Appeals court overturns Illinois concealed carry law

[chiefst2000]

Originally Posted by Axil

Right, but are you "in control" of the weapon when you're sleeping? Are you "in control" of it when you're in another room? It sounds like if someone breaks into my house at night i'd have to either have the gun strapped to my hip in bed, or be prepared to open up a safe to retrieve my weapon.



Who said "solely responsible". People are asking that the government not disarm law abiding citizens, that doesn't mean they're not still depending on police and military personal for their safety as well.

Its 3AM, you awake to the sound of a window shattering/door kicked in downstairs in your house. A responsible gun owner would dash over to the lockbox or safe, retrieve their weapon then grab a phone to call 911 while surveying the top of the staircase. I don't see what the problem is. You don't need a handgun strapped to your pajamas to protect your family or home from invasion.

[gunnails]

Originally Posted by Axil

Right, but are you "in control" of the weapon when you're sleeping? Are you "in control" of it when you're in another room? It sounds like if someone breaks into my house at night i'd have to either have the gun strapped to my hip in bed, or be prepared to open up a safe to retrieve my weapon.



Who said "solely responsible". People are asking that the government not disarm law abiding citizens, that doesn't mean they're not still depending on police and military personal for their safety as well.

=============================================
Yes, I see your point, I will expand on mine.

The police and military provide for our common safety, to the best of there abilities.

The military will not help the folks on the streets of Chicago.

The SCOTUS has ruled that the police are not obligated to risk there lives to protect us (though most all would) they are not body guards.

Individual safety is our own responseibility. When seconds count, police are just minutes away.

[gunnails]

Originally Posted by chiefst2000

Its 3AM, you awake to the sound of a window shattering/door kicked in downstairs in your house. A responsible gun owner would dash over to the lockbox or safe, retrieve their weapon then grab a phone to call 911 while surveying the top of the staircase. I don't see what the problem is. You don't need a handgun strapped to your pajamas to protect your family or home from invasion.

==============================================

You might, there are no absolutes.

[DDNYjets]

Americans like guns. Dems AND Reps. The blowhards on TV are in the minority. If the bad guys have assault weapons than most Americans want the same.

That is why the best way to go about this is regulating the types of ammunition, magazines and body armor, etc. The guns are here to stay.

We should focus on getting these loons locked up and empowering families and doctors.

[Axil]

Originally Posted by gunnails

=============================================
Yes, I see your point, I will expand on mine.

The police and military provide for our common safety, to the best of there abilities.

The military will not help the folks on the streets of Chicago.

The SCOTUS has ruled that the police are not obligated to risk there lives to protect us (though most all would) they are not body guards.[

Individual safety is our own responseibility. When seconds count, police are just minutes away.

I'll respond to the bolded first. I'm not familiar with that ruling. Surely it was qualified in some way? There are a lot of dangerous situations police officers face routinely. Hell, pulling over a car for a minor traffic violation can be deadly. I'm sure there are situations where the danger is so obviously extreme that it's not prudent to risk the lives of officers, but surely risking thier lives is a job requirement, no?

That said, i agree with you, and a misread your original statement slightly, and inferred a connotation you had not intended.

[Axil]

Originally Posted by chiefst2000

Its 3AM, you awake to the sound of a window shattering/door kicked in downstairs in your house. A responsible gun owner would dash over to the lockbox or safe, retrieve their weapon then grab a phone to call 911 while surveying the top of the staircase. I don't see what the problem is. You don't need a handgun strapped to your pajamas to protect your family or home from invasion.

All of those actions take time. You're going to have to either grab a key (which probable involves turning a light on), or key in a combination. Remove the weapon. Probably then load the weapon. Not everyone's master bedroom is on top of the stairs. My parent's bedroom door 2 turns and about 20 feet from their front door. My father always kept a hunting rifle and shotgun on a gun rack above his dresser, well above what i or my siblings could reach. I don't know where the ammunition was kept, but it was probably somewhere in the dresser. I would estimate that having the weapon ready in his hand would take less than half the time necessary to get it out of a safe.

Now that i say that, i can't think of anywhere in my parents' master bedroom, or the master bedroom in my own home now where there would be room for a safe large enough to hold a shotgun, which is the most effective weapon for home defense. I would also imagine it would be expensive to acquire one. You could probably make the argument that such a law disproportionately affects poorer families ability to defend themselves as they're likely to have less space for a gun safe, and less money to purchase one.

[gunnails]

Originally Posted by Axil

I'll respond to the bolded first. I'm not familiar with that ruling. Surely it was qualified in some way? There are a lot of dangerous situations police officers face routinely. Hell, pulling over a car for a minor traffic violation can be deadly. I'm sure there are situations where the danger is so obviously extreme that it's not prudent to risk the lives of officers, but surely risking thier lives is a job requirement, no?

That said, i agree with you, and a misread your original statement slightly, and inferred a connotation you had not intended.

================================================

It's a true story, I would link a cite, but my right clicker is broken, can't copy and paste.
Search, Gonzales Vs Castle Rock, that will get you started.

[greenwichjetfan]

Originally Posted by gunnails

================================================

It's a true story, I would link a cite, but my right clicker is broken, can't copy and paste.
Search, Gonzales Vs Castle Rock, that will get you started.

Get familiar with CTRL+C and CTRL+V. They will be your best friends going forward

[chiefst2000]

Originally Posted by gunnails

==============================================

You might, there are no absolutes.

True, but I would add that in a house with children in it the likely hood of a kid hurting themselves with a handgun found under a pillow or in a nightstand drawer is higher then that of a child getting hurt in a break in. Particularly if it is qualified to break ins in which the criminal is on you so fast that you didn't have time to get to the safe and grab your gun.

[BushyTheBeaver]

Originally Posted by greenwichjetfan

Get familiar with CTRL+C and CTRL+V. They will be your best friends going forward

CTRL+X and CTRL+Z are pretty good, too.

[gunnails]

Originally Posted by greenwichjetfan

Get familiar with CTRL+C and CTRL+V. They will be your best friends going forward

========================================

Let me try this.
Thanks greenwitchjetfan.


http://mdean.tripod.com/immunity.html
Around 1898

I. LIABILITY IN MARYLAND FOR FAILURE TO ENFORCE THE LAW
A. Origin of the Public Duty Doctrine:
South v. Maryland
Legal authority in the United States that there is no liability for the failure to protect individuals by law enforcement officers generally is accepted as originating in South v. Maryland,(20) for states implementing it under the public duty doctrine.(21) In this case, Robinson, a resident of Washington County, owed a judgment debt to Pottle, a resident of Massachusetts. When Pottle and a party consisting of his attorney and a deputy sheriff attempted to assert a levy upon Robinson's property, they were surrounded by a group of workmen armed with stones and other weapons.(22) The workmen threatened violence should any attempt be made to assert the levy. After Pottle and his party took refuge in a nearby house, the workmen (described in the case as "rioters") maintained an armed guard around it.(23) The deputy sheriff left Pottle and his attorney imprisoned in the house and went to consult with the High Sheriff, South. When South returned with the deputy , Pottle demanded that he be protected from the armed workmen, but South refused to do so.(24) Pottle and his attorney were released, after four days of imprisonment, when they paid the workmen $2,500, a sum apparently equal to the amount of back wages owed them by Robinson.(25)

And lots more here

June 27, 2005, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to individual police protection even in the presence of a restraining order. Mrs. Gonzales' husband with a track record of violence, stabbing Mrs. Gonzales to death, Mrs. Gonzales' family could not get the Supreme Court to change their unanimous decision for one's individual protection.

the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole."

"It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection."

(1) SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES

(2) Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).

(3) Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).

(4) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).

(5) Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).

(6) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981). "...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..."

(7) Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958). "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her."

(8) Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989) "Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."

(9) New York Times, Washington DC, "Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone" by LINDA GREENHOUSE Published: June 28, 2005, "The ruling applies even for a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation."

[greenwichjetfan]

Originally Posted by BushyTheBeaver

CTRL+X and CTRL+Z are pretty good, too.

K+Y aren't bad either

[Axil]

Originally Posted by chiefst2000

True, but I would add that in a house with children in it the likely hood of a kid hurting themselves with a handgun found under a pillow or in a nightstand drawer is higher then that of a child getting hurt in a break in. Particularly if it is qualified to break ins in which the criminal is on you so fast that you didn't have time to get to the safe and grab your gun.

That's true in general, but your legislating laws that affect individuals. I believe that there are households, with responsible parents, who own guns, where the risk of their children being harmed in a break in is less than them being harmed by that gun.

And according to this article (which anti-gun) by the way, about 500 children are killed a year by accidental gun discharge. Yet 1,900,000 households with children have guns that are unlocked and loaded. So in households with both children, and guns, where the guns are unlocked and loaded .02% of children are victims of accidents.

According to http://www.homeownersinsurance.org/h...across-the-us/ nearly 3 million home invasions occur annually.

[Axil]

Originally Posted by gunnails

Well that's scary as hell.

[32green]

http://youtu.be/epZod2qyyN4





-

[chiefst2000]

Originally Posted by Axil

That's true in general, but your legislating laws that affect individuals. I believe that there are households, with responsible parents, who own guns, where the risk of their children being harmed in a break in is less than them being harmed by that gun.

And according to this article (which anti-gun) by the way, about 500 children are killed a year by accidental gun discharge. Yet 1,900,000 households with children have guns that are unlocked and loaded. So in households with both children, and guns, where the guns are unlocked and loaded .02% of children are victims of accidents.

According to http://www.homeownersinsurance.org/h...across-the-us/ nearly 3 million home invasions occur annually.

For me its no different then fencing in a pool. If there is a law that requires homes with minors to keep guns locked up in a safe I'd be ok with it. Now if they tried to legislate that police be allowed to enter gun owners homes to spot check them that would be way out of line.

As I think of it the better bet would be a focus on gun safety education. No one at the store tells you about how to safely handle and store a weapon.

[BushyTheBeaver]

[gunnails]

Originally Posted by Axil

Well that's scary as hell.

================================================

It's the way it has always been in the US, police act more as crime responders and crime preventers.

The ruling makes sense because police can not be every where and can not prevent every crime, and we as a society can't hold them responsible for our individual safety.

Thus the 2nd amendment, and the peoples right to keep and bare (not bear) arms.

I fear that I am going to become known as JI's resident gun nut, and it is true I own about a dozen guns and thousands of rounds of ammo (in a gun safe) I have never carried a gun for self protection, and have no guns readily accesible for home defense. I just like guns, use to hunt, now just occasional target practice. And because I am a gun owner I am on a quest to learn and fully understand the laws as they relate guns. I am a work in progress

[Axil]

Originally Posted by chiefst2000

For me its no different then fencing in a pool.

Oh but it is. It is not my right as a citizen of the United States to own a pool. Also, is under what circumstances can the fence around my pool reduce my ability to defend myself?

[freestater]

Originally Posted by Axil

Well that's scary as hell.

What's scarier is that there are people out there who think the other way.