Jump to content


Photo

Warning... Warning.


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
33 replies to this topic

#1 gpsgreek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 129 posts
  • Joined: 10-February 14

Posted 05 April 2014 - 12:22 AM

Florida Approves Warning Shot to ward off attackers

 

http://www.foxnews.c...f-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. 


Edited by gpsgreek, 05 April 2014 - 12:25 AM.

I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it.   -Clint Eastwood

 

All you need for happiness is a good gun, a good horse, and a good wife.    -Daniel Boone

 

 

2nd Amendment Supporter
NRA Member
ISRA Member

AZ CCL


#2 iceman

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 308 posts
  • Joined: 03-April 13

Posted 05 April 2014 - 12:27 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.  



#3 Brad O.

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 642 posts
  • Joined: 18-March 13

Posted 05 April 2014 - 12:42 AM

Bad, bad and more bad.

#4 duckies

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 149 posts
  • Joined: 28-December 11

Posted 05 April 2014 - 01:17 AM

you only should fire one warning shot. center mass is preferred if your life is in danger


Fortis fortuna juvat


#5 IL-Logical

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 417 posts
  • Joined: 30-May 13

Posted 05 April 2014 - 02:48 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.

#6 TFC

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,043 posts
  • Joined: 28-October 11

Posted 05 April 2014 - 03:00 AM

A very VERY bad idea.
If I can justify a warning shot, then I'll just take the one to stop the offender.
 


~If you speak of a gun as a toy, then you see medical waste as playground filler. Yes, it means you're a screwed up individual.~
~"An invasion of mainland America is unwise. Behind every blade of grass a rifle would await us"
-Yamamoto Isoroku
I predicted that Chicago/Cook county will be sold out in order to get "shall issue".
Based on the restrictions on carry in Chicago/Cook County, I was right.

...doing just enough to keep them out of Federal Court...

#7 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,503 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 05 April 2014 - 03:22 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.


Edited by Gamma, 05 April 2014 - 03:25 AM.

Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#8 C0untZer0

    Contributing Member in Arrears

  • Members
  • 13,388 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 05 April 2014 - 05:59 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.

“Most gun control arguments miss the point. If all control boils fundamentally to force, how can one resist aggression without equal force? How can a truly “free” state exist if the individual citizen is enslaved to the forceful will of individual or organized aggressors?
 
 It cannot.” 

 

― Tiffany Madison― 


#9 domin8

    Banned!

  • Members
  • 7,299 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 13

Posted 05 April 2014 - 06:50 AM

Ammo is too expensive now. I refuse to waste money.

Edited by domin8, 05 April 2014 - 06:50 AM.

I'm either banned, going to be banned, or just returned from being banned. The truth hurts.

#10 CM_50BMG

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 486 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 05 April 2014 - 06:54 AM

But...........But............ Father Biden said I could take my shotgun and.................


ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include the government.      -George Washington-


#11 Drylok

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,739 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 08

Posted 05 April 2014 - 07:31 AM

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
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks"
-Thomas Jefferson-

Now two flags fly above my land that really sum up how I feel. One is the colors that fly high and proud the red, the white, the blue. The other ones got a rattle snake with a simple statement made, don't tread on me, is what it says and I'll take that to my grave
-Aaron Lewis-

#12 s0beit

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 424 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 13

Posted 05 April 2014 - 08:02 AM

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.


Edited by s0beit, 05 April 2014 - 08:03 AM.


#13 literacola

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 196 posts
  • Joined: 21-January 13

Posted 05 April 2014 - 08:12 AM

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!"  :no:



#14 gpsgreek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 129 posts
  • Joined: 10-February 14

Posted 05 April 2014 - 08:19 AM

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!"  :no:

 

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.     :ermm:


I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it.   -Clint Eastwood

 

All you need for happiness is a good gun, a good horse, and a good wife.    -Daniel Boone

 

 

2nd Amendment Supporter
NRA Member
ISRA Member

AZ CCL


#15 freedoms@1791

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 509 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 14

Posted 05 April 2014 - 08:22 AM

how can they tell out of two or more shots which one is the warning shot?

just another way to protect the criminal.


Edited by freedoms@1791.com, 05 April 2014 - 08:27 AM.

In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm and three or more is a congress. -- John Adams

If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free! -- P.J. O'Rourke

 

NRA Endowment Life Member
NRA-ILA Member
NRA Instructor
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer
NRA Safety Officer
Illinois State Rifle Association Member
IllinoisCarry Member
IL CCL


#16 spec5

    Nuclear Member

  • Members
  • 4,768 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 09

Posted 05 April 2014 - 08:31 AM

They are following the Biden principle. Take out your shotgun and fire a couple of warning shots into the air.
NRA Member Life Member
ISRA Member
Illinois Carry
Pershing Nuclear Missile 56th Field Artillery Brigade Veteran
1/41 Field Artillary Germany

#17 FST_Kent

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,992 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 05 April 2014 - 04:50 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.



#18 Ricky Two Guns

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 903 posts
  • Joined: 11-October 12

Posted 05 April 2014 - 05:29 PM

No warning shots the word "stop" is a warning drawing the firearm is a warning.
"SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS"
"Cogito, Ergo Armatum Sum"

#19 literacola

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 196 posts
  • Joined: 21-January 13

Posted 05 April 2014 - 06:54 PM

No warning shots the word "stop" is a warning drawing the firearm is a warning.


Exactly this!!!!

#20 jlowrie

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,078 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 12

Posted 05 April 2014 - 10:36 PM

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.


The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it. --Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

#21 ChadN.

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,027 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 12

Posted 07 April 2014 - 01:43 PM

People need to read the bill.  Not a bad bill at all.


Please note that all my comments in this thread are only my own opinion, and do not in any way represent IC, or anyone else's opinions. I am NOT a lawyer.

#22 44magnumlvr

  • Members
  • 20 posts
  • Joined: 26-March 14

Posted 10 April 2014 - 03:35 AM

you only should fire one warning shot. center mass is preferred if your life is in danger


Couldn't agree more

#23 JackTripper

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,050 posts
  • Joined: 17-July 10

Posted 10 April 2014 - 06:38 AM

If someone demands my wallet in Illinois, and I draw, but do not fire, is that brandishing?
Come and knock on my door. I'll be waiting for you.

#24 Xwing

    Member

  • Members
  • 9,106 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 09

Posted 10 April 2014 - 06:45 AM

This is a good bill. Warning shots are a bad tactical move. But they should not be illegal

NRA Lifetime Member
IGOLD 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019
CCW - 50 State Firearm Laws: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Posted anti-gun business listing: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Gun Range Tools & Logs: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Illinois Government: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)


#25 Windchaser

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 535 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 14

Posted 10 April 2014 - 06:52 AM

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

#26 Uncle Harley

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,044 posts
  • Joined: 08-March 11

Posted 10 April 2014 - 06:56 AM

$$ what does this have to do with the licensing process? $$
"A river cuts through a rock not because of its power but its persistence." - Jim Watkins


" Never argue with an idiot, passers by won't be able to tell you apart "- Grandpa

#27 C0untZer0

    Contributing Member in Arrears

  • Members
  • 13,388 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 10 April 2014 - 07:48 AM

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/...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...showtopic=19429

 

http://www.ilga.gov/...e=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.

 


“Most gun control arguments miss the point. If all control boils fundamentally to force, how can one resist aggression without equal force? How can a truly “free” state exist if the individual citizen is enslaved to the forceful will of individual or organized aggressors?
 
 It cannot.” 

 

― Tiffany Madison― 


#28 TimGiblin

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,845 posts
  • Joined: 17-April 13

Posted 10 April 2014 - 07:50 AM

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
www.TrainIllinois.com. Pistol, Shotgun, Carbine and Low Light courses currently available. ISP approved instructor and Course Tim@TrainIllinois.com

#29 III

    Domari Nolo

  • Members
  • 1,841 posts
  • Joined: 04-December 13

Posted 10 April 2014 - 08:09 AM

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.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." - George Washington


#30 mostholycerebus

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 790 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 13

Posted 10 April 2014 - 08:10 AM

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.