samnavy

iTrader: (7)

I guess I called it...

BREAKING: IL AG Madigan Files for a 30-Day Stay on CCW | The Truth About GunsThe Truth About Guns

Splitime

iTrader: (24)

Which gives time for the home rule areas to enact AWB bans (excluding handguns)..

samnavy

iTrader: (7)

No Democrat wants to to be "the one" who got an AWB case before SCOTUS... because when they lose and AWB's are declared Unconstitutional at the Federal level based on Heller and a few other cases, that particular politician will be forever known as "the one" who sunk the anti's in the biggest battle in all of gun control.

The Cali crew, with their latest "package" of bills bans semi-automatic weapons entirely... and Jerry Brown knows if those bills actually become law, the pile of lawsuits will bury him behind his desk for years. The cost to the broke state will be enormous, and every single case they lose will essentially be a win for gun-rights across the whole country.

As for Madigan, what she really wants to do is anyones guess. I hope the CA7 tells her to shove it. The supermajority's in the senate/house may give the judge ammo to write that the people of IL have clearly spoken on this matter, and that she has given the state too much time already, and that's it's an insult to the court to wait until the 11th hour (and after such a one-sided vote) to ask for an extension to a bill that has been in the debate process for years, where no part of it is any surprise, and where her office had at least some hand in crafting (can't tell me it didn't considering who her father is).

Her delay may be to squeeze in an AWB cutout for Chicago, but considering the momentum in the state currently, expect lawsuits over that quickly, followed by a CA7 ruling, followed by SCOTUS... which they can't win. Chicago/Cook Cnty currently has a "detachable magazine WITH any additional feature", and a long list of specific guns:
DIVISION 4. BLAIR HOLT ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN

Splitime

iTrader: (24)

I think the biggest thought is that she is continuing to show she is "tough" on guns by drawing this out as long as possible. She is also allowing the home rule entities more time to draft and setup their own standalone AWBs, which have a 10 day grace period with this new proposed law. So if they have an extra month to draft them, the chances of something occuring are higher.

The end goal though is she wants to be Governor...

Splitime

iTrader: (24)

Part of this crappy state will be able to Carry starting now... (can still get arrested, but won't be prosecuted).

Concealed carry arrives in Randolph County - News - Randolph County Herald Tribune - Chester, IL

samnavy

iTrader: (7)

First-Time Buyers Bolster Gun Makers, Retailers | Fox Business

Was doing some rough math on another website... if current trends continue, we're going to blow past 20million NICS check this year, which will mean approx 50million over the last 3 years. If roughly 25% of purchases are new buyer (let's say 20% for shitz and grinz), that means 10 million new gun buyers in the last 3 years.

Now take the 310million population... MINUS 75million under 18, 35million convicted felons, and another 20million or so other prohibited types... you're left with about 170million people who could pass a NICS check. 10/170 means that 5.8% of those who are eligible to buy a gun bought their first gun in the past 3 years...

Granted my numbers are off by a few million (or more) here or there, but in what direction? Worst case, that's still 5% at the lowest... SRSLY, by the end of 2013, almost 10 million people will have bought their first gun in the past 3 years. I personally know about 15 people and counting... about 5 of which I went with them during their purchase.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Connecticut gun maker moving to South Carolina, in wake of tighter state gun laws | Fox News

FRT_Fun

iTrader: (19)

This is the perfect reason why they should never take away our guns. Yes it shitty fox. And yes this field reporter has the shittiest job ever. But the point is, you can't rely on police.

Splitime

iTrader: (24)

HB183 has been passed in both House and Senate, overriding the amendatory veto from Governer Quinn.

CCW has come to Illinois. Now to just go wait for the process with the ISP as they work with specific time frames to setup instructor requirements/paperwork etc....

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

So maybe now ill stop seeing news reports every Monday that 20+ odd people were mowed down over the weekend in Chicago?

Ryan_G

iTrader: (8)

So in the event that crime rates drop significantly in Illinois/Chicago over the next few years what angle will anti-gunners take?

gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

Because they are scary.

fooger03

iTrader: (2)

This is exactly why Chicago is such a huge loss for anti-gunners on a GLOBAL scale. The one leg they have been standing on for years is this: Guns kill people.

Introducing concealed carry in the most violent city in the country is going to open a LOT of eyes. At this point in world history, the best data we have on pro/anti-guns is "what happens when you make all guns illegal in a place where they're already highly limited?" Chicago will be a global case study for decades on "What happens when you grant law-abiding citizens the right to swiftly kill in self-defense?"

If violent crime in Chicago over the next 3-5 years swings as the vast majority of us expect it to, this will be the aircraft carrier that broke the camel's back.

That, and perhaps piers morgan will return to the UK during the next 3-5 years and be very nearly stabbed/beaten/bludgeoned to death in a dark alley by "gangbangers with no motive"... (NSA, are you listening??? K, Just checking.)

Splitime

iTrader: (24)

Give it a couple years, oh and it was 70+ shot this last holiday weekend... 12(?) dead.

samnavy

iTrader: (7)

Fooger, perhaps you misspoke, but allow me to correct a gross error in that sentence.

SELF-DEFENSE of any kind, including the use of lethal force, IS NOT ABOUT KILLING. Whether your defensive weapon of choice (necessity) is a nail file or a firearm, there is no grey area when it comes to the goal of self-defense. The goal of self defense is to stop the actions of another that you feel is currently or about to cause you (or another innocent) great bodily harm or death... NOTHING MORE. Shooting someone in self-defense with the intent to actually kill them is murder, no matter the circumstances. It is in no way correct to ever say that anybody has the "right" to kill somebody else, and in no way did the state of Illinois grant this.

I've spoken to this very issue at least once previously in this thread and several times in the "another gun thread" thread. Most "non-gun-inclined" (my new catch-term that includes the truly anti-gun and those who are indifferent) people believe the goal of shooting someone is to kill them, which is why most NGI people will ask "Why couldn't you shoot them in the leg" instead of killing them, wrongly believing that any shot without the specific "intent to wound" is a defacto "intent to kill".

Any shooting course, even the "NRA Basic Pistol Course" covers to some degree the legalities of use of a firearm in self-defense, and instructors are usually adamant that before a person chooses to carry or possess a firearm for self-defense, that they know their state/local laws, particularly SYG/CD/DTR stuff. I am an enormous proponent of training, and believe that everybody should should save up for a dedicated "Defensive Pistolcraft Course" when they first start carrying.

I'll also pontificate that some of the most uninformed individuals I've met when it comes to self-defense are devout gun guys who think they know the law but are the first to spout the age old mantra of the truly ignorant... "I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6". Basically that they'll shoot first (to kill) and worry about the law later.

I've always hated that phrase and do my best to educate those I find who use it. An even better albeit longer phrase would sound something like "When carrying, I will always do my absolute best to avoid any confrontation of any kind, but in the event that a person has made up their mind that they are going to kill me, and are leaving me no other option, I feel confident that my training and education will allow me to legally and use lethal force in self-defense."

Again, this is not grey area in court, and is one of the biggest pieces of "ammo" that gun owners give the anti's when it comes to laws like SYG. Let's say a guy is confronted with the standard scenario of "Bad guy jumps out from behind dumpster with a knife and says "Give me all your money". Good guy draws gun, shoots twice... once in the chest, and the second (due to muzzle rise) in the head.

Police show up and start asking questions... good guy, still charged with adrenaline, pissed, scared, excited, etc... says something like "That mother-****** tried to rob me and I shot his *** dead." That one phrase just gave an anti-gun DA everything he needs to pursue a murder-2 charge. "You honor, you can see quite clearly that although Mr.Jones could have simply run away, he chose to murder in cold-blood this poor soul with an execution-style shot to the head, and showed no remorse on the scene, even admitting to murder when the police asked him what he'd done"... AGAIN, NO GREY AREA.

I absolutely support the 16hr training requirement for Illinois CCW applicants and HOPE HOPE HOPE HOPE that the people in charge of drafting the training requirements mandate about half of that time be dedicated to the study of self-defense mindset/law/history. I think most states would do better to adopt more stringent training requirements.

fooger03

iTrader: (2)

I intentionally and specifically avoided suggesting that anyone had the right to "murder" in self defense. Killing a non-combatant with intent to kill is murder in all possible scenarios except for one two:

1. Death penalty ordered by a jury.
2. Death penalty ordered by a court-martial.

Armed citizens do not have a right to intentionally kill; they have a right to self-defense. If an aggressor is shot in legitimate self-defense and dies as a result of his wounds, then the Armed citizen has legally killed the aggressor. Since such a defense can cause death immediately or within seconds, the unintended death may be quite swift, and I still consider my question as accurrate: What happens when you grant law-abiding citizens the right to swiftly kill in self-defense?

If someone has a gun pointed at my friend, I'm not going to shoot them in the leg, I'm going to aim for the face if I'm close enough, or the torso if I'm not close enough. If this aggressor is really intent on killing my friend, shooting him in the leg is not going to prevent him from pulling the trigger and then turning the gun on me; it will merely **** him off. In this case, shooting the aggressor in the leg will not neutralize the threat of death to my friend. Hopefully, If I am forced to shoot into the torso, the aggressor can be neutralized with shock and confusion enough to make an escape. Regardless of the aggressors shock/confusion I will continue shooting into the torso while advancing until I determine that the aggressor is no longer an immediate and unescapable threat, because he dropped the weapon/ran/fell unconscious/surrendered/my friend and I achieved a covered avenue of escape/etc.

On the other hand, if I'm being chased by an unreasonable person with a bat and I can't outrun them or get help, then I'm going to shoot that motherf*cker in the hips/groin/thigh area. Being a responsible citizen, I will then alert police and medical facilities (via 911) to send an ambulance and police cruisers before either beginning first aid or observing from a safe distance, situation dependant. Unfortunately for the aggressor, If I hit the wrong artery, he might die anyways.

samnavy

iTrader: (7)

^Ah... the difference between "kill" and "murder". I would still argue that there is no "right to kill". So would any lawyer. An unintended consequence of the legal use of lethal (or even non-lethal) force against a person may result in death... ie, you legally killed somebody. You cannot take that legal action and morph it into the phrase "you now have the "right" to kill somebody". I'll start a thread over at TFL and see if some of the lawyers that frequent that site can weigh in in this... good topic.

You also give a few scenarios, indicating great ignorance about the defensive use of firearms, and advocate tactics that no recognized school teaches, and are almost guaranteed to end up with a grand jury recommending to a DA that you be charged with a crime.

Shooting somebody in the head is "intent to kill", regardless of the distance or circumstances. Any decent prosecutor will have no problem picking apart any scenario you can come up with to illustrate it. Head-shots are a big no-no. There is one story that I'll try to find that has been the only exception I've ever heard of (disabled guy comes across cop being beaten do death, shoots attacker 5 times in torso with no effect, bad guy goes for cops gun, and disabled guy puts one in his melon).

You even go so far as to advocate "shoot to wound", which is the #1 "DON'T EVER DO THIS" tactic in all of defensive shooting. You will not be able to convince a judge or jury that you were "in fear for your life" if you intentionally shoot to wound. If you "shoot to wound", and the guy later dies, you've just murdered him... go directly to jail.
Never shoot to wound

These are the things that most people who know guns and "think" they have a good handle on "what to do", really don't. I can't imagine you've ever done some serious reading by experts or taken a firearms self-defense class?

Ryan_G

iTrader: (8)

I'll just leave this here......

Splitime

iTrader: (24)

Thanks for covering that Sam. I have also been under the impression that if I ever need to pull my firearm, it will be a me or them situation and i will be shooting for torso (biggest target under pressure), to stop them by whatever means necessary (killing them).

This is why I have the certifications/cards/gear... and have not concealed carried yet (let alone not able to in my state yet), because I still grapple with being able to make that decision. I can say I will, but the remote possibility of it happening causes me hesitation. With a kid on the way though... that threshold is being lowered and my desire to protect my family continues to grow. The idea of letting anyone harm/kill my family if I had the possibility of stopping it... is unacceptable.

"Be Prepared", despite the battering the Scouts keep going through... its a great motto.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Make sure to yell your name really loud and yell something like, "I have no other choice," else the major might pressure people to charge you with a crime and ruin your life.