Jump to content

Why No Castle Doctrine ?


vezpa

Recommended Posts

A castle Doctrine in many other states allows a person to carry a firearm for defense in their vehicle, (usually loaded but encased or in a secure holster) because the vehicle is considered an extension of their home. This has nothing to do whatsoever with their CCW law and a person does not have to possess a CCW permit to exercise this right. I have friends in Florida who carry this way because they are too lazy to get their permits.

 

Another reason I get pissy is because I read so many articles states adopting Castle Doctrine and constantly keep hearing Illinois excluded from those states. I wish they would just call it a damn Castle Doctrine because this terminology is the only thing many outside our state understand, which is why I'm all for semantics. In my USA sales travels I'm constantly joked at as the one who is from a state with a "FOID" card and who's state doesn't have carry or who's state doesn't have a true Castle Doctrine and the best one, The Home of Obama. This is why terminology means something to me.

 

 

Sorry to go off on a tangent, I'm done now and will never mention C.D. again.

 

Maybe you should memorize the entire law regarding self defense to a forcible felony. Then when someone says "Illinois doesn't have a castle doctrine law" ask them how this is different. I agree with some others get right to carry first, then get rid of the FOID card and don't worry so much because the magical words "Castle Doctrine" aren't in the law. Don't expect to be allowed to carry a loaded firearm in a vehicle in Illinois without a license to carry, maybe after they've been doing it in Wisconsin for a decade it might happen. Right now my opinion is it will just screw up our efforts to get license to carry and at worst if that part of our laws is visited now changes might be made to make it worse and you'll have a "duty to retreat" first, unintended consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All right, all right. We're not communicating very well, here.

 

Vezpa's question was on the abrasive side, yes.

A lot of the responses were on the impatient side, too.

TVandermyde's answer was a better example of how I'd like to see questions answered; calm and factual.

 

Vezpa, you have to understand that people get exasperated easily when they feel like they're being asked to address the same mistaken idea for the hundredth time. Everybody else, you have to understand that people who are coming to you for the hundredth time don't know about the previous 99, or they'd know the answer to their question already. If we all allow for those differences just a little, we can avoid calling each other crazy and dumb. The other day, I heard an activist from a completely different issue describe organizing college students as "like educating and organizing people in a bus station." Her point was that she had to accept that people were going to be coming and going, and she would constantly be both losing experienced people who could be counted on to know what she was talking about, and bringing in new people who would often have exactly the same questions, ideas and misunderstandings that the last batch had brought with them. In other words, repeating yourself and addressing the same things over and over are simply inevitable if you want to be involved in educating the public.

 

But you've gotta be ready to do it with a smile on your face. :headbang1:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...