gpsgreek Posted April 5, 2014 at 06:22 AM Share Posted April 5, 2014 at 06:22 AM Florida Approves Warning Shot to ward off attackers http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/04/florida-lawmakers-approve-warning-shot-bill-revising-self-defense-laws/ I would not even tell someone I was carrying in IL let alone fire off a shot. Approve or DisApprove????? Headlines: Illinois police fired warning shots over the heads of rioters today. Unfortunately, they killed six members of the family watching from a balcony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iceman Posted April 5, 2014 at 06:27 AM Share Posted April 5, 2014 at 06:27 AM This is because of that stupid woman who shot a "warning" shot at her estranged husband and she is facing like 20+ years in the pen. Of which she deserves all 20 years. Firing a warning shot is the dumbest thing you can do IMO. If a group of individuals is going to do something bad to you and you fire a warning shot, they will more than likely keep coming after you. Now if you pop one of those individuals in the chest and they see him/her hit the ground like a sack of potatoes they will probably scatter like the roaches they are. But yea the law is pretty much some feel good measure to keep that lady from going to prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad O. Posted April 5, 2014 at 06:42 AM Share Posted April 5, 2014 at 06:42 AM Bad, bad and more bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duckies Posted April 5, 2014 at 07:17 AM Share Posted April 5, 2014 at 07:17 AM you only should fire one warning shot. center mass is preferred if your life is in danger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IL-Logical Posted April 5, 2014 at 08:48 AM Share Posted April 5, 2014 at 08:48 AM First thought. If your carrying something with only 7 rounds (less for revolver folks) why waste the one that might be what saves your life?Second, if you feel so compelled, first one center of mass, second in the dirt.Witnesses are incredibly unreliable, but you have 2 spent cases, everyone heard 2 shots...So you did give a "warning shot". Your word against theirs as to which went where and when. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFC Posted April 5, 2014 at 09:00 AM Share Posted April 5, 2014 at 09:00 AM A very VERY bad idea.If I can justify a warning shot, then I'll just take the one to stop the offender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted April 5, 2014 at 09:22 AM Share Posted April 5, 2014 at 09:22 AM There is more to the bill than "warning shots", as usual the media is not giving reasonable information. More importantly, it covers "brandishing" or other display of a firearm for defensive purposes. The old law had some unintended consequences in that if you had a firearm but did NOT shoot at someone, that you could well be charged with a (potentially very serious) crime. This bill fixes the odd legal situation of shooting someone putting you in less legal jeopardy than not shooting someone. The bill allows you to justify under a theory of self defense actions with a firearm less than actually shooting someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted April 5, 2014 at 11:59 AM Share Posted April 5, 2014 at 11:59 AM IMO this isn't about advocating for warning shots, the law is to prevent gun owners from being prosecuted for firing a warning shot. Just for example: A woman is accosted by someone, she pulls her gun, and maybe in a moment of indecision makes a bad choice and fires a warning shot. The assailant runs away. An anti-gun prosecutor decides to charge her with something crazy like reckless endangerment reasoning that she didn't deploy her handgun in self defense because if she REALLY felt her life were threatened she would have shot the attacker. One of the effects of being convicted of something like that would be the loss of CCL, You don't think people like Anita Alvarez and Tom Dart would do that to gun owners? Every gun owner that they can punish in any way shape or form is a victory for them - you bet they'll do it. I just think this law keeps that from happening in FL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domin8 Posted April 5, 2014 at 12:50 PM Share Posted April 5, 2014 at 12:50 PM Ammo is too expensive now. I refuse to waste money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CM_50BMG Posted April 5, 2014 at 12:54 PM Share Posted April 5, 2014 at 12:54 PM But...........But............ Father Biden said I could take my shotgun and................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylok Posted April 5, 2014 at 01:31 PM Share Posted April 5, 2014 at 01:31 PM I'm opposed to warning shots but support this legislation fully. The antis can't separate guns being used by good guys from guns being used by bad guys, this bill helps protect the good guys and tells the antis to go screw themselves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0beit Posted April 5, 2014 at 02:02 PM Share Posted April 5, 2014 at 02:02 PM I feel like they could just write a law that alters the presumed intent of somebody firing a firearm. It is silly to me that somebody that hurts absolutely no one (though they could be trying to kill somebody) will get the book thrown at them for attempted murder when they didn't actually mean to kill anyone, just because a gun is there and was fired. The intent, unlike any other weapon (or fists) is presumed to be a deadly intent. I've heard of people being stabbed or stabbing, trying to run over people on purpose, beating the heck out of somebody with bats - and they didn't get attempted murder charges though that person could have seriously died. Attempted murder requires malice aforethought, and much of the time that isn't a factor (though people here and in some other places, people do get charged with 'aggravated battery' and equivalent). Don't know. Maybe the warning shot people should face civil court if they can't prove they actually wanted to kill somebody, like reckless endangerment + lawsuit or something like that. They are dumb people, in my opinion, but 20+ years seems insane to me when using anything else it might have been (relatively) fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
literacola Posted April 5, 2014 at 02:12 PM Share Posted April 5, 2014 at 02:12 PM I believe the intent of this law, is to stop people from going to jail for firing a warning shot.... HOWEVER...I'm worried for them (and the rest of us, really) that this could lead to prosecutors to expect a warning shot. I could just see them telling the jury, "he could have fired a warning shot! Instead, he shot the 'victim' in the chest twice!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gpsgreek Posted April 5, 2014 at 02:19 PM Author Share Posted April 5, 2014 at 02:19 PM I believe the intent of this law, is to stop people from going to jail for firing a warning shot.... HOWEVER...I'm worried for them (and the rest of us, really) that this could lead to prosecutors to expect a warning shot. I could just see them telling the jury, "he could have fired a warning shot! Instead, he shot the 'victim' in the chest twice!" The First one was a warning shot.... If my first bullet doesnt stop you... YOU KNOW I will fire again. I like the above comment that says the first should go center mass and the second in the dirt. So a while back I was ridiculed because I said one magazine (clip is what I said) would be enough and you wouldn't need any more magazines with you. Everyone here though is talking about 2 or less shots. Please do not start arguing and changing the subject of the thread. I am just making an observation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freedoms@1791 Posted April 5, 2014 at 02:22 PM Share Posted April 5, 2014 at 02:22 PM how can they tell out of two or more shots which one is the warning shot?just another way to protect the criminal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spec5 Posted April 5, 2014 at 02:31 PM Share Posted April 5, 2014 at 02:31 PM They are following the Biden principle. Take out your shotgun and fire a couple of warning shots into the air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonymous too Posted April 5, 2014 at 10:50 PM Share Posted April 5, 2014 at 10:50 PM I don't know if it's still on the books, but IL law allows LEO's to fire warning shots and the only agency that still advocated it's use was the ISP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Two Guns Posted April 5, 2014 at 11:29 PM Share Posted April 5, 2014 at 11:29 PM No warning shots the word "stop" is a warning drawing the firearm is a warning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
literacola Posted April 6, 2014 at 12:54 AM Share Posted April 6, 2014 at 12:54 AM No warning shots the word "stop" is a warning drawing the firearm is a warning. Exactly this!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlowrie Posted April 6, 2014 at 04:36 AM Share Posted April 6, 2014 at 04:36 AM the funny thing is that the 'warning shot' bill doesn't authorize warning shots... Andrew Branca has a nice summary of the law that can be found here From his article: So, what exactly does SB-448 do (note: the full text of the proposed bill is embedded at the bottom of this post, but all hyperlinks are to the statutes as they currently exist prior to modification by SB-448)? Here’s a bulleted list, with details below. In summary SB-448 provides:No statutory authorization for firing “warning shots”—indeed, the statutory language would deny justification to any “warning shot” that “poses a threat to public safety,” which would seem to apply to all but the rarest circumstances.No substantive change to stand-your-ground.Where the use of force would have been lawful in defense of a person, the mere threat is also lawful in defense of a person.Where the use of force would have been lawful in defense of a home, business, or occupied vehicle, the mere threat of force is also lawful in defense of a home, business, or occupied vehicle.Where the use of force would have been lawful in defense of personal property or to prevent a forcible felony, the mere threat of force is also lawful in defense of personal property or to prevent a forcible felony.Where immunity would attach to a use of force, immunity will similarly attach to a mere threat of force.Allows for expunction of criminal history associated with a lawful act of self-defense. It is actually a really good bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChadN. Posted April 7, 2014 at 07:43 PM Share Posted April 7, 2014 at 07:43 PM People need to read the bill. Not a bad bill at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
44magnumlvr Posted April 10, 2014 at 09:35 AM Share Posted April 10, 2014 at 09:35 AM you only should fire one warning shot. center mass is preferred if your life is in dangerCouldn't agree more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackTripper Posted April 10, 2014 at 12:38 PM Share Posted April 10, 2014 at 12:38 PM If someone demands my wallet in Illinois, and I draw, but do not fire, is that brandishing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xwing Posted April 10, 2014 at 12:45 PM Share Posted April 10, 2014 at 12:45 PM This is a good bill. Warning shots are a bad tactical move. But they should not be illegal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windchaser Posted April 10, 2014 at 12:52 PM Share Posted April 10, 2014 at 12:52 PM If someone demands my wallet in Illinois, and I draw, but do not fire, is that brandishing? Were you in fear of your life or great bodily harm? If so then no. However if you simply didn't want your wallet stolen and you weren't in feat for your life then yes you could be charged with brandishing. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Harley Posted April 10, 2014 at 12:56 PM Share Posted April 10, 2014 at 12:56 PM $$ what does this have to do with the licensing process? $$ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted April 10, 2014 at 01:48 PM Share Posted April 10, 2014 at 01:48 PM If someone demands my wallet in Illinois, and I draw, but do not fire, is that brandishing? Some criminals in Chicago are pretty smart about how they rob people. The various charges escalate from robbery to aggravated robbery to armed robbery. Here are the statutes concerning robbery http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?ActID=1876&ChapterID=53&SeqStart=61900000&SeqEnd=62600000 So if a thug comes up to you with a weapon that is clearly visible and verbally threatens to use the weapon if you don't turn over your wallet, he has committed armed robbery and is looking at an additional 15 years being added to a sentence, (although in practice the robber probably only gets an extra year). If a thug simply approaches you and says "give me your wallet" - no mention of a weapon, no weapon visible and no threat, then the robber, (if caught) will probably receive a lesser charge of just robbery. Illinois is not Florida, if someone comes up to you and "demands" your wallet, your justification in drawing your firearm is evaluated in light of 720 ILCS 5/7 1) (from Ch. 38, par. 7 1), Sec. 7 1. Use of force in defense of person. http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=19429 http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=072000050K7-1 The law says a person is justified in using force when 1) he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or 2) prevent the commission of a forcible felony. An argument can be made that when someone comes up to you and demands your wallet that there is an implied threat of force if you do not comply, but a stronger argument is that you were being robbed. Robbery is a felony, therefore the use of your firearm (even if you did not fire it) is justified under the statute since it was necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimGiblin Posted April 10, 2014 at 01:50 PM Share Posted April 10, 2014 at 01:50 PM IMO if you fire a warning shot should be forced to watch a 30 minute video on ballistics, and people killed by falling bullets. Loctite/paint pen/regularly check your gear. A gun falling off your belt is unacceptable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
III Posted April 10, 2014 at 02:09 PM Share Posted April 10, 2014 at 02:09 PM I never understood the concept of a warning shot..... Nor the concept of aiming for something other than center mass. If you have pulled your gun in defense of yourself or others, then the threat needs to be stopped as efficiency and effectively as possible (center mass)........ Unless the Acton of you pulling your gun cause the threat to retreat, in which case you might not need to squeeze that trigger. Bottom line, we are responsible for every round we that allow to leave our barrel..... Warning shots are just bad mojo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mostholycerebus Posted April 10, 2014 at 02:10 PM Share Posted April 10, 2014 at 02:10 PM This seems like a good bill. Mainly covers people who pull but the threat stops before they have to fire. That said, I am strongly against legalizing 'warning shots'. This seems like the first step in going after lawful CCW holders. EVERY case will start with "why didnt you just fire a warning shot? Were you just looking for someone to KILL?!" Imagine if warning shots were legal in the ZImmerman trial. Bad juju. Just make all your shots at the threat, if they miss, well thats not unusual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.