Illinois = no rights at all


PDA






stagger
December 24, 2011, 10:14 AM
Greetings and happy holidays! Did you know that in the state of illinois (gun nazi dictator state). An intruder in your home and on your land has as much if not more legal rights than you. I have heard story after story about people shooting an intruder and being charged with a felony! If anyone can tell me how that makes any sence at all i am all ears. I don'twant to kill someone and hope i never face decision in my life but if it ever came up i now hafta choose to protect my kids or go to prison.... that is just plain wrong in my opinion. Guess i will just go to prison if it ever came up. what do you you think? Would love to have your opinion on this matter, thanks and god bless! BTW i plan on making a youtube doc. on this subject and legal carry soon.

If you enjoyed reading about "Illinois = no rights at all" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Batta
December 24, 2011, 10:18 AM
I'm in IL as well and if it comes between a choice of a felony or protecting my family I choose family. Its not right but its just the state we live in. I just hope I never have to make the choice.

The Sarge
December 24, 2011, 10:21 AM
Vote them out.

Batta
December 24, 2011, 10:28 AM
yep

Ragnar Danneskjold
December 24, 2011, 10:29 AM
Vote at the ballot box, or vote with your feet. The great thing about living in a Constitutional Republic is that each state is free to run their own affairs as their citizens see fit (something that has been eroding for a long time). But you can still find states that have more liberty minded inhabitants. IL may be a wretched hive of scum and villainy, but there are places that aren't.

303tom
December 24, 2011, 10:37 AM
Move Next Door !!!!!!!

Onmilo
December 24, 2011, 10:39 AM
I live in west central Illinois.
I don't know where your information comes from but this state has a law known as "Castle Doctrine"
Your home and your property are bastions of your personal safety here.
Anyone trespassing on your property with the intent to do you, your family, or any guest bodily harm is considered a threat to your personal sovereignty and well being and you are well justified to stop the threat by any means possible.

I know of many cases where the shooter has been initially arrested under felonious charges that are then dropped after completion of the investigation.
That is a standard cop practice here.

One thing though.
B darned sure the person entering your property intends bodily harm.
Walking across your lawn is NOT a justification to shoot someone!

I forgot to add,
While there is no concealed carry in public in this state, you ARE legally allowed to CCW on your own property and in your own home in Illinois.
While far and away from perfect, we have more gun rights in this state than many people who live here realize.

floorit76
December 24, 2011, 10:41 AM
Some counties are worse than others. The PD around here is pretty understanding. I won't go into details, but if faced with a home intruder threat, if I had to fire, I would expect to be a free man in the end. Although I'm sure it would be a legal mess. Convert every non-gunner you can. Educate people as best you can. 49 other states can't be wrong, we will win.

floorit76
December 24, 2011, 10:43 AM
Onmilo, west central here also. Thanks for the info, I wasn't aware.

Onmilo
December 24, 2011, 10:49 AM
floorit76,
I'll give you a bit more to be aware of, especially in this part of the state.
If you have considerable enough property to hunt on your own land, remember to NOT CCW while hunting, that can get you into trouble with the Game Wardens as you cannot carry a concealed weapon while hunting anywhere in the state.
Open carrying a handgun is OK, Just don't have it covered by your jacket.

In such a scenario, your hunting weapon is considered sufficient enough to counter any threat to your personal well being.HTH

PapaG
December 24, 2011, 10:53 AM
I don't believe Illinois has castle doctrine.

Rembrandt
December 24, 2011, 11:04 AM
Even after 300 years, the nice thing about living in America....you can pack up and move if the government becomes too oppressive. The fact that people choose to live in these states speaks volumes about what they will tolerate.

floorit76
December 24, 2011, 11:10 AM
I live in my mothers families original home, our basement beams are hand hewn with an axe, probably by a family member. This farm reached centinial status in 1972. That means we can prove we've been here that long. Mom married a guy that grew up 1/2 mile down the road. Their family farm went centinial in 1980. Together they own over 1000 acres of farmland. The chances of any of us "packing up" and moving out anytime soon is slim at best. I prefer to stay and fight till this state recognizes my rights like the other 49 do.

2WheelsGood
December 24, 2011, 11:12 AM
Even after 300 years, the nice thing about living in America....you can pack up and move if the government becomes too oppressive.
While certainly some states are less evil than others, there are no states in the Union that mirror what the founders of this country had in mind.

ilbob
December 24, 2011, 11:15 AM
Greetings and happy holidays! Did you know that in the state of illinois (gun nazi dictator state). An intruder in your home and on your land has as much if not more legal rights than you. I have heard story after story about people shooting an intruder and being charged with a felony! If anyone can tell me how that makes any sence at all i am all ears. I don'twant to kill someone and hope i never face decision in my life but if it ever came up i now hafta choose to protect my kids or go to prison.... that is just plain wrong in my opinion. Guess i will just go to prison if it ever came up. what do you you think? Would love to have your opinion on this matter, thanks and god bless! BTW i plan on making a youtube doc. on this subject and legal carry soon.

You are just dead wrong. Illinois has very strong protections from both criminal and civil liability in self defense cases.

I have never heard of a single such story, much less multiple stories. In fact, IL even has a state law that prevents local units of governments from prosecuting people for violating local gun bans in self defense cases. I urge you to reconsider making youself look foolish by making such a video.

(720 ILCS 5/Art. 7 heading)
ARTICLE 7. JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE; EXONERATION

(720 ILCS 5/7‑1) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑1)
Sec. 7‑1. Use of force in defense of person.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.
(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7‑4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93‑832, eff. 7‑28‑04.)


(720 ILCS 5/7‑2) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑2)
Sec. 7‑2. Use of force in defense of dwelling.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:
(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent,
riotous, or tumultuous manner, and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or offer of personal violence to, him or another then in the dwelling, or

(2) He reasonably believes that such force is
necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.

(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7‑4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93‑832, eff. 7‑28‑04.)


(720 ILCS 5/7‑3) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑3)
Sec. 7‑3. Use of force in defense of other property.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with either real property (other than a dwelling) or personal property, lawfully in his possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his immediate family or household or of a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7‑4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93‑832, eff. 7‑28‑04.)


(720 ILCS 5/7‑4) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑4)
Sec. 7‑4. Use of force by aggressor.
The justification described in the preceding Sections of this Article is not available to a person who:
(a) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(b) Initially provokes the use of force against himself, with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant; or
(c) Otherwise initially provokes the use of force against himself, unless:
(1) Such force is so great that he reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and that he has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(2) In good faith, he withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)

Kingcreek
December 24, 2011, 11:19 AM
Illinois has some restrictive gun laws but it is moving in the right direction. get active and change it for the better.
NW Central Illinois resident currently and for the forseeable future. The hunting and fishing is good. We just have to put those Chicago politicians in thier place (a place with bars over the windows!)

Kingcreek
December 24, 2011, 11:24 AM
BTW, I was involved in a SD situation during an attempted burglary gone bad. I had my handgun confiscated by a new county deputy at the scene but it was returned to me at my home with an apology the next day. the only negative was I had to testify at the trial for the 2 losers charged with criminal trespass. Nothing against me.

MM44
December 24, 2011, 11:34 AM
Kingcreek, you realize the problem, Chicago ways of thinking are not the same as the rest of us downstaters.
Since 1968, we have understood that an intruder needs to be in the action of entering, and should leave enough evidence on the inside of the home as not to be able to testify against the home owner.
And whatever happens, make sure you have your papers in order. F.o.I.d. etc.

stagger
December 24, 2011, 11:44 AM
while i understand that not everyone will agree with me on this topic and i love to hear all opinions, i cant just pack up and leave, i have divorced and have a five year old son that i love very much and will never leave behind. The story that comes to my mind first is one of a 82 year old lady that was wheel chair bound in chicago. Two punks broke in to her house and was pushing her around and when they went into another room she got her gun and shot and killed one of them, the other fled. she wound up coming out of the whole thing pretty good but they did revoke her right to own a firearm over it. guess it could have been worse. Now i have been told by one of our local police officers that you can't just shoot an intruder unless he has a gun and i know that but in my opinion gun or no gun you have no right what so ever to break into someone's house in the middle of the night while the whole family is asleep and un-alert and expect to not get shot. I just think even if you are in the way of harm under those conditions it shouldn't matter if they are armed or not, or i could be wrong thats just my opinion.

Onward Allusion
December 24, 2011, 11:56 AM
stagger
Illinois = no rights at all
Greetings and happy holidays! Did you know that in the state of illinois (gun nazi dictator state). An intruder in your home and on your land has as much if not more legal rights than you. I have heard story after story about people shooting an intruder and being charged with a felony! If anyone can tell me how that makes any sence at all i am all ears. I don'twant to kill someone and hope i never face decision in my life but if it ever came up i now hafta choose to protect my kids or go to prison.... that is just plain wrong in my opinion. Guess i will just go to prison if it ever came up. what do you you think? Would love to have your opinion on this matter, thanks and god bless! BTW i plan on making a youtube doc. on this subject and legal carry soon.

Welcome to the forum. Please do a little research. Here's an excerpt.

(720 ILCS 5/) Criminal Code of 1961

Section 7. Justifiable use of force. Use of deadly force justified if the person reasonably believes they are in danger of death or great physical harm. Use of deadly force justified if the unlawful entry is violent, or the person believes the attacker will commit a felony upon gaining entry.

Section 7-2(b). Prevents the aggressor from filing any claim against the defender unless the use of force involved "willful or wanton misconduct".

Illinois has no requirement of retreat. (People v. Bush, 111 N.E.2d 326 Ill. 1953).

It ain't IN, but it certainly isn't NJ or some of those other seriously screwed up States. It's in the top 10 or top 15 but don't believe for a moment that just because IL is the "last" hold-out on CCW that it is the worst gun State in the country. There are a host of States that have MAY-Issue that are WAY worst than IL. WAY WORST.

nebraska_farmer
December 24, 2011, 11:59 AM
I've never understood why states like IL and NJ can limit the right to defend yourself so much, how are they able to get away with this?

Sam1911
December 24, 2011, 12:11 PM
I'm going to put this in bold and then close.

The information presented in the opening post is INCORRECT. The OP's understanding of the law, and thus his specific complaint here is flawed. ilbob and Onward Allusion have presented the law itself in posts 15 and 20. Go read them. Please don't complain about how your rights are infringed, if you don't actually know what the law says -- it robs us of the energy we need to be expending on REAL problems.

Thanks.

If you enjoyed reading about "Illinois = no rights at all" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!