Southern Illinois "CCW Myths"

Status
Not open for further replies.
"And what most people do not recognize is that most concealed carry laws also include the Castle Doctrine, which allows people to defend their property with deadly force."

Illinois has castle doctrine too, had it before anyone ever coined the term castle doctrine.
 
Jeff, where did you get the idea that Illinois has the castle doctrine? According to "Traveler's Guide to the Firearms Laws of the Fifty States" by J. Scott Kappas, Esq. it doesn’t. In fact Illinois is one of the most restrictive states nowadays. Much different than when I was there, as I recall. It rates just under 30 on his scale of 0 to 100. It doesn't even have a provision for concealed carry licensing or even a preemption law.
 
Uh, the Illinois Compile Statues:

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...&SeqEnd=9300000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961.
(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.)

Covers person, dwelling, and other property. Provides protection from civil suit (as much protection as a law like that can provide, which really isn't much).

I would suggest that people look at the actual laws rather then someone's guide to firearms law. And another clarification, Castle Doctrine is NOT firearms law. It has nothing to do with a firearm, it has to do with the use of force.

As you can see by reading the actual law, there is no duty to retreat, no duty to warn, and there is protection from civil suit. In fact it's much better law then the NRA model legislation.
 
Jeff, so much for Kappas's book. After reading your post I don't think I'll rely on his book anymore. I was planning on using it during my future travels throughout the states but I'm not so sure now. I think I'll contact the author and see what gives. It is very disappointing.

This is more in line with the way I remember Illinois when I lived there in 1974.
 
I attended SIUC in the mid to late 90's. In my time, I remember buddys bringing dead ducks and geese into the dorm that they had shot that morning as I was going to breakfast. Several guys kept firearms in the dorm room, or car. in my 5 years there, I had access to mre places to do some shooting than I ever had before or since. One of my professors had a range at his house, where we used to go shoot, and most everyone I knew that was a true local hunted.

I don't know where the Ty guy is from most likley Chicago. He probably thinks the ex govonor got railroaded and is innocent. Buy I can tell you that in my experience He is in the Minority in the Southern End of Illinois.

My Freshmen year was the last real haloween Party that Carbondale saw. Ever since there was a extra week of vacation

Go Dawgs

AD
 
Someone ought to point out to this guy that Iraq (Where everyone has their own AK47 and a RPG) is safer than the city of Chicago (where guns are banned)


In 2008 Chicago had 510 murders, US casualties in Iraq were 314. Maybe Ty should head that way.
 
Oh Boy.... here we go..
I am 24 years old, live in Coulterville, IL. and graduated (very recently) from SIUC with a degree in History. I have always been pro-gun, as a matter of fact my father and I own a gun store in Sparta, IL. J & J Guns and Knives located at the World Shooting and Recreational Complex.
Let me be the first to say that there have been some very good points brought up in this forum in regards to many of the anti-gunners and their ideologies (usually being completely false) I must also say that my tenure at SIUC opened my eyes greatly to the unbelievably large anti-gun liberal population on the campus in terms of instructors, administrators and student population. That said, it is almost to be expected when one looks at the student body and the instructors and where most of them are from. Well, not necessarily where most of them are from, but where most of them are not from (Southern IL.) I can't tell you how many more people per capita that I got to know that were from Chicago land, many of the instructors are from all over the place, usually larger cities, but not from Southern IL. These types of people simply live a completely different life than 'we' do and they truly believe that if guns were outlawed than all violence would stop... As sad as it is to say, these people truly believe this nonsense.
The SIUC campus is also home to many.... many..... many.... people from other countries. Needless to say, the Asian population (no offense to anyone) usually is not the most pro-gun group of people.
In response to 84B20's earlier post about when he was going to school there during the 70's things were much different in terms of gun related activities. That is certainly to be expected, things in the 70's were much different everywhere in terms of guns and gun control. Unfortunately for us pro gunners many events have happened since then to create a much broader anti gun population, EVERYWHERE.
Sorry the post is so long, I thought that given the topic I could (hopefully) shine some light onto the modern day SIUC for some folks. Also, keep in mind that there are pro-gun peoples that attend SIUC (students and instructors), just not nearly as many as there should be.
 
What part of "shall not be infringed" don't they understand?
These people are in constant violation of the 2A.

In washington DC when guns were banned they had the highest crime rate in the country.
But even that's irrelevant because the 2A says we have the right to bear arms.
 
Jimdo, what I think is ironic, is in the post Vietnam war era (at least the era when I served, 1968 and 1969) and even though the war didn't officially end for the U.S. until 1975, I never experienced any anti gun feelings from students or residents of the area, at least as far as I can recall. As I alluded to in an earlier post I was a photojournalism student there and had the opportunity to meet and work with many different people. The northern part of the state is obviously quite a different "state." I suspect the history of organized crime and politics has caused much of the anti gun philosophy there.
 
Blue .45, thanks for the enlightening post. I am beginning to have a renewed faith that Illinois is not a lost state.
 
I graduated from SIUC in '06, but lived in Southern Illinois all of my 22 years prior to that as well. I think it is safe to say that the views and politics of your average SIUC student do not go hand in hand with those of the residents of Southern Illionis.

A huge part of the student body of SIUC comes from the Chicago area. One thing that takes precedence over almost anything else in Southern Illinois is hunting. People there love to hunt and they love their guns they do it with.

Just for the fun of it I checked out the public profile of the author of that article on a social networking site. He is from Chicago, and has his political views listed as "Left Wing Extremist," and that's a direct copy and paste. Between that and his article, he falls into my "pay no mind" category of people.

I realize that was just a letter to the editor, so I can't let it have too much of an impact on my views of the Daily Egyptian. However, from what others have said in this topic, it has truly gone down hill. During my time at SIUC the paper was in my opinion, a fantastic read.
 
In defense of the “Traveler’s Guide to the Firearms Laws of the Fifty States” I did a little more research into the section regarding the castle doctrine it describes.

This is an actual quote from the book.

"The reader should be aware that some states without actual “castle doctrines” may have this “no retreat” concept built into their case law or even spread out through their statutory code. This guide’s “Traveler’s Checklist” only references the actual “castle doctrines” enacted in the last two years. The reason for this is simple. Activist judges can change case law and sometime “reinterpret” disjointed statutory law. But the castle doctrines are essentially foolproof guarantees that a citizen can defend himself without suffering a subsequent assault by the criminal justice system.”
So I would still be wary of Illinois law, especially in the northern part of the state. IMHO
 
Last edited:
As a life long resident of Southern Illinois and an '04 SIUC grad and employee of 5+ years I can tell you that I can determine where a person is from in less than 5 minutes and 5 questions. So far I have determined that the more educated a person is the more their views of gun ownership tends to be negative... though I also hunt with 4 retired professors and three current ones. 1/2 of what i read in the D.E. I throw out the window anyway, mostly it tends to e written by a leftist person and about anything disgreeing with thier views on this campus gets so much ridicule that most of the opponents to them are fairly quiet. It is sad to say that but it seems to be the truth, but myself as an example made some lasting impressions on many anti-gun professors and still managed to hold the highest grade in those classes.

FWIW SIUC had (might still) a trap shooting team, I ran into them at the skeet range at Rend Lake, it mostly consisted of AG and Army ROTC guys. Also SIUC has an Army and Air Force ROTC program and most of the Administration of Justice students (program I was in) seemed to be pro-gun for the most part though not all the faculty was.

On the deer issue noted earlier, an SIUC officer did shoot one a few years back when it came at him, haven't had a problem since. DNR was about to come in and take care of the overpopulation of deer if there was one more attack (learned that from a trusted DNR officer I know).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top