Peoria Journalist Considers A Gun

[Chris Meissen]

This lady is at last starting to give gun ownership a fair look. She's obviously coming from a past in which she's been trained that guns are evil. But times change and so do Liberals given enough fear.

 

http://www.pjstar.com/opinions/x1141247609...-with-knowledge

 

I live 400 miles away from Peoria. Perhaps there is someone here who can politely and gently take this neophyte to a range, instruct her and let her have fun with a variety of handguns suitable for self defense, and give her perhaps a Utah or similar CCW instruction so that she knows what CCW permittees are actually taught. Emphasize the safety issues that are taught in CCW. Let her know that there are no new higher powered guns than there were 100 years ago--the 9mm and .45ACP are the same now as then, the .357 Magnum was developed in the mid-thirties, and the ubiquitous .40 S&W is just a downloaded .45 ACP for those unable to handle the full-powered version.

 

She's not going to be proselytized but she is willing to be instructed.

[Bitter]

Chris,

 

I strongly disagree with the interpretations of Illinois law, and other jurisdicitons, that you espoused to the reporter in regard to the justifiable use of force and the so called "castle doctrine" laws. It is not true that Illinois has no provision to limit civil liability in the situation of justifiable force. It also seems that you are confusing criminal, civil, and constitutional issues pertaining to the use of force, which is understandable because it appears you learned from LEO. I had the same issue during my Mo. CCW class, which was taught by former LEO, they confused criminal and constitutional issues of excessive force.

 

Please see 720 ILCS 5/7-1 et seq.

 

Illinois is not actually a horrible state when it comes to the justified use of force, though we don't have a formal castle doctrine, our laws provide basically the same protections so long as one is reasonable in their belief of imminent danger. Certainly there are more liberal jurisdictions, but when it comes to authorizing deadly force for things like simple trespass where there is no immediate threat to persons, I don't know how big of a benefit that is anyway.

 

If you are aware of some specific statutory deficiency, please let me know as I would be interested in researching it further.

[1957Human]

This lady is at last starting to give gun ownership a fair look. She's obviously coming from a past in which she's been trained that guns are evil. But times change and so do Liberals given enough fear.

 

***

 

She's not going to be proselytized but she is willing to be instructed.

.

 

It's your opinion that she's sincere? I found this a bit flippant: "Maybe I ought to get a gun. But maybe, as one elderly woman suggested, a spray bottle filled with ammonia and ink will do." Vomiting on your attacker would be a better defense, and more portable than ammonia!

 

I did drop her an e-mail, though, politely thanking her for her objectivity and for her willingness to keep an open mind on such a polarizing issue.

 

And nice job, by the way, on your answers. We'll never convince the vast middle-of-the-roaders of the rightness of our position if we appear extreme.

[Chris Meissen]

Chris,

 

I strongly disagree with the interpretations of Illinois law, and other jurisdictions, that you espoused to the reporter in regard to the justifiable use of force and the so called "castle doctrine" laws. It is not true that Illinois has no provision to limit civil liability in the situation of justifiable force. It also seems that you are confusing criminal, civil, and constitutional issues pertaining to the use of force, which is understandable because it appears you learned from LEO. I had the same issue during my Mo. CCW class, which was taught by former LEO, they confused criminal and constitutional issues of excessive force.

 

Please see 720 ILCS 5/7-1 et seq.

 

Illinois is not actually a horrible state when it comes to the justified use of force, though we don't have a formal castle doctrine, our laws provide basically the same protections so long as one is reasonable in their belief of imminent danger. Certainly there are more liberal jurisdictions, but when it comes to authorizing deadly force for things like simple trespass where there is no immediate threat to persons, I don't know how big of a benefit that is anyway.

 

If you are aware of some specific statutory deficiency, please let me know as I would be interested in researching it further.

 

Bitter, as mentioned in the article, I escaped from Illinois in '82. I'll be the first to concede that much has changed since I left although not generally for the better. When I talk with friends who still live there I'm often shocked at how much more restrictive the state has become; for just one example I understand that the Buck folding hunter I carried since high school is now illegal.

 

As for the use of deadly force laws, what I was taught in Illinois in '82 was considerably different than what Missouri's laws allow. I do remember the instructor covering them just as I explained them to Ms. Adams and he, also, emphasized that it would be almost impossible for a private citizen, coming upon a situation, to know with any certainty whether a felony was being committed and, if so, which party was the felon.

 

The main point is that I was not trying to conduct a 40 hour class for Ms. Adams. Rather I was attempting to allay the concerns of someone who has traditionally belittled and ridiculed the idea of gun ownership and personal defense and who now appears to be trying to at least give it consideration. And that's something that we should be working together on accomplishing. If we can get the media behind us then we'll be able to put enough pressure on the politicians in the legislature to get CCW passed. And that's the goal we need to focus on.

[Chris Meissen]

It's your opinion that she's sincere? I found this a bit flippant: "Maybe I ought to get a gun. But maybe, as one elderly woman suggested, a spray bottle filled with ammonia and ink will do." Vomiting on your attacker would be a better defense, and more portable than ammonia!

 

I did drop her an e-mail, though, politely thanking her for her objectivity and for her willingness to keep an open mind on such a polarizing issue.

 

And nice job, by the way, on your answers. We'll never convince the vast middle-of-the-roaders of the rightness of our position if we appear extreme.

 

Thank you. Yes, I think she's sincere. A few parties on missouricarry.com know her from as much as a decade back. They expressed surprise at the treatment I received. After her earlier column, http://www.pjstar.com/opinions/x1415147003...et-myself-a-gun these people told of her taking a gun class ten years ago and then pillorying gun owners in her next article. They honestly expected her to do a hatchet job on me this time for responding to her.

 

I wasn't sure if that first article was sarcasm or sincere but I sent her an email answering her stated concerns and questions. She called me on the phone and we spoke for about an hour. The most recent column is the result. Yes, some of the quotes are "flavored" slightly by her perception filtered through her previous prejudices. But, all in all, I think she's sincere.

 

She's reaching the realization that gun bans aren't preventing crime. That conflicts with everything she's been taught and everything that her political and social peers believe. So she's finding her way. She really would like to believe that a bottle of ammonia would serve as well. That's a comfortable belief. I intend to email her and explain why that wouldn't work for so many reasons. But gently. We're leading a babe through strange territory and the goal is to both keep her on the path and not frighten her into running back to old, comfortable falsehoods.

[abolt243]

Bitter, as mentioned in the article, I escaped from Illinois in '82. I'll be the first to concede that much has changed since I left although not generally for the better. When I talk with friends who still live there I'm often shocked at how much more restrictive the state has become; for just one example I understand that the Buck folding hunter I carried since high school is now illegal.

 

Please cite the state law that makes a Buck folding hunter illegal statewide. I'm aware of a few local laws, centered around Chicago that may make a knife over 3" illegal, but nothing in state laws that I'm aware of makes it illegal.

 

As for the use of deadly force laws, what I was taught in Illinois in '82 was considerably different than what Missouri's laws allow. I do remember the instructor covering them just as I explained them to Ms. Adams and he, also, emphasized that it would be almost impossible for a private citizen, coming upon a situation, to know with any certainty whether a felony was being committed and, if so, which party was the felon.

 

Here's the link to the statute dealing with exoneration of force in the state of Illinois. Exoneration of Force. It's pretty straighforward, even for someone like myself with no legal training. I don't know who "taught you in Illinois in '82" but if that person was not specifically trained in that area of the law, I wouldn't put much stock in it. Unfortunately, many law enforcement officers have recieved incorrect information in their training regimen as well. As to "coming upon a situation", I don't care to be a vigilante or "protector of the masses" . If someone threatens me or mine, then I'll take action. Threatening action towards me or my family or attempting forced entry into my house qualifies as a forcible felony. Here's the link. Forcible Felony I'm not looking for trouble, and I think that others should accept responsibility for their own security.

 

The main point is that I was not trying to conduct a 40 hour class for Ms. Adams. Rather I was attempting to allay the concerns of someone who has traditionally belittled and ridiculed the idea of gun ownership and personal defense and who now appears to be trying to at least give it consideration. And that's something that we should be working together on accomplishing. If we can get the media behind us then we'll be able to put enough pressure on the politicians in the legislature to get CCW passed. And that's the goal we need to focus on.

[PPK]

The last line "a spray bottle filled with ammonia and ink will do" reminded me that she's a journalist and "the pen is mightier than the sword", unless your opponent has a sword.

[Don Gwinn]

The only folding knives that are illegal in Illinois (statewide) are automatics (switchblades) and "ballistic knives" (spring-propelled blades that can be fired out of the knife handle.) Anything else is fair game UNLESS you carry it with "intent illegally to harm another." I don't think Buck makes a knife that would be illegal to possess or carry in Illinois.

[Federal Farmer]

Doesn't the civil immunity only apply if you meet the criteria for justifiable use of lethal force? I suspect that if you can get sued, in fact, despite the law. You might win, depending upon the finding of facts. However, you will be paying a lawyer. Of course, that is better than paying an undertaker.

[Tvandermyde]

i don't know this guy but "Chris" is off base.

 

After the Hale DeMar incidnet in Willmette, I went to work on trying to fix that and use it to our advantage. Most people remember the Willmette bill, but for get that the second piece of the puzzels as a new bill giving civil immunities to people who use justifiable force.

 

It was SB-2386 in 2004 spopnsored by George Shadid. There is a stroy behind it but suffice to say that we offered George the civil component to the bill and it was written by myself and Jim Dodge a senate staffer. It says:

 

(720 ILCS 5/7-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-1)

Sec. 7-1. Use of force in defense of person.

(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 defend himself or another against

such other's imminent use of unlawful force. 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 imminent death or great

bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a

forcible felony.

( 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.

 

the underlined stuff is the new language we added.

 

it continues:

 

Sec. 7-2. Use of force in defense of dwelling.

(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

unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling. However, he is

 

justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to

cause death or great bodily harm only if:

(1) (a) The entry is made or attempted in a violent,

riotous, or tumultuous manner, and he reasonably believes

that such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or

offer of personal violence to, him or another then in the

dwelling, or

(2) ( He reasonably believes that such force is

necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the

dwelling.

(() 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.

 

(720 ILCS 5/7-3) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-3)

Sec. 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.

(() 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.

 

i would say that is a very clear statement that if someone commits a crime against you, and you are justified in using deadly force, and I think we have some broad authority, it might even rival Texas, that you can have immunity. Of cource anyone can sue you, but you have a very board defense against any claim which is what we wanted.

[abolt243]

Doesn't the civil immunity only apply if you meet the criteria for justifiable use of lethal force? I suspect that if you can get sued, in fact, despite the law. You might win, depending upon the finding of facts. However, you will be paying a lawyer. Of course, that is better than paying an undertaker.

 

Isn't that true of any of the so called "Castle Doctrine" laws? The State's Attorney who has jurisdiction might decide that you had sufficient reason to use force, or they might not, in which case you'd have to prove it in a court of law.

 

I feel pretty comfortable with our "Exoneration of Force" statute at this time. I'd rather concentrate on restoring our 2A rights in this state. When that's done, then we'll work on "Get off my lawn!".

 

AB

[Bitter]

Doesn't the civil immunity only apply if you meet the criteria for justifiable use of lethal force? I suspect that if you can get sued, in fact, despite the law. You might win, depending upon the finding of facts. However, you will be paying a lawyer. Of course, that is better than paying an undertaker.

 

 

Indeed, but I am not aware of a difference there with true "castle doctrine" states.

 

I glanced briefly at several other states laws, and it appears even more that Illinois is not bad at all, in fact I am pretty happy with the defensive use of force laws here. Some variances that I saw were that some states specifically extend the protection to a vehicle, though the Illinois law could certainly be applied to a vehicle if in immediate fear of bodily harm; some specifically state that there is no duty to retreat, though IIRC Illinois common law has trended that way as well (could be remembering that wrong); a very few allow force to end a criminal tresspass; some provide a presumption of reasonableness.

 

Pretty much all the statutes that I looked at have virtually identical wording in reference to civil liability, Illinois is no outlier there. Even on wikipedia Illinois is considered a "weak castle doctrine" state, though I think that is only because the things I mentioned above are not specifically stated in the statute. That said, their import is not forclosed in a given factual situation.

 

I am not concerned in the least about defensive force laws in Illinois. The law allows you the right to defend yourself, just not the implements to effect that defense.

 

A big thanks to Todd for helping to author the statutes in question.

 

Lastly, I don't mean to knock Chris too much as I respect trying to sway people, but when making arguments, especially to media types, we should all be informed about what we state. Projecting falsehoods could seriously damage credibility if the inaccuracies are discovered. I certianly respect LEO as well, but they are absolutely not a source from which to learn the law.

[Chris Meissen]

tvandermyde, I appreciate you posting that. Obviously the law has changed since I lived in Illinois. My instruction was given by the late John Dotson who taught the "Legal Use of Deadly Force" class for the Adams county sheriff's department at the time. Back in '82, Sheriff Robert Nall was, I was told, the only sheriff in the state who allowed private citizens to take such a course. John died of a massive heart attack in '87 and, short of the diploma which I still have, there is no longer any official record of the course.

 

I may very well have been misinformed regarding the knife. It's a 4" Folding Hunter. I also have a 3-1/4" model 112. I've not lived in Illinois for 24 years and I relied upon a current resident who told me that the law had been changed and that both knives were illegal, that 3" was now the limit in that state. I'm glad to know that I was misinformed. I grew up in Illinois but I still feel, when I drive east on the Hannibal or Quincy bridges, as though I'm crossing the old Brandenburgh Gate into the East Berlin of the sixties now that I've had a few decades to enjoy the freedom of a State where the citizenry is trusted to own the means of its own defense.

 

Having said that, can we get back to the original topic of this thread which was how to help an Illinois journalist come to accept and perhaps even endorse the idea of personal self defense and concealed carry?

[Tvandermyde]

Chris -- We take reporters to the range at the capitol all the time. matter of fact Armalite has loaned us a 50 for them to try out. We have a whole host of other firearms and Rock river has sent down one of their guys with full autos and silenrcers just for fun.

 

We do it, and if you want to forward my info to her, we will be happy to arrnage a range day for her. Rich Pearson is one of the best coaches around. he has the patience of Job when teaching the legislators, secretaries, staffers and reporters. We are working on a shoot day for each of the four staffs. So far I thin my ammo bill for the year is close to $5000.

 

Bitter -- I would argue that 7-2 covers dwelling. the definition of it is:

 

(720 ILCS 5/2‑6) (from Ch. 38, par. 2‑6)

Sec. 2‑6. "Dwelling". (a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection ( of this Section, "dwelling" means a building or portion thereof, a tent, a vehicle, or other enclosed space which is used or intended for use as a human habitation, home or residence.

 

if you are talking about a carjacking, I think your covered. You have to explain the UUW away, but if the SA says justified, pass go and collect $200.

[Bitter]

Bitter -- I would argue that 7-2 covers dwelling. the definition of it is:

 

(720 ILCS 5/2‑6) (from Ch. 38, par. 2‑6)

Sec. 2‑6. "Dwelling". (a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection ( of this Section, "dwelling" means a building or portion thereof, a tent, a vehicle, or other enclosed space which is used or intended for use as a human habitation, home or residence.

 

if you are talking about a carjacking, I think your covered. You have to explain the UUW away, but if the SA says justified, pass go and collect $200.

 

Right, the problem with vehicles is as you stated, that one cannot legally possess a loaded weapon in a vehicle. I would fully expect to catch a felony case on that, though at least not murder/assault. Some zealous jurisdictions might even try to pin you with felony murder, though I am not aware of the law in that regard in Il.

[Federal Farmer]

Bitter -- I would argue that 7-2 covers dwelling. the definition of it is:

 

(720 ILCS 5/2‑6) (from Ch. 38, par. 2‑6)

Sec. 2‑6. "Dwelling". (a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection ( of this Section, "dwelling" means a building or portion thereof, a tent, a vehicle, or other enclosed space which is used or intended for use as a human habitation, home or residence.

 

if you are talking about a carjacking, I think your covered. You have to explain the UUW away, but if the SA says justified, pass go and collect $200.

 

Right, the problem with vehicles is as you stated, that one cannot legally possess a loaded weapon in a vehicle. I would fully expect to catch a felony case on that, though at least not murder/assault. Some zealous jurisdictions might even try to pin you with felony murder, though I am not aware of the law in that regard in Il.

 

Assuming the presence of evidence that you didn't simply uncase and load it first?

[Tvandermyde]

If you did have a loaded gun inthe car with you, and as the florida case was described on the boards ealier this week, but instead of being at home in your dirveway you were at a stop lightm I think 101 out of 102 SAs would not charge the UUW.

 

1. chances of jury nul is pretty good.

 

2. bad political move, charging the victim. That is what got us the traction in Willmette. had they not charged, no story no new law.

 

3. defense of nessesity arises.

 

4. you gotta have one Ahole of a cop to push it or one ahole of a SA to pursue it

 

the real probelm is getting pulled over for something else and caught on the felony rap until that situation arises

[Dr. G]

In Illinois any knife with a blade over 3 inches is illegal.

 

 

Illinois Criminal Code 720 ILCS 5/24-1. Unlawful Use of

Weapons. (a) A person commits the offense of unlawful use

of weapons when he knowingly... (2) Carries or possesses

with intent to use the same unlawfully against another, a

dagger, dirk, billy, dangerous knife, razor, stiletto,

broken bottle or other piece of glass... or any other

dangerous or deadly weapon of like character...

- 720 ILCS 5/33A-1... A person is considered armed with a

dangerous weapon... when he carries on or about his person

or is otherwise armed with a category I or category II

weapon. ( A category I weapon is a [firearm or] a knife

with a blade at least 3 inches in length, dagger, dirk,

switchblade knife, stiletto, or any other deadly or

dangerous weapon of like character.

- 720 ILCS 5/24-1. Unlawful Use of Weapons. (a) A person

commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he

knowingly: (1) Sells, manufactures, purchases, possesses

or carries any... knife commonly referred to as a

switchblade knife, which has a blade that opens

automatically by hand pressure applied to a button, spring

or other device in the handle of the knife, or a ballistic

knife, which is a device that propels a knifelike blade as

a projectile by means of a coil spring, elastic material,

or compressed gas...

- 720 ILCS 5/33A-1... A person is considered armed with a

dangerous weapon... when he carries on or about his person

or is otherwise armed with a category I or category II

weapon. ( A category I weapon is a [firearm or] a knife

with a blade at least 3 inches in length, dagger, dirk,

switchblade knife, stiletto, or any other deadly or

dangerous weapon of like character.

 

Illinois Case Law:

- "Possession of hunting knife is not a crime; however,

knowingly carrying or possessing dangerous weapon with

intent to use same unlawfully against another constitutes

offense..." (1982)

- "Weapon not listed in statute can become "dangerous weapon"

when it is used in a manner dangerous to well being of

individual threatened, and knife with blade less than 3

inches in length can be dangerous weapon if used in such

manner." (1991)

- "A straight-blade razor did not constitute a per se

dangerous weapon, for purposes of armed violence

charge..." (1987)

- "Walking cane, even if not per se dangerous, was...

transformed by defendant's usage into a dangerous weapon."

(1977)

 

 

http://www.knife-expert.com

[Don Gwinn]

Dr. G, it has always been my understanding that being armed with a "dangerous weapon" is only illegal subject to the caveat in your quote, namely that it's only illegal if you possess it "with intent unlawfully to harm another."

 

Is there a statute somewhere that establishes that it is illegal to be armed with a "dangerous weapon" under other circumstances? I wouldn't be completely shocked to find that the case, but I've been carrying a knife longer than 3 inches for a long time and have looked into this pretty carefully. The trouble is, the people who write these things are just as careful to make them as vague and broad as possible.

 

For instance, 5/33, which you cite above, created the crime of "Armed Violence." It added additional penalties to felonies if the criminal also carried or used firearms or weapons from that list of "dangerous weapons." The catch is that, if you're not committing a felony, that statute doesn't affect you. If you search the Illinois Compiled Statutes for the phrase "armed with a dangerous weapon" you will find nine places where the phrase appears . . . but none of them make possession of these items by itself illegal. They're all enhancements to other crimes committed while possessing the weapon in question.

[junglebob]

Chris Meissen, That link to Exoneration of Force in the state statutes that you gave seems to be broken.

[Chris Meissen]

Chris Meissen, That link to Exoneration of Force in the state statutes that you gave seems to be broken.

 

What link??? I don't recall posting one, certainly not to Illinois' laws.

[templar223]

Bitter -- I would argue that 7-2 covers dwelling. the definition of it is:

 

(720 ILCS 5/2‑6) (from Ch. 38, par. 2‑6)

Sec. 2‑6. "Dwelling". (a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection ( of this Section, "dwelling" means a building or portion thereof, a tent, a vehicle, or other enclosed space which is used or intended for use as a human habitation, home or residence.

 

if you are talking about a carjacking, I think your covered. You have to explain the UUW away, but if the SA says justified, pass go and collect $200.

 

Right, the problem with vehicles is as you stated, that one cannot legally possess a loaded weapon in a vehicle. I would fully expect to catch a felony case on that, though at least not murder/assault. Some zealous jurisdictions might even try to pin you with felony murder, though I am not aware of the law in that regard in Il.

 

 

A little training and a good lawyer and you'll be fine.

 

J

[templar223]

Dr. G, it has always been my understanding that being armed with a "dangerous weapon" is only illegal subject to the caveat in your quote, namely that it's only illegal if you possess it "with intent unlawfully to harm another."

 

 

Dr. G:

 

Here's the easy way to remember state law on knives:

 

They're all legal. Period. (well, save switchblades).

 

If you use them illegally (to unlawfully harm or threaten another), you get enhanced penalties with blades over 3" like mine.

 

Easy enough?

 

John

[abolt243]

Chris Meissen, That link to Exoneration of Force in the state statutes that you gave seems to be broken.

 

 

Try this one Exoneration of Force

(720 ILCS 5/7‑1)

AB

[junglebob]

Chris Meissen, That link to Exoneration of Force in the state statutes that you gave seems to be broken.

 

 

Try this one Exoneration of Force

(720 ILCS 5/7‑1)

AB

Thanks, AB