Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge Rules Against Man Who Defended His Home
CNSNews ^ | Susan Jones

Posted on 11/01/2004 5:23:42 AM PST by Michael Goldsberry

(CNSNews.com) - A Cook County Judge on Friday ruled against a Wilmette man who was arrested after shooting and wounding a home invader in late 2003.

The homeowner, Hale DeMar, was arrested on charges of violating Wilmette's ban on handgun ownership, prompting a backlash against local ordinances that prevent individuals from possessing guns to defend their own homes. DeMar was fined $750 for possessing two handguns.

DeMar went to court, arguing that the charges against him should be dismissed because they violated his 14th Amendment (equal protection) rights.

But on Friday, Judge Thaddeus Machnik rejected DeMar's effort to have the Wilmette ordinance declared unconstitutional.

"In penning his decision in the DeMar case, Judge Machnik demonstrated that the courts continue to cling to their cockeyed interpretation of the 2nd Amendment," said ISRA Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association. "This is pretty much what we expected out of Judge Machnik."

Pearson said the ISRA will now redouble its efforts to pass firearm preemption legislation -- "so that municipalities are no longer free to bully citizens who wish only to protect their homes and families from predatory criminals."

Following DeMar's arrest last year, the Illinois General Assembly passed a homeowner protection bill, which Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, a staunch supporter of gun control, later vetoed.

The bill is now awaiting an override vote, which will happen when the General Assembly convenes its veto session this November.

The man who broke into DeMar's home -- twice -- pleaded guilty to burglary and is now serving a seven-year prison term, press reports said.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Government
KEYWORDS: banglist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-59 next last

1 posted on 11/01/2004 5:23:42 AM PST by Michael Goldsberry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Leapfrog

We need to start arresting these judges and legislators for aiding and abetting criminal acts, which they are clearly doing.


2 posted on 11/01/2004 5:26:06 AM PST by AmericanChef
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leapfrog
DeMar went to court, arguing that the charges against him should be dismissed because they violated his 14th Amendment (equal protection) rights.

I wonder why this guy went to all the trouble to fight this, but used the 14th Amendment instead of the 2nd.

3 posted on 11/01/2004 5:27:57 AM PST by MamaTexan (I am NOT a 'legal entity'!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmericanChef; bang_list

I'd settle for impeachment of such judges. Unfortunately, too many of the sheeple have been conditioned with the "guns are eee-vil" mantra.


4 posted on 11/01/2004 5:28:16 AM PST by FreedomPoster (hoplophobia is a mental aberration rather than a mere attitude)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Leapfrog
violating Wilmette's ban on handgun ownership

Sure. Towns can ban guns. It's not like there's anything at the federal level that would prevent such a ban ...

5 posted on 11/01/2004 5:28:52 AM PST by ClearCase_guy (The fourth estate is a fifth column.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmericanChef

And who's going to arrest them? The Police Chiefs who agree with them?


6 posted on 11/01/2004 5:33:08 AM PST by theDentist (Proud Member of FreeRepublic 's "Pyjama-Hadeen")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Leapfrog

Another anti America of our founders activist judge....Judge 'Moxnix'

These judges are destroying our nation...

And why a Bush presidency 'at this juncture' is so critical....


7 posted on 11/01/2004 5:33:58 AM PST by joesnuffy (America needs a 'Big Dog' on her porch not a easily frightened, whining, French,"Surrender Poodle"..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy

8 posted on 11/01/2004 5:44:14 AM PST by sushiman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

Because he probably knew this awful judge holds the Democrat/Kerry position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right, not an individual one.

Its another reason why judicial appointments are so important. Someday there is going to have to be a definitive Sup Court case about the meaning of the Second Amendment. If there are 5 Scalia's and Thomases, then the Original Intent will prevail. If there are 5 Souters, Ginsburgs, or O'Connors then the Collectivist garbage will prevail, thus rendering the Second Amendment meaningless.

Of course the Sup Court shouldn't have this power. The intent of the Second Amendment is clear, and it should not be subject to the whims of the Sup Court who were never meant to have this much power.


9 posted on 11/01/2004 5:45:28 AM PST by Aetius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Leapfrog
It's starts with liberal attorneys, and goes to the top. Now we have to worry about a liberal attorney running for president and vice president. Think what they can do for liberals.

Horror story, a Clinton on the supreme court.

10 posted on 11/01/2004 5:48:06 AM PST by Jarhead1957 (Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leapfrog
local ordinances that prevent individuals from possessing guns to defend their own homes.

Where is this?
11 posted on 11/01/2004 5:48:24 AM PST by Vision ("When you trust in yourself, you're trusting in the same wisdom that created you")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leapfrog

There has to be more to this story. There is? Right?


12 posted on 11/01/2004 5:49:40 AM PST by newzjunkey (Keep crime down: NO on CA Prop 66. Pray for America and Vote BUSH!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vision

NY,NY


13 posted on 11/01/2004 5:49:42 AM PST by Jarhead1957 (Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Vision

It says Cook County so I imagine it's in Illinois!


14 posted on 11/01/2004 5:50:57 AM PST by newzjunkey (Keep crime down: NO on CA Prop 66. Pray for America and Vote BUSH!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey

His pistol was not registered. He did not have a pistol permit. NY, NY


15 posted on 11/01/2004 5:51:10 AM PST by Jarhead1957 (Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Jarhead1957

Ooops wrong case, It happened in NY also a while back.


16 posted on 11/01/2004 5:52:02 AM PST by Jarhead1957 (Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Vision

Wilmette, IL in Cook County, IL.


17 posted on 11/01/2004 5:53:41 AM PST by libstripper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Leapfrog
BANGLIST added to Keywords:

Please add Banglist to keywords when posting Gun-related articles..

18 posted on 11/01/2004 5:57:47 AM PST by Drammach (Freedom; not just a job, it's an adventure..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leapfrog
Mr. Demar challenges on 14th amendment grounds, and "equal protection"..

Mr. Pearson, of the Illinois State Rifle Association complains about the Judge's interpretation of the 2nd amendment..
Sorry, Mr. Pearson.. wrong amendment.. That's the one under which Mr. DeMar should have challenged, not the one he referenced..

There's a lot wrong here, but the worst is not challenging on the proper grounds.. 2nd amendment grounds..
The argument should have been about "infringement".. nothing else..

19 posted on 11/01/2004 6:06:04 AM PST by Drammach (Freedom; not just a job, it's an adventure..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leapfrog
"A Cook County Judge...rejected DeMar's effort to have the Wilmette ordinance declared unconstitutional. "

"DeMar went to court, arguing that the charges against him should be dismissed because they violated his 14th Amendment"

This case proves what I have contended for many years. Law students and subsequently, practicing attorney's, have never been taught and have no idea how to argue constitutional law and jurisdiction.

The Cook County judge ruled correctly.

DeMar would first have to establish federal constitutional jurisdiction within the boundaries of sovereign state in order to exert a federal constitutional right.

Second, the proper right has to be exerted. The right to keep and bear arms is a 2nd amendment right.

Third, the Illinois Constitution states:

"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."

The bottomline is, in the State of Illinois, the citizens have no state protected, constitutional right to keep and bear arms because that right is always subject to the state (which equals municipal) police power.

DeMar's attorney should have used the 14th amendment as the constitutional basis for the federal 2nd amendment to have jurisdiction within the boundaries of a sovereign state.

Then argue that a citizen of state of Illinois is also citizen of the U.S. and is entitled to all of the "privileges and immunities" protected by the federal constitution.

20 posted on 11/01/2004 6:11:09 AM PST by tahiti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-59 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson