victim of attempted robbery shoots perp, but charged for no carry permit

Chicago logic. It's not like the logic anywhere else.

So much for the right to life in Chicago. Guess you can still have the right, just not the ability to protect it.

Never try to rob someone while using a pellet gun. My cousin learned this the hard way many years ago, and spent 2 years in prison. He's lucky the cop who shot 6 rounds at him was a lousy shot. The 14 year-old here wasn't so lucky. (Though she apparently survived) When Jim was booked, they had to issue him new underwear, as his were quite soiled.

Good case to take to SCOTUS.

Sympathetic plaintiff who is otherwise law abiding.

Can say Constitutional Carry, the 2nd Amendment is his carry permit.

Do you need a license to exercise any other right?

Chicago seems to do all it can to ensure the rights of criminals and to make otherwise law abiding citizens criminals as well. Let’s then strip people of rights while both generating revenue and taxing others more.

They see this as a win, win, win ,win...

In civilized jurisdictions, you won't be prosecuted for using an unlicensed weapon in self defense.

Jim Watson said:

In civilized jurisdictions, you won't be prosecuted for using an unlicensed weapon in self defense.

Click to expand...

In civilized jurisdictions you don't have to have a license just to own one.

Seems ripe for jury nullification. Curious to see how far the case goes.

Bernie only did 8 months on the weapons possession, but he "felt the burn", with the $43 million civil judgement, from Cabey.

I think I read “unlawful use of a weapon because she did not have a concealed carry license”. My guess is that the law will prevail and the defender will be convicted of illegal carry which lead to illegal use. She shot a child while not possessing a CCL who hit her with a pellet gun while attempting to steal a dog. The after facts will be sterilized by the legal process and both will plead out or be convicted. The perp was committing robbery (true) and the defender did not have a CCL as required by law (also true) - defending herself from harm during a robbery is not the legal issue.- her legal issue is illegal carry and subsequent use - two very different legal issues.

Another news item to note is the recent, much reported quantity of "seized firearms" in that same jurisdiction with 10,000 seized in one year... Of course the folks who run the place can't seem to connect their failure to properly prosecute and lock up bad guys with guns so why shouldn't everyone (particularly the bad actors) be perfectly happy to carry illegally? And of course not one thought about the social conditions that encourage street shootings there - just the quantities of illegal guns....

Then with fanfare they'll be prosecuting someone that defended themselves.... Don't think I want to even visit Chicago....

I know no one wants to heat this, but she did break one of their laws. I know none of us here like the gun laws in Illinois.
IMHO we should obey the laws of the land wherever we go least we end up like the woman in the story or worse.
I do hope that go easy on her or just let the whole matter drop.

Steve S. said:

I think I read “unlawful use of a weapon because she did not have a concealed carry license”.

Click to expand...

And there lies the problem. How is defending your life an unlawful use of a weapon? Without a permit, you have to submit to protection from police that have no legal responsibility to protect you. The state of Illinois has condemned its citizens to victimhood if they don’t have a piece of paper for whatever the reason.

waterhouse said:

Seems ripe for jury nullification. Curious to see how far the case goes.

Click to expand...

If and only if you have a jury of people who think about this the same way that you or I might. Big swaths of the populace now agree with the "guns are the problem, if people just didn't have guns everything would be better" line of thinking.

ATLDave said:

If and only if you have a jury of people who think about this the same way that you or I might. Big swaths of the populace now agree with the "guns are the problem, if people just didn't have guns everything would be better" line of thinking.

Click to expand...

That very well may be the case in Chicago. Here, I've generally found that even people who don't like or own guns think that you should be able to defend yourself with one if the other person points one at you first. I will admit that this seems to apply specifically to the offender having a gun. As in "well, if they have a knife or a baseball bat you can just run away, but if someone has a gun you can't run away so that person is OK to shoot."

GAF said:

I know no one wants to heat this, but she did break one of their laws. I know none of us here like the gun laws in Illinois.
IMHO we should obey the laws of the land wherever we go least we end up like the woman in the story or worse.
I do hope that go easy on her or just let the whole matter drop.

Click to expand...

Sadly they will probably hit her as hard as possible to make an example out of her. They need to dissuade others citizens from doing protecting themselves

My way of thinking is the DA should drop charges. If he doesnt a judge should throw it out. If that fails you must be found guilty by 12 of your peers.
Im probably wrong though.

taliv said:

try assembling for a protest without a permit or crossing the border

Click to expand...

Or voting. Or getting married. There are a number of rights where pre-permission is required.

But there's a difference between pre-permission that is pretty darn automatic and pre-permission that depends upon you convincing the government that you need/deserve to use your right.

geez, i thought somewhere in our constitution we had the right to bear arms. Maybe we the people should file a class action against the state challenging there right to usurp our rights.

So is the gun owner charged with a felony or misdemeanor?

How does a FOID permit work? Under what circumstances can it be revoked and if it is what happens to the other guns she may own?

The 14 year old is sure to be back home in short period of time. After all it wasn’t a real gun and all she wanted was a puppy to love since she didn’t feel loved at home.

And of course no picture of the 14 year olds mug cause she is a minor. The 21 year old Ms Diaz gets her photo all over the news.

I jsut read something that Chicago just set another record for Homicides!

As BSA1 above wrote the 14 year old will get off with nothing cause she had a rough childhood or some such nonsense