Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by old lady new shooter, Dec 1, 2019.
This is basically what I was going to post. Exactly.
AtlDave, yes "the way that you or i might think".... but unfortunately you are also very correct in the rest of your statemant, "big swaths of the populace" . We are nearing a crossroad in this country...... and we are in danger of losing some of our most basic rights..... they have destroyed us in the court of public opinion...
Correct me if I am in error, but don't most jurisdictions consider a bb-gun to be a firearm? I know the ordinance in my hometown considered the use of a bb-gun within the city limits as "discharge of a firearm within the city limits" back in the 1960's. (Please do not ask how I learned this... )
If so, doesn't that make the 14 y.o. also guilty of using a firearm in the commission of a crime as well as getting afoul of the carry and use of a firearm law in Chicago?
Ted Nugent logic sounds really cool, but is in fact not supported by law. Of course, old Uncle Ted talks about how the 2A is his carry permit, but he also has LEO creds that keep him from being arrested, LOL. https://www.politifact.com/punditfa...gent-cnn-i-conduct-federal-raids-dea-and-atf/ https://www.policeone.com/celebrity...onned-the-badge-and-uniform-jqCxipaa1me5LYWr/
As such, nobody has been willing to take up such a nonsensical case from New York where there have been a lot of similar self defense shootings where the shooter is arrested for not having a permit for the gun. Here is a recent case in fact, but it is not the only one from this year and there are usually a few every year. https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/06/20/this-new-york-man-got-arrested-after-defending-his-own-home/
Do you think that maybe there is a reason that the NRA or GOA hasn't taken up these cases and why they haven't reached the Supreme Court?
Even if it is illegal in Chicago the DA has to charge the 14 year old with the crime. Many criminals don't get charged with gun crimes when found with an actual firearm.
This is the DA that decided not to prosecute Jussie whatshisname for his fake hate crime hoax.
The woman that defended herself will get buried under the jail
When I lived in Chicago in the 80's, I always carried a Walther PPK. I figured it was better to go to jail then to the cemetery. I bet many carry in the city with the same attitude. Officially against the law, but the "we the people" crowd must feel differently about the law.
Sounds like the victim was not at home when showing the dog.
If she wasn't, then she was likely in violation of the concealed carry statutes and as such, earned prosecution - I guess because some tool put pen to paper on this in the first place.
So, once that has begun and she is most likely convicted - I'd like to see some sort of *nullification* or exceptionally preferential sentencing along the lines of a very low level misdemeanor. Here's hoping there is NOT a mandatory sentencing scenario like that madness in places such as Massachusetts.
You do need to register to vote, and in Texas show a valid ID.
But we aren’t talking about a protest or crossing into another country. We are talking about our right to life. Had the kid not tried to rob her, she would never have had reason pull her weapon. Seems like she took it for a good reason.
At the end of the day, I’d take the trial than the casket.
Luckily we still have the right to self defense which many countries no longer have anymore. However I don't think that will override the law, the prosecution, and the judge's instructions.
You can defend yourself in every country. But that right, in Illinois, is dependent on having a license to defend yourself with equal force. I suppose she could have brought a knife to a gun fight. She’d still be defending herself. Unfortunately we know how those scenarios typically play out.
I believe there are European countries that will prosecute you for defending yourself
This isn't the end of the world. In an ideal world, you wouldn't be prosecuted for something like that, but it's a good sign of how far we've come, even in Illinois, that the case was clearly established as a self-defense shooting and that the police representative clearly stated that such shootings were clearly justifiable, and that anyone who robs someone with a pellet gun may find themselves faced with a real gun for their pains.
She went with the, "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6" strategy and it is now in play.
Maybe you would like to share with us all the European countries that allow for self defense concealed carry to the general population without permits? How about any western countries in general?
Too true. And, BB-gun-girl might have gone MUCH farther than she did had our gal NOT been prepared.
All I really care about in the end is that our gal does not incur too great a cost legally defending herself and that she goes forward with NO; jail time, probation nor anything even approaching a Gross Misdemeanor.
It's sad how hysteria has played a greater role in establishing laws in this country rather than common sense.
Remember, all this started to keep freedman from being armed during Reconstruction, and it became popular as people started coming from Ireland and Italy.
Incidents like this have happened in other states. About 20 years ago an Okie motorist intervened in a rape, killing the rapist who attempted to run him down. The prosecutor charged the man with carrying a concealed weapon without a permit.
Chicago is the among the worst states for any type of gun related activity but all the reading Iv'e done for my state (FL) tells me that anyone involved in a shooting even under the best of circumstances is in for a very dangerous, unpleasant & expensive ride.
Many of my friends CC & ask me why I don't. My response is that the law protects the criminal. The liberal left has been in action for a very long time & one of their main agendas is removing guns from the general population by any means possible. Liberals consider criminals as misunderstood victims of oppression while they view CC citizens as threats to society & the misunderstood victims of oppression..
In my view CC laws are intentionally designed as a double edged sword with the specific intent to remove two "perpetrators" from the street; the first & least important is the criminal (assuming the CC citizen kills him/her) & the second is the gun-owning law abiding citizen who the left views as a the greater threat to their power grabbing agenda.
Common sense tells us that using deadly force to save innocent life is a good thing. However in the eyes of current law you (the CC) have just identified yourself as a threat and to make sure others think twice before following in your footsteps the law will punish you one way or another. The trade off for a justifiable shooting is potential loss of an entire lifetime of hard work, possibly your family & even your freedom.
The thought of getting into a gunfight with a criminal doesn't bother me nearly as much as what comes afterwards.
Czechia. That's about it.
What was the outcome?
I can kind of see this thread headed there already due to the nature of the beast, so here's a reminder before I go into the rest of my posting:
Be careful what you are posting. It has been posted in various places that this site does not advocate nor condone violating the law. Given this particular subject, it would be easy to see how we could go down that avenue, given the topic at hand of a person who defended themselves (legally) with a firearm, but who is being charged with carrying a firearm (illegally). I can see where I might say something that, on the surface, sounds like "common sense" but which would be contrary to the site's guidelines.
It's not that "no one wants to heat [sic] this", it's that we actually NEED to hear this.
To ignore this skirts a very important aspect of carrying (concealed or otherwise). To wit, knowing and understanding the laws associated with carrying a firearm, and complying with the jurisdictional laws.
This case, in my opinion (which will get you a cup of coffee at McDonalds if you add a dollar to it), is a classic "Catch-22" scenario.
I suppose we can argue the specific circumstances all day long, but this presupposes you're in a life-threatening situation in which your weapon of choice is not legal (for whatever reason).
"Better tried by 12 than carried by 6" sounds great...until one day it IS you and your life has been turned completely upside down, you're embroiled in years of court appearances and expenses, lost untold amounts of money, possibly incurred so many debts that you've lost your house, and all kinds of other things.
For some, suddenly life doesn't look all that appealing any more.
In an ideal world, this wouldn't come up in the first place. In the next best world, it's decided that no charges will be filed. Go down the line from there.
What I think about this (see my earlier comment about the value of my opinion) is that Chicago will weighing their options.
On the one hand, Chicago is an admitted pro-gun control city, and a very powerful advocate thereof. They will not want to be seen accepting something like this.
On the other hand, Chicago didn't have much luck on gun control in the Supreme Court. This may not be a case they would want to, perhaps, eventually be elevated that high.
What are the odds of a case like this getting elevated that high? I'll leave that to the attorneys on the site, because I certainly have no idea. And even if it does get elevated that high, the odds of "winning" once at the top aren't necessarily assured, either. Again...the attorneys here can speak to this...but it strongly hinges on how they choose to approach the case in defense. And that's a complicated path to walk.
Methinks he plead to a misdemeanor with no jail time.
Here is one sad example.
Separate names with a comma.