen]

One other thing while it's on my mind. Right now the most dangerous threat to Individual liberty in America is the extreme center. Without a single doubt. Because when tyrants and otherwise useful idiots, and even good poeople of modest means who simply do not understand freedom yet, compromise on their infringements, Individual liberty and the Constitution, the things that brilliant men spilled their guts for, are at their most vulnerable.

I hope the electorate enjoys the taste of those government jack boots. Because what the electorate incentivizes, the electorate will surely get more of. And a hundred fold. History is ripe with example.

We just witnessed the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 10th amendments get shot down in a hail of the government's bullets and all in one single thread. And The People love them for it. Unbelievable.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Even if he had a concealed carry permit he was in violation of the law as it was evident that he was carrying

Illinois Gun Laws: The Latest CCW Information (updated for 2018)

Open carrying a handgun on your person or in a vehicle with or without a license in Illinois is illegal. Even if you have a concealed permit you still cannot legally open carry.



The handgun must be concealed from view of the public.

Here's the problem in Illinois.


Constitution of the State of Illinois...

ARTICLE I
BILL OF RIGHTS
SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


See anything wrong with that?

I do. All it does is define a path to which Illinois can strip away what the constitution clearly says shall not be infringed.

Article 1, Section 22 of the Illinois Constitution makes every law cited in this thread that has been offered in defense of the public execution redundant in scope. And it's a very, very, dangerous concept to be defending in any way, shape, or form.

The Framers are probably rolling over in their graves. They have to be.

One thing is for sure, however. The dead man's 2nd amendment right was ''Subject only to the police power'' like a mofo on that day. What the heck ever happened to shall not infringe. It used to mean something. Of course, now we live in a take guns first and give due process later kind of America. Somebody was saying that very thing a while back as I recall. And the people loved him for it. Crazy. Absolutely nuts. All one can do is laugh at this point.

The thing is I don't have a problem denying convicted felons the right to keep and bear

Now I don't think that if anyone can legally buy a gun that he should also have to get a permit to carry concealed.

But as the laws stand this guy was in violation.

That tells me he either didn't know the CCW laws in his state or he was illegally in possession of that firearm.

I have to think that if he was legally carrying he wouldn't have run from the cops nor would he have moved to pull his gun as he did

 

[SavannahMann]

Cop's who walk the beat for years usually developed a kind of 6th sense when it comes spotting potential criminal behavior and taking them off our streets. .....

Really? You believe in psychic powers? Awesome. Because I can look at a cop, and just know if he has committed perjury or planted evidence. Both of which are Felonies. Does that mean on my say so, we send the person to prison? I’m not suggesting you take my word for it. We could confirm it with a neutral third party. A magic 8 ball.

 

[Natural Citizen]

The thing is I don't have a problem denying convicted felons the right to keep and bear

Now I don't think that if anyone can legally buy a gun that he should also have to get a permit to carry concealed.

But as the laws stand this guy was in violation.

That tells me he either didn't know the CCW laws in his state or he was illegally in possession of that firearm.

I have to think that if he was legally carrying he wouldn't have run from the cops nor would he have moved to pull his gun as he did

Yeah. As the law stands, he was in violation. And at 37 years old, he should have known not to run. But if we look at that camera, he had his wallet out and he was calmly standing there talking to the first cop. His wallet was open as if he were complying. Those other three cops should not have walked up on him and grabbed his hands and they shouldn't have have tried to subdue him. He was already complying. That's what annoys me with this.They instigated the scuffle. And the eoman who grabbed him wasn;t eve in control of herself, much less him. Did you see how weak and uncoordinated she was? I think that if they'd have just kept their distance and let him finish complying with the first cop, and then tell him know if he's being detained if he's not carrying within the law there in Illinois, then this wouldn't have happened. Of course, that's conjecture. But it's good conjecture.

The constitutionality of their laws can be worked out in a court. Or a battlefield if it ever gets that bad. But that's another day.

I think a lot of felons can get their gun rights back so long as they aren't a violent felon.

Ah well. I already popped my pie hole off enough in this thread.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The thing is I don't have a problem denying convicted felons the right to keep and bear

Now I don't think that if anyone can legally buy a gun that he should also have to get a permit to carry concealed.

But as the laws stand this guy was in violation.

That tells me he either didn't know the CCW laws in his state or he was illegally in possession of that firearm.

I have to think that if he was legally carrying he wouldn't have run from the cops nor would he have moved to pull his gun as he did

Yeah. As the law stands, he was in violation. And at 37 years old, he should have known not to run. But if we look at that camera, he had his wallet out and he was calmly standing there talking to the first cop. His wallet was open as if he were complying. Those other three cops should not have walked up on him and grabbed his hands and they shouldn't have have tried to subdue him. He was already complying. That's what annoys me with this.They instigated the scuffle. And the eoman who grabbed him wasn;t eve in control of herself, much less him. Did you see how weak and uncoordinated she was? I think that if they'd have just kept their distance and let him finish complying with the first cop, and then tell him know if he's being detained if he's not carrying within the law there in Illinois, then this wouldn't have happened. Of course, that's conjecture. But it's good conjecture.

The constitutionality of their laws can be worked out in a court. Or a battlefield if it ever gets that bad. But that's another day.

I think a lot of felons can get their gun rights back so long as they aren't a violent felon.

Ah well. I already popped my pie hole off enough in this thread.

Anyway.

I don't disagree that there were procedural mistakes but the guy ran and made a move to pull his gun at that point all bets are off and he gets dead

 

[MikeK]

Subject only to police discretion, no man may forcibly impose himself upon one's wife, daughter, sister, or mother.