Jump to content

ddan

Members
  • Posts

    336
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

600 profile views

ddan's Achievements

Member

Member (7/24)

  1. So where does this leave the FOID? Still a 4473 disqualifier… What if I am not a U.S. citizen? Can I apply for a FOID Card? Yes, you will be required to provide an Alien Registration Number, I-94 Admission Number, or USCIS Number upon application to determine your eligibility. You can find these numbers on either your Permanent Resident Card or Employment Authorization Card. Subject to a narrow exception, if you are currently in the U.S. under a non-immigrant visa, you will not be eligible to obtain a FOID Card.
  2. So our side is spreading “disinformation?” He has the real numbers but won’t say. ISPFSB knows which FOIDs have been used for FTIP and which haven’t. Further, they know how many FTIPS are for “Rifle” and how many not https://www.maxonshooters.com/blog/just-how-low-is-compliance-with-the-awb-registry
  3. One would hope so. and thanks for the reference to the 5-45. I read through that, and now my head hurts. Anyway, it is not obvious in there how the ISP has the authority to change the act on its own- no rule making authority in the Act. Yes, they have rule-making authority with respect to the list of banned items and the affidavit process. The emergency rules they published are mostly about the registry, too. All this other stuff is happening in a rather casual, capricious and informal way.
  4. exactly. And under what authority does the department alter the letter of the law? And if they can do this, why not permit freedom week and TRO purchasers to register if they wish? (All 5 of them that wish to comply) what a clown show, from start to finish.
  5. Nowhere in the Act does it say that. It's another example of the ISP freestyling it. If this were true, all the illinois manufacturers and distributors would be out of the rifle-making business, too. The provisions of this Section do not apply to the manufacture, delivery, sale, import, purchase, or possession of an "assault weapon", "assault weapon" attachment, .50 caliber rifle, or .50 caliber cartridge or causing the manufacture, delivery, sale, importation, purchase, or possession of those items: (A) for sale or transfer to persons authorized under subdivisions (1) through (7) of this subsection (e) to possess those items; (B) for sale or transfer to the United States or any department or agency thereof; or (C) for sale or transfer in another state or for export. Note there is no distinction between manufacturing and selling. The ISP does not have the rulemaking authority to alter the act.
  6. Well, actually, you asked "why help them?" (them being the prosecutors). I responded by suggesting that questioning the decisions that this guy is reported to have made is not "helping them," but rather is a worthwhile exercise in thinking through use of force scenarios. You disagree. Cool. Yes. I have an opinion. I'm not sure what you're saying here. Cool: a day off work! And a trip to 26th and California! That should be exciting! My opinions articulated here, if this particular case were tried, are utterly irrelevant. My opinions articulated here, if I were being tried for the same thing, are very relevant. But I'm not going to do this. Ever. If I escape a deadly threat, I'll count my blessings. I have commented only on what was reported and the decision, as reported, to re-engage, which I think is a poor decision. Not at all an expert. That's why I went back to the relevant statutes. Indeed, I backed off my initial position of "deadly force in defense of property is a no-no." I agree 100% with your closing sentence, though I'd add myself to the "respond forcefully if at risk" list. We are looking at this differently, and that's fine. I believe it's harmful to commend and encourage behavior which, as reported, puts people's lives and freedom at risk. You take the view that having this discussion is potentially harmful to this individual. Also fine. Thanks for taking the time to respond thoughtfully.
  7. Yes. I was speaking in the hypothetical that something like this *is* charged.
  8. Because I believe this guy did something that was very foolish. Atta-boys may, on the margin, encourage others to disengage, leave the scene of a forcible felony, arm themselves, and re-engage, which is very foolish. No ASA is going to make a charging decision based on what is discussed here. They have witness interviews, evidence, etc. We don’t and are simply discussing news reports and how the reports fit into the legal framework of use of deadly force in Illinois. If you draw a weapon, you should be prepared to use it. Do you really believe it is justified use of force to murder (potentially) somebody over a car which should be insured? I don’t.
  9. Right. Lots of ways this could be argued. You’ll beat the rap but not the ride.
  10. What I see this boiling down two is two issues: did the good guy become an aggressor when he went back into the house? was he preventing a forcible felony, or had the forcible felony already occurred when his car was taken? as an extreme example of (2), would it be lawful to round up a posse of gun-otters to chase after the offender, corner him, and take back the car by force at gunpoint? I don’t think so.
  11. This is an interesting discussion, which sent me back to the Illinois statutes 7/20. regarding property, here is the relevant section: § 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. (b) is the problematic part in this story. Was the good guy an aggressor when he went into his house and returned to assault and batter (he dragged him out of the car) the offender? Here’s that part § 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. So I concede that this may not be plainly unlawful, but I would maintain that it was very unwise. If he resisted, if his partner(s) got engaged, if a passing good guy or cop saw this unfolding and sought to stop what looks like your forcible felony….. all bad outcomes. I’m glad this one turned out as it did.
  12. Odd words coming from a concealed carry instructor. So, just to be clear, you applaud and encourage behavior which, after the deadly threat is over, is plainly unlawful and over property?
  13. Retreat to your home, come back brandishing your blaster and presumably threatening the robber sounds like assault. congrats on getting the car back and bad guy arrested, but …..
  14. I’m pretty sure this is not justified use of deadly force.
  15. Within the last couple of weeks, you’ve seen the governor and a state’s attorney give guidance on camera or via social media that doesn’t comport with the law or emergency rules. Today, FFL’S got an email from the ISP regarding purchasing banned items, and, of course, this email contradicts itself in three paragraphs and doesn’t comport with the law or emergency rules. Reading and reliance upon the ISP guidance is really not useful ahead of time, because all that matters is what the cop and his department who arrests you, and the prosecutor and judge who try you think the law means as applied to your items. These are all good exhibits for the vagueness complaints. what a colossal waste of ISP and private resources this thing is. -dan
×
×
  • Create New...