92 replies to this topic

[Federal Farmer]

lockman, on 30 January 2011 - 10:14 AM, said:

(720 ILCS 5/7 2) (from Ch. 38, par. 7 2)

Quote

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) 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.

( b - 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.
(Source: P.A. 93 832, eff. 7 28 04.)

Part (1) need not be met if part (2) is.
Part (2) is about the least restrictive "castle doctrine" in the nation. After someone has illegally entered occupied dwelling, even a simple theft has become a felony! The statute is clear but will a jury afford you the clear plain meaning of the statute?

Example: Man breaks in door (or victim answers door and crook pushes past victim), confronted by victim, tells victim "I am taking that wide screen TV!" Victim - bang! bang! Bang! Criminal dead, commission of a felony has been prevented.

Is this situation covered under the conditions in section 7-2? Under 7-2(1) No, unless you are in fear for life or grave bodily harm. Under 7-2(2)? Yes, regardless of your fears.

There is danger of accepting the statute on its face without the benefit of real decisions involving similar circumstances to show how juries and courts interpret that same statute.

Judges and Justices in IL seem to define 'and' and 'or' variably as political winds blow...

[lockman]

That depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.

[highspeed]

Of course you are in fear of your life! That`s why you need to make sure you shoot to end the threat!! Dead men tell no lies.

[Getzapped]

This may be the wrong place for this question.  If so, i apologize.  
I can legally carry on my property,  and I can legally possess a firearm in my dwelling.  

By definition a dwelling 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 I am camping a "Tent" is my dwelling but what about the area around the tent?  Is that considered my "temporary property" and can I possess a firearm if I am in my campsite?  

I do all the time, I am just not sure if it is legal!

[Uncle Harley]

I am not a lawyer, but if you camp someplace that charges a nightly fee, then IMO  you are no different than someone who rents an apartment.   You have a one nite rental agreement on one campsite lot. Do you not?

[Getzapped]

excellent point!  I guess the same would apply to a campground that I pay a yearly fee to also.

[blackhalo]

I wish it were that easy, but I doubt the appellate division would read it that way.  People v. Price, 375 Ill. App.3d 684 (2007) held that a AUUW defendant was not in his "abode" when spending the night at his sister's house, because it would force landowners/homeowners to "unwittingly" let people carry guns on their property.  See also People v. Aguilar 944 NE2d 816, 820 (Ill. App. 2011) Quoting Price, they said: "Equating 'abode' with 'overnight living quarters' "could result in 'homeowners unwillingly and unwittingly providing safe harbor to any overnight guest who, unbeknownst to them, brings a weapon into their home."

[kurt555gs]

Why is "Treason" listed among the crimes in the forceable felony statute? Can you imagine explaining to a court that you shot some one because you feared he/she was committing "Treason"?

[05FLHT]

blackhalo, on 02 August 2011 - 02:27 PM, said:

I wish it were that easy, but I doubt the appellate division would read it that way.  People v. Price, 375 Ill. App.3d 684 (2007) held that a AUUW defendant was not in his "abode" when spending the night at his sister's house, because it would force landowners/homeowners to "unwittingly" let people carry guns on their property.  See also People v. Aguilar 944 NE2d 816, 820 (Ill. App. 2011) Quoting Price, they said: "Equating 'abode' with 'overnight living quarters' "could result in 'homeowners unwillingly and unwittingly providing safe harbor to any overnight guest who, unbeknownst to them, brings a weapon into their home."

The statute was amended to include -

Quote

4) Carries or possesses in any vehicle or concealed
     on or about his person except when on his land or in his own abode, legal dwelling, or fixed place of business, or on the land or in the legal dwelling of another person as an invitee with that person's permission, any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm,...

As long as you have 'permission,' you may carry on the land or inside the legal dwelling of another person.

[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.

[blackhalo]

On further reflection, does that mean that its a crime if you "carr[y] or possess[ ] in any vehicle on concealed on or about his person...except when in his own...legal dwelling [ vehicle used/intended to be used as home or human habitation - Recreational Vehicle? ]

So the blanket prohibition is on carrying in the car unless the car is used/intended to be used as human habitation.  The cases would come down on interpreting that last clause "used/intended to be used" - the State would argue that a RV in motion is not being so used/intended as such.

[dbrownpilot]

templar223, on 29 January 2011 - 10:56 PM, said:

Davey, on 23 January 2011 - 10:48 PM, said:

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.

Quote

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]

dbrownpilot, on 11 January 2012 - 08:14 PM, said:

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]

dbrownpilot, on 11 January 2012 - 08:14 PM, said:

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]

NakPPI, on 09 March 2012 - 10:52 AM, said:

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]

TyXD983, on 09 March 2012 - 11:03 AM, said:

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]

mstrat, on 09 March 2012 - 11:06 AM, said:

TyXD983, on 09 March 2012 - 11:03 AM, said:

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]

TyXD983, on 09 March 2012 - 11:08 AM, said:

mstrat, on 09 March 2012 - 11:06 AM, said:

TyXD983, on 09 March 2012 - 11:03 AM, said:

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]

TyXD983, on 09 March 2012 - 11:37 AM, said:

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]

Davey, on 09 March 2012 - 01:54 PM, said:

TyXD983, on 09 March 2012 - 11:37 AM, said:

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.

[Bud]

TyXD983, on 09 March 2012 - 02:18 PM, said:

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

"There is no such thing as 'bad' publicity"

Tell your employer that if he allows this, we know a way to get him a HUGE amount of publicity. Actually, I am serious. Image if signs like this started popping up all over Chicago/Cook County:

[TyXD983]

That would be somethin else.  I'll suggest that when I talk to him. Where does a guy get a sign like that?

Sent from my HERO200 using Xparent Red Tapatalk

[Bud]

TyXD983, on 09 March 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

That would be somethin else.  I'll suggest that when I talk to him. Where does a guy get a sign like that?

Sent from my HERO200 using Xparent Red Tapatalk

From Mark the Sign Guy, of course. He's here on the forum.

[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.