Governor vetoes protection for homeowners with handguns (Illinois)

Status
Not open for further replies.

GSB

Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2003
Messages
800
http://www.wqad.com/Global/story.asp?S=2201684

Governor vetoes protection for homeowners with handguns

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich (bluh-GOY-uh-vitch) today vetoed protection for homeowners who violate local gun ordinances by shooting intruders.

The legislation responded to the case of Hale DeMar. The Wilmette restaurant owner shot a burglar in December who had broken into his home twice.

The measure could still become law. It passed both houses of the General Assembly by large enough margins that another vote this fall could override the veto.

Wilmette officials charged DeMar with violating the city's ban on handguns but prosecutors brought no criminal charges.

The bill would allow people to argue self-defense if they are charged with violating such a city ordinance.

Blagojevich says the measure would encourage people to buy handguns and hide them in cities such as Wilmette.

(The bill is SB2165. On the Net: http://www.legis.state.il.us.)
 
Of course. Naturally. Blagojevich has always been totally anti-RKBA.

To people like him, free, armed Americans are far scarier than criminals or terrorists. That's just Illinois for you. Illinois just keeps electing people like Blagojevich. The rest of the United States should secede from Illinois, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Maryland.

MCB
 
I especially like this line:

Blagojevich says the measure would encourage people to buy handguns and hide them in cities such as Wilmette.

The peasantry buying handguns! The horror! When will the madness stop!
 
This nut Governor is sooooooo out of the mainstream. I hope he does not stray outside of IL. cause he might run into the masses of free citizens who conceal handguns on their bodies, in their vehicles and in their homes on their own PRIVATE property.:neener:
 
Sometimes I think these "blood will run in the streets" folks actually want it to. They have the paper towel concession....

:banghead:

That's about the only thing that makes any sense at all....
 
The joke around here is that Blago is having a great time, he thinks he's governor.
Responsive government, respectful of the people it serves may exist somewhere, but it is sadly absent from Illinois at the state and local levels.
 
This law is poorly conceived and totally unneccessary. What would be far, far better is a law that says municipalities CANNOT legislate any limitations on firearms or other weapons. The current patchwork of state and various municipal laws make compliance difficult, if not impossible.
I am legally armed at home and at my place of business. Between the 2, I'm sorta mostly in compliance to the best of my ability.
 
When the chips are down I'll depend on my gun. The police aren't going to be there...they come later to report the aftermath...after the bad guys are done and left the scene.
 
The rest of the United States should secede from Illinois, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Maryland. - madcowburger

No that's a workaround. The SCOTUS needs to apply the 2nd Amendment to all States via the 14th amendment. States that have RKBA declared in their Constitutions typically do not allow for local overrides. You simply listed rogue states that need a good slap up along side of the head. States with very large cities that enjoy exceptions for gun bans will fight you. It's all about Chicago.

Involving a governor's veto, it seems to me that this would make a particularly good case if specifically designed to ultimately be argued before the US Supreme Court. People in Illinois need to go for it, widely supported morally and financially by those in other States. Fixing Illinois would take all the other States with it and settle a critical question about the US Constitution.
 
This law is poorly conceived and totally unneccessary. What would be far, far better is a law that says municipalities CANNOT legislate any limitations on firearms or other weapons.

Oh don't construe my post of the article as thinking any of this made any sense. For someone who lives in the South, the whole thing seems really bizarre (okay, it'll still be illegal for you to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights, but we'll pretend we didn't see anything if you exercise them in defense of yourself). But then again, I lived most of my life in New Jersey, so nonsensical firearms laws are not new to me.

The Illinois monarchy just needs to let its people exercise their Constitutionally protected Natural Rights to own handguns and it's all moot. It's not rocket science, except perhaps to the blissninny totalitarian left.
 
So does this mean people in Illinois are not supposed to defend themselves, or that forcible entry is not considered grounds for lethal force?
 
"So does this mean people in Illinois are not supposed to defend themselves, or that forcible entry is not considered grounds for lethal force?"

Neither. It means than certain municipalities ban people from owning certain guns, i.e. handguns, and Blago doesn't want to encourage people to break those laws.

If the homeowner had blasted the home invader with a shotgun or deer rifle, or split his head open with an axe, this wouldn't be an issue.

I legally own full autos in Missouri. In Illinois, this is forbidden for private citizens. If I light up a home invader with my Thompson, nothing will likely happen to me other than a few raised eyebrows. If an Illinois resident stops a home invasion with his dad's WWII Grease Gun, he'll have problems.

JR
 
I find the following aspect of this thing especially interesting.

The governor had prerviously served in The U.S. House of Representatives, where his position/orientation regarding firearms in general and gun rights in particular was no secret.

He sought and obtained election to his present position, which causes me to assume that his well known positions were not bothersome to a majority of the electorate. Given his veto of this particular legislation, action that he previously indicated was his intention, is anyone surprised?

Another question might be as follows. Don't people ever learn?
 
I'm sure he wouldn't have to worry about someone breaking into his home, with his bodyguards (who I'm sure are armed) and all...:rolleyes:
 
Alan, It's not that simple. Here in Illinois the Democrats claim Chicago. the state GOP is a castrated RINO club that has not yet recovered from a major F'up with the last corrupt Republican Guv and can't find, let alone run, a viable candidate for any major state position. and Downstate IL is a mix of agriculture and economically depressed, blue-collar union folks who were successfully milked by the Dems last election.
There is more than this but I tried for the thumbnail version.
 
RileyMc, replace "office" with "face of the earth" and I'd be happier.



I just can't imagine living someplace where any politician of any party would think vetoing such a bill is a good idea ... or where the people wouldn't run him out of town on a rail for it.

:confused:
 
Here in Illinois the Democrats claim Chicago.

claim hell nothing they run it like kingpins. still suprised they havent gotten enough to put daily away. probably have and got trumped.

damn screwed up what happened to jack ryan its even more embarassing that fool didnt grow a pair and continue to run instead of tucking tail. who cares if he likes some kinky stuff in his bed. should of sued the paper and judge for releasing his sealed documents.
 
RileyMc, replace "office" with "face of the earth" and I'd be happier.

I agree, but we have to allow escalation to occur first, and I was trying (as difficult as it is for me, sometimes :eek: ) to stay on THR. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top