Posted on 11/15/2004 10:38:32 PM PST by Mr. Mojo
SPRINGFIELD -- Home intruders beware. The Illinois legislature is poised to allow residents the right to defend their castles.
On the second day of the fall veto session this past week, the Illinois Senate overrode Governor Rod Blagojevich’s veto of legislation allowing homeowners the right to protect their property from invasion.
Senator Ed Petka (R-Plainfield), former Will County prosecutor and initiator of SB 2165, says he is confident the veto will fly in the Illinois House as well.
“What this bill does is assure Illinois citizens that their home is still their castle,” Petka said from Springfield today. “With other legislation we’ve passed this session, potential intruders should be warned that they could be faced with potential peril.”
SB 2165 says that an individual who uses a firearm while defending his home will be allowed an affirmative defense to a charge he unlawfully possessed the firearm. The legislation was initiated after a Wilmette resident faced local city officials who charged him with using a handgun -- banned in Wilmette -- to defend his family when a burglar entered his home last year.
Petka also shepherded through the General Assembly legislation that would disallow any felon from suing a property owner if the invader suffered injuries as a result of the victim defending himself or his property with a weapon.
“As soon as the bill passes the House, we will have a ‘two-fer’ this year,” the sixteen year veteran senator said. "We’ve been able to restore some sense and sanity to our communities. Homeowners now have a right to protect their property."
Does Petka foresee any further progress for gun owners in the upcoming legislation session?
“Well, the Republicans gained one seat in the election, but the Democrats are still the party of gun control,” the sixteen year veteran legislator said. “Attorney General Lisa Madigan says she supports a state assault weapon ban, we may be dealing with that in the next session.”
The sixteen senators opposing this week's override of SB 2165 were: Collins, Cullerton, del Valle, Garrett, Hendon, Harmon, Hunter, Lightford, Link, Maloney, Martinez, Meeks, Munoz, Raoul (in place of Obama), Ronen, Schoenberg, Silverstein and President Emil Jones -- all Chicago area Democrats.
Republican Senator Martin Sandoval did not vote.
The State House is expected to vote on the veto override during the fall session as well. The override needs 71 votes to pass. SB 2165 passed the House this summer with 90 votes.
I applaud the Illinois legislature for its stance on home defense. However, I must take issue with your use of the word "allow" in the first paragraph of your article. It should have read "legalize" or something similar. Government does not grant rights -- government is supposed to protect and defend the rights guaranteed by our Constitution.
The e-mail address is cal@illinoisleader.com.
Carolyn
You only need one. Three's just being a show-off. :P
Well there is always the outside chance one could jam you need a couple of backups for safety purposes:-)
Home intruders beware.
You may not own or possess a gun. But if you shoot an intruder with the gun that you are not allowed to own or possess, that's fine by us.
Question: I assume they then confiscate the gun?
Easy there bub, CHICAGO is a liberal cesspool. Most all of the rest of the state is bright red.
Actually, the correction should read: "The Illinois legislature is poised to protect the right of residents to defend their castles."
You are correct that "Government does not grant rights". Our rights are fundamental. It is up to the citizens of each state to decide on the rights that the state will protect. (At least that's what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the U.S. Constitution.)
The Illinois State Constitution reads: "Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Since Illinois has "Home Rule", a city may write whatever gun laws it wants, as long as it doesn't violate the Illinois Constitution.
A landmark gun case, Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982) was heard here.
Just keep the water can full.
Yes, the RINO's and liberals will whine. The forget that many women and girls did know how to shoot in the 'wild west' because they had to know in order to survive when the menfold were off hunting and chasing bad guys!! Want to cut down on violent sexual crime - teach the young women self-defense..including gun skills!!!!!!
You are correct about Quilici vs Morton Grove. This is a good thing that will shortly be rendered null and void. Unfortunately, Illinois gun owners will never have any gun rights until we change our state Constitution. This veto override will be quickly ruled by a court to be in violation of the state Constitution as interrupted by the 7th circuit court of appeals in Quilici vs. Village of Morton Grove.
Since 1982, Quilici vs. Village of Morton Grove has been the controlling legal authority in Illinois. Since the Supreme Court has refused to review the case, it will continue to be the law in Illinois until the state Constitution is amended. The power of the legislative branch has already been usurped by the courts concerning home rule gun bans.
For those who may not be aware of what the court has ruled, the following are the pertinent parts of the ruling that every Illinois gun owner should know:
1. The Illinois Constitution provides: Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
2. The right to keep and bear arms in Illinois is so limited by the police power that a ban on handguns does not violate that right.
3. Section 22's (the state Constitutions) plain language grants only the right to keep and bear arms, not handguns.
4. The Illinois Constitution authorizes local governments to function as home rule units to exercise any power and perform any function pertaining to its government and affairs.
5. Illinois home rule units have expansive powers to govern as they deem proper, including the authority to impose greater restrictions on particular rights than those imposed by the state.
6. There is no right under the Illinois Constitution to possess a handgun, nor does the state have an overriding state interest in gun control that requires it to retain exclusive control in order to prevent home rule units from adopting conflicting enactments.
7. Morton Grove may exercise its police power to prohibit handguns even though this prohibition interferes with an individual's liberty or property.
Neither the ISRA, the NRA, nor the defenders of freedom in the General Assembly seem to want to do what's necessary to restore the God-given rights that gun owners lost when the 1972 state Constitution was ratified.
Until they decide that it is no longer acceptable for the peoples' "liberty teeth" to be "subject only to the police power" and "home rule" and are ready to amend the state Constitution, let's cut the bogus "political dog and pony show." It's become really annoying, and quite frankly it's insulting.
The Illinois courts will adopt the most expansive interpetation of Art I, Sec 22 of the Illinois constitution and allow any gun ban that some home rule body will adopt. The Quilici vs Morton Grove decision even said that the right to possess a handgun was not protected by the Miller decision of 1939!!! As though the US military never adopted the 1851 Navy Colt, the Colt single action ARMY revolver, the 45 cal. M1911A1 auto pistol, the Beretta M9 9MM pistol, the S&W Model 10 MILITARY & POLICE .38 cal revolver along with many other handguns. Even though the enactment of this provision of the Illinois constitution is in effect unconstitutional and amounts to an unconstitutional infringment of the RKBA under the federal constitution, the Supreme Court will never deem it so and refuses to accept cert on hearing any local handgun ban. The only options for us are to either elect politicians who will repeal these idiotic and anti-freedom laws, or get the Illinois constitution amended. Note that there appears to be no right in Illinois to own a handgun if some home rule provision prevents it. In Cook County Chicago bans handguns and Cook has an assault weapons ban. As long as we understand that our rights are subject to the whims of politicians at all levels of government than we should be able to see what must be done. I think that we can all agree that this situation is being primarily fueled by the tyrant in Chicago's City Hall.
Since 1982, Quilici vs. Village of Morton Grove has been the controlling legal authority in Illinois. Since the Supreme Court has refused to review the case, it will continue to be the law in Illinois until the state Constitution is amended. The power of the legislative branch has already been usurped by the courts concerning home rule gun bans.
When people are presented with the real truth of the situation, they are better able to take the appropriate steps to correct the problem. It irks me to no end to hear people say that our gun rights are protected by the second amendment, so don't worry about state law.
I agree that it doesn't appear legislation is the answer (but we'll see what happens to the veto override). And a constitutional amendment to ease up on gun control will be demonized by Herr Daley and his buddies to the point that we'd be extremely lucky to get 50%, much less the 2/3.
It may be that the big push will come from the success of CCW in other states, assuming that the Illinois crime rate is (remains) higher. Maybe logic will overcome emotion.
Imagine the chutzpah of these clowns *granting* their constituents the "right" to protect their own property.
And make special note of the names of those who opposed this, and, where they represent.
~eh?
Seems they've no problem representing their constituent's "interests".
...& those "interests" scare the crap outa me.
This was really a great thing. You have to realize the situation here in Illinois. In cities like Chicago and many others the RATS have dominated the gun issue and have passed laws making it illegal to possess a gun. The most recent issue involved a guy in Winnetka where it was illegal to have a gun. He shot some A$$-hole invading his home and was subject to prosecution.
The various constituencies may still have the right to ban guns, but at least now they can't prosecute someone for defending his home even if they can fine him for possessing the gun. It's not a perfect solution but it is better than nothing. As someone else pointed out on this forum, this legislation should also absolve insurance companies of liability. Petka, who introduced this bill, is from my county--he will continue to get my vote.
I have been out of Illinois for a long time, but my former understanding was that you had to prove your life was in danger before shooting a home invader. DUH--I guess a homeonwer must politely inquire if the invader is there to do harm or if he just dropped in for cake and coffee!
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.