172 replies to this topic

[Tvandermyde]

Black -- the statute was amended to deal with the Price decision.

that being saidn and not having the statute infront of me, the intent, was to allow you in your dwelling. read the most expansive definition in the statutes that you can.

As for a camp groups, there is a case aboput a woman at a swap meet with a gun in her purse in or around Marion at a fair grounds who they found not guilty becuase she has rented the booth space.

a loaded gun in the tent or trailer is what we designed the law for.

I would not open carry in the camp space lot. Only becuase it's gonna draw attention and cops.

Concealed is another issue, as no one sees, no one calls.

there is legal footing for you. How much do you want to tempt fate ad pay for lawyers?

[blackhalo]

05FLHT - I think it comes down to what constitutes "permission". Looking at the original bill and amendments, the exemption from AUUW/UUW was to apply whenever a carrier was simply an invitee (a guest of the landowner). The third amendment to the bill added the "permission" concept, which I think requires that the landowner know you're packing or permits lawful carry as a matter of policy.

Todd - Thanks. I know that the statute says you're allowed to carry in your "own...legal dwelling", but dwelling also includes your "vehicle" if used or intended to be used as human habitation, home or residence. Reading "dwelling" that expansively would obviously conflict with the first clause of subsection 4 quoted above, Just saying.

[dbrownpilot]

Let's say someone kicks in my door, or smashed a window and climbs in. He has satisfied the first requirement listed in (1). Now if he so much as threatens me with violence, even if he's unarmed, I can shoot? It simply says "assault". It doesn't specify assault that can cause grave bodily harm or death.

dave

You're starting to split hairs, but it goes back to the reasonable person doctrine and the basic rule of the lawful use of deadly force.

Okay, BG has smashed window or kicked the door in and climbs/walks in. He's bought and paid for.

Now, having said that, you have to ask yourself if deadly force is the best course of action. It's legal, but is it the best course of action?

Me, I'd have to evaluate whether this person knows I and my family are home, what they are doing and, from behind cover, issue a challenge if I could do so with relative safety and the ability to shoot to decisively stop the intrusion.

Okay, it's escalated and now BG has threatened you with force. Nothing has changed... only your relative safety. In almost every state, Illinois included, if someone makes entry on your abode uninvited, and with criminal intent (and a forcible entry would certainly be a criminal intent), deadly force is justified to repel that "invasion" to your abode.

Also what exactly does "prevent an assault upon, or offer of personal violence to" mean? Specifically the "offer" part?

This means taking action to prevent death or great bodily injury to an innocent. The offer part means to threaten.

Lastly, I should say that you should take advice you glean from the Internet with a grain of salt and seek relevant training from a reputable source as to the judicious use of deadly force.

Sitting at home before a class, I'd recommend "In the Gravest Extreme" by Mas Ayoob.

John

[dbrownpilot]

I don't want to sound like a gun-crazed homeowner here, but if someone forces entry into my house, I won't have time to ponder what he might or might not do. Waiting even one second gives him one more second to strenghthen his attack. He is attacking me and my family by being there. Otherwise he could have rung the doorbell. He will be shot. I might have trouble sleeping from the emotional trauma he created for me, but I won't lose a wink feeling guilty for shooting him. I'd feel a lot more guilt if my wife were hurt due to my indecision.

[Bud]

I don't want to sound like a gun-crazed homeowner here, but if someone forces entry into my house, I won't have time to ponder what he might or might not do. Waiting even one second gives him one more second to strenghthen his attack. He is attacking me and my family by being there. Otherwise he could have rung the doorbell. He will be shot. I might have trouble sleeping from the emotional trauma he created for me, but I won't lose a wink feeling guilty for shooting him. I'd feel a lot more guilt if my wife were hurt due to my indecision.

well, a forced entry into your occupied home is a felony in it's own right. You need also to consider the circumstances. If it's at night and he is headed for you or your wife or the bedrooms of one of your children then that would be a legal self defense. A lot of Illinois (when it comes to self defense) prosecution decisions are determined by perception. That is, would a reasonable person react in the same or similar manner if prresented with the same circumstances. Forced entry (burglary) with the intent to commit a felony ( an occupied residence turns theft into robbery) or commit an assault or other felony gives you the right to defend yourself.

Given the circumstances you have described, I would react the same as you described.

If my wife didn't beat me to it.

[Patriots & Tyrants]

I don't want to sound like a gun-crazed homeowner here, but if someone forces entry into my house, I won't have time to ponder what he might or might not do. Waiting even one second gives him one more second to strenghthen his attack. He is attacking me and my family by being there. Otherwise he could have rung the doorbell. He will be shot. I might have trouble sleeping from the emotional trauma he created for me, but I won't lose a wink feeling guilty for shooting him. I'd feel a lot more guilt if my wife were hurt due to my indecision.

I agree 100% with what you said, if someone has broken into my home it is my assumption and has to be my assumption they have done so with the intent to harm whoever is inside. If we hesitate even a second that is all it takes to end up in a body bag.

[TyXD983]

Could somebody please elaborate "fixed place of business". I am employed at a carwash and I carry cash on my person most days. Was wondering if I'm out on the lot, and a BG comes up to me with a weapon of some sort, is use of deadly force justifiable if he demands money and threatens my life to get it? Or must I be in the actual building for it to be a good shoot? I realize asking an attorney would make more sense but I just wanted to get your guys' opinion.

Sent from my HERO200 using Xparent Red Tapatalk

[NakPPI]

I would have to do some case law research to answer that competently. Fixed place of business is meant to exclude taxi drivers and such. I would think that a private parking lot would be a fixed place of business, but I'd have to research it.
The criminal code doesn't define fixed place of business. The Internal Revenue Code, SEC 1501(a) (9. 5) defines it as a place, site, or structure.


Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

[abolt243]

I would have to do some case law research to answer that competently. Fixed place of business is meant to exclude taxi drivers and such. I would think that a private parking lot would be a fixed place of business, but I'd have to research it.
The criminal code doesn't define fixed place of business. The Internal Revenue Code, SEC 1501(a) (9. 5) defines it as a place, site, or structure.


Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

I would also think that unless you own the carwash business and own or rent the property it is on, you'd want to be sure to have the permission to carry from your employer and the person who has control of the property.

JMHO, IANAL.

T

[TyXD983]

It's to my understanding that a store clerk can keep a firearm on him or at the store. In a way we are a store, as we sell water and soap. One would think that the whole property would fall under fixed place of business. I'm outside a lot, and in the mornings I collect cash from outside, sometimes its over 1000 dollars and never less than 100, and crooks have killed for less. I'm always on my guard and look for people "casing" the place. And we are located near a "project" that has had hundreds of 911 calls in the previous year.

Sent from my HERO200 using Xparent Red Tapatalk

[mstrat]

It's to my understanding that a store clerk can keep a firearm on him or at the store.

Just keep in mind this is when the clerk owns the store, or has permission from the owner.

[TyXD983]

It's to my understanding that a store clerk can keep a firearm on him or at the store.

Just keep in mind this is when the clerk owns the store, or has permission from the owner.

Agreed

Sent from my HERO200 using Xparent Red Tapatalk

[abolt243]

It's to my understanding that a store clerk can keep a firearm on him or at the store.

Just keep in mind this is when the clerk owns the store, or has permission from the owner.

Agreed

Sent from my HERO200 using Xparent Red Tapatalk

Also remember this is state law. Local municipalities may vary. You may want to check that out too.

[TyXD983]

I talked to the owner and he said.he'd have to check with his insurance company. I can see where this is going.

Sent from my HERO200 using Xparent Red Tapatalk

[Davey]

I talked to the owner and he said.he'd have to check with his insurance company. I can see where this is going.

Sent from my HERO200 using Xparent Red Tapatalk

Never know. At least he didn't tell you to go take a hike.

[TyXD983]

I talked to the owner and he said.he'd have to check with his insurance company. I can see where this is going.

Sent from my HERO200 using Xparent Red Tapatalk

Never know. At least he didn't tell you to go take a hike.

This is true. He owns multiple locations throughout central to northern Illinois, even some in chicrackhoe(forgive me chi. residents). Said he's never been asked before and asked me if it is legal in this state. I said yes but only with your permission and offered to fax the statutes.

Sent from my HERO200 using Xparent Red Tapatalk

Edited by TyXD983, 09 March 2012 - 02:20 PM.

[Smallbore]

I had a criminal attorney in a seminar talk about "justifiable use of force" to defend property. His experience was that even though it is in the statutes, the defendant will not prevail. Illinois is Illinois. It's hard enough to get an acquittal when used to defend life.

Has this thread confused to issues. The "justifiable use of force" is not limited to geography. What you can poccess to accomplish this defense it limited by law to location.

[moparcardave]

Glad I don't have to follow Illinois Statue's any more. Texas gives me a bit more protection. Sure I have my CHL but Texas has had a law for years thats said if you were traveling you could have a handgun in the car, the question was "traveling." This allows basically everyone to have a loaded handgun in the car. ( most of the Texans I know have one or two guns in their trucks, it's their truck gun and just part of rural life here) The legislature recently clarified the issue and gun sales here skyrocketed. It' states now anyone (not a felon) can have a loaded handgun in their car, it just has to be concealed, not necessisarly in the glovebox. Under your seat, in your door, under your Bible on the seat etc. It's a much better way to live and I hear almost daily here of some bad guy going down and a good guy surviving.

[abolt243]

I had a criminal attorney in a seminar talk about "justifiable use of force" to defend property. His experience was that even though it is in the statutes, the defendant will not prevail. Illinois is Illinois. It's hard enough to get an acquittal when used to defend life.

Has this thread confused to issues. The "justifiable use of force" is not limited to geography. What you can poccess to accomplish this defense it limited by law to location.

Now, don't take this wrong, I don't doubt at all that the attorney said that. And perhaps he even believes it. But can he or anyone cite a case where the defendant was clearly justified in use of force by the statute, and was convicted of homicide or worse in spite of the evidence to the contrary.

It's very possible that it has happened and if so, I hope that someone can post a link or even just a case name. But I wonder if the state's reputation is not preceding it here and everyone expects the worst with no proof to back it up. We've all heard of cases, some even recently (I believe that one of the victims of attack even spoke at IGOLD) where a civilian used a firearm to thwart an attack and once the media noise was over, that person was released and no charges filed.

Anybody got a case??

Tim

[NakPPI]

When I worked at the public defender I saw quite the opposite. I saw the state dismiss a UUW when a cab driver shot someone who was trying to rob him in Chicago. The CPD was NOT pleased. A prosecutor's job is to do justice, not convict.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

[TomKoz]

I talked to the owner and he said.he'd have to check with his insurance company. I can see where this is going.

Sent from my HERO200 using Xparent Red Tapatalk

If he denies you the opportunity to carry to protect yourself I would suggest asking him to put that denial in writing in the form of a letter. If he thinks it through he may change his mind and allow it.

[TyXD983]

I talked to the owner and he said.he'd have to check with his insurance company. I can see where this is going.

Sent from my HERO200 using Xparent Red Tapatalk

If he denies you the opportunity to carry to protect yourself I would suggest asking him to put that denial in writing in the form of a letter. If he thinks it through he may change his mind and allow it.

Good point.

Sent from my HERO200 using Xparent Red Tapatalk

[bob]

When I worked at the public defender I saw quite the opposite. I saw the state dismiss a UUW when a cab driver shot someone who was trying to rob him in Chicago. The CPD was NOT pleased. A prosecutor's job is to do justice, not convict.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

That kind of thing seemed to happen on a regular basis back when I lived in Chicago in the late 70s. Most of the time though, the shooter never even got charged at all if it was clear self defense. These days, it may well be different with the emphesis on numbers from virtually all police departments.

[TyXD983]

I talked to the owner and he said.he'd have to check with his insurance company. I can see where this is going.

Sent from my HERO200 using Xparent Red Tapatalk

If he denies you the opportunity to carry to protect yourself I would suggest asking him to put that denial in writing in the form of a letter. If he thinks it through he may change his mind and allow it.

As far as the insurance thing goes, I thought I read somewhere in this thread or another that a BG/his family can't sue if injured or killed during the commission of a felony. Especially if one of those signs is posted o might add.

Sent from my HERO200 using Xparent Red Tapatalk

Edited by TyXD983, 09 March 2012 - 06:05 PM.

[Federal Farmer]

I've been trying to figure out when IL became no duty to retreat. Anyone have any ideas. The media and such are trying to paint this as originating in 2005 in FL, but I'm confident we've had this much longer than that, just not called "Stand Your Ground".

[Bud]

I've been trying to figure out when IL became no duty to retreat. Anyone have any ideas. The media and such are trying to paint this as originating in 2005 in FL, but I'm confident we've had this much longer than that, just not called "Stand Your Ground".

Public Act 93-832, effective on July 28, 2004

[abolt243]

I've been trying to figure out when IL became no duty to retreat. Anyone have any ideas. The media and such are trying to paint this as originating in 2005 in FL, but I'm confident we've had this much longer than that, just not called "Stand Your Ground".

Public Act 93-832, effective on July 28, 2004

That's when the current justifiable use of force statute became effective, but I don't think there was ever a specified "duty to retreat" clause in our laws. States with that duty have it spelled out specifically in thier laws. If it's not mentioned, then we didn't have it.


Went back and looked up that 93-832. Actually, all it did was put in the clause that eliminates the liability to civil action by the aggressor or his her family/agent, etc. It has nothing to do with the acutal use of force.

Tim

Edited by abolt243, 23 March 2012 - 06:51 AM.
Added PA info

[Federal Farmer]

I think that means we'd have to analyze case-law...

[abolt243]

I think that means we'd have to analyze case-law...

Looking at the statute and doing a very little searching, I'm thinking that the use of force statute was actually part of the original Criminal Code of 1961. I doubt there was "duty to retreat" before then, and the "new" code simply spelled that out.

Just a guess on my part.

Tim

[lockman]

I think that means we'd have to analyze case-law...

Many of the little technical tweeks or 1 line changes are legislative changes to correct bad case law derived from a perfectly understandable statute wording.

Like a statute requireing a gun not be immediately accessible, but a judge says that means in the trunk. In most states that means not loaded and within reach and it also probably meant the same thing here prior to the late 60's and after slippery slope of "regulation".