85 Comments - Homer J. Simpson - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 12:04 pm: I’m usually on the pro-gun side, but I don’t like the words “immune from civil liability.” Some actions should still have consequences. - Aldyth - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 12:08 pm: Why not call the Shootout at the OK Corral bill? - PublicServant - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 12:11 pm: I voted no. I don’t like this little phrase “and provides that, with exceptions, the person using the force is presumed to have reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or bodily harm to himself or herself or to another person.” 1) The exceptions are not detailed in any way, and 2) No law should attempt to interfere with law enforcement’s investigation of the circumstances by stating that they have to presume that the shooter reasonably believed that force was necessary. - Phil - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 12:12 pm: Rep. Morthland’s bill appears to use the same language as the Florida law, and that’s not working out too well down there. I’m not simply refering to the Travyon Martin incident, either. I’ve read a number of news stories that talk about how local Florida prosecutors really don’t like this law, because of it’s unintended consequences. - Dirty Red - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 12:17 pm: = the person reasonably believed = This would never be clearly defined. Even if you could, the public would interpret this law to say that it is alright to kill/injure so long as you don’t have criminal intentions. - Robert - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 12:17 pm: I voted No. What terrible timing for the Stand Your Ground/Make My Day folks. But I would have voted yes with a minor change, striking “was in the process of unlawfully or forcefully entering” - seems like this would be open to interpretation, and could result in a kid just screwing around getting shot unnecessarily. - 47th Ward - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 12:18 pm: ===In such a case, provides that the finder of fact may not consider whether the person using the force had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used the force, and provides that, with exceptions, the person using the force is presumed to have reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or bodily harm to himself or herself or to another person.=== So it doesn’t matter if you could have simply walked away. Moreover, we must presume you felt threatened and deadly force was needed. No questions asked I guess, and it’s not your burden to show any evidence that you were, in fact, threatened. We’ll assume you were because you shot someone. This is a license to bring a gun to a pillow fight. It’s over the top, reckless and dangerous public policy. And these same people want concealed carry too, which is like handing out torches before pouring gasoline on the floor (no one is liable if a fire breaks out of course). This should be titled the Freedom for Vigilantes bill of 2012. - gilder - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 12:20 pm: The main concern, among others, is the presumption that the person’s belief that using force is reasonable. The rebuttable presumption should be that harm done to a person is unwarranted, with a defense of “stand your ground” that the person using force has a burden to prove is applicable. The thing about slippery slopes is…they usually lead downhill. - Gun Control - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 12:23 pm: Heck no, all these laws encourage shoot outs. It’s a moral imperative that a young woman simply allow herself to be raped instead of defend herself on the off chance someone might get killed. We have police for a reason, let them take the evidence of the crime instead of mopping up bodies off the street. - soccermom - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 12:31 pm: I am sadly reminded of my college roommate who came home in a panic one night, saying, “I was almost raped on my way home!” We were horrified and asked her what happened. She said she had encountered two African American men as she walked in a deserted area. “I could see in their eyes they wanted to rape me,” she said, her voice shaking. “Then what happened?” we asked, terrified. She answered: “Then they walked on past me.” Thank god she wasn’t armed, and protected by a “Stand Your Ground” law. - Wensicia - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 12:40 pm: “reasonable belief” That could mean anything depending on the perception of the “defender”. No. I’m not surprised justified homicides have increased as a result of these laws. It’s open season for many. - beserkr29 - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 12:40 pm: I think some are overlooking the first line. “Provides that a person is immune from civil liability…”. This isn’t a license to kill. This is not putting the law in the hands of the citizens. This is making the claim that self-defense shouldn’t be grounds for a lawsuit for wrongful death. Criminal liability is still in full effect under this language. - DPGumby - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 12:43 pm: No…the very title of the bill illustrates is nonsensical nature. “Stand your Ground” is an invitation to “Remember the Alamo”–remember they stood their ground and DIED. No one in their right mind should stand their ground if they can escape a confrontation. Self-defense laws already adequately cover any unfortunate situations. This only encourages idiots w/ guns to act like bigger idiots. - buck - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 12:44 pm: I hope Gun Control is joking. - Calhoun Native - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 12:51 pm: I voted no. It’s goofy and way over the top. What about all of the unintended consequences? I could impose the death penalty on every cab driver in Chicago that runs the red light where I’m trying to cross the street. How about the nurse that gives me my flu shot? I certainly perceive bodily harm when she comes at me with that needle. And why couldn’t the Bears arm themselves at the start of every game? They could certainly conclude that bodily harm is imminent when they’re lining up against the Packers. The upside? A perfect season. - Skeeter - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 12:51 pm: I voted no. First, I didn’t find “reasonable” to be as problematic as some have. It would be up to the courts to flesh that one out, but I’m pretty confident they could do so in a meaningful way. What bothered me is the presumption that the shooter thought he was acting reasonably. If we are talking about shooting a person, the shooter really should have the burden. That does seem to open it up to shoot first and ask questions later. It almost diminishes the seriousness of the act. The other question would be to define “dwelling.” Dwelling would need to be an actual residence. Shooting a person on your front lawn (or on the grounds of your home owners’ association) is one thing. Shooting a person breaking into your building is another. - JustaJoe - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 12:57 pm: I don’t understand the “no” reactions. I voted yes despite the flaws in Florida. As beserkr29 notes, criminal liability is not eliminated, and this bill does not apply except for unlawful entry into personal space…it does not apply in the public way. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 12:57 pm: 1. Self-defense is ALREADY a defense for a wrongful death case. In a wrongful death case, you have to show negligence. 2. I would LOVE for anyone to provide an example of a court case this is expected to remedy. My bet is that most if not all wrongful death cases involving shootings involve cases where the use of deadly force was clearly unjustified (shooting a homeless person for walking across your lawn) or where the shooting victim was a case of mistaken identity (daughers boyfriend sneaking in). 3. We JUST had a case where a police officer shot a mentally ill kid for trying to get into his own closet. If the police arent trained adequately in the use of deadly force, why in the world would we give blanket immunity to the public? 4. Law enforcement, more than anyone, should be vehemently opposed to this bill. Under it, anyone could argue that they shot and killed a police officer because they were afraid of bodily harm. - OneMan - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 12:58 pm: I guess I don’t have a huge problem with it, it seems to me that ii “and (ii) the person against whom the force was used either was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering, or was inside after unlawfully and forcibly entering, the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business of the person using the force. ” kind of eliminates what happened in Florida from falling under this law… Doesn’t matter, not going to happen anyway in Illinois. - Irish - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 1:07 pm: I voted yes. As I read the bill it only extends the “castle” coverage to ones place of business or vehicle, which is not unreasonable to me. How one would have a loaded gun within reach of the driver in a vehicle or be carrying a gun in a place of business if you were not the owner would have to be figured out. But I am all for covering people who defend their life or the lives of their kids in a carjacking situation. - downstate commissioner - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 1:18 pm: Voted “yes”, but understand some “no” votes, especially if it is read quickly. Really will not change much until (if) concealed carry becomes a reality. Illegally armed criminals will still be a threat until then. We actually already have the right of self-defense. All this does is remove civil liability, and affirm that right of self-defense. - CircularFiringSquad - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 1:20 pm: The only thing dumber than concealed carry — if that is even possible — is to give the vigilantes immunity for their antics. OMG - Knee Jerk - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 1:21 pm: I voted NO. Agree with 47th Ward: This is a license to bring a gun to a pillow fight. It’s over the top, reckless and dangerous public policy. And these same people want concealed carry too, which is like handing out torches before pouring gasoline on the floor (no one is liable if a fire breaks out of course). - mark walker - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 1:26 pm: Current laws in Illinois are already reasonable and sufficient for these cases, as YDD has pointed out. - John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 1:27 pm: These laws have saved more lives than caused lives to be lost. All this fuss is over one death, and it’s unfortunate, but it’s only one. Since this young man was killed, how many gang members have killed each other in Chicago, and how many innocent civilians have been lost as collateral damage? Where’s the outrage over that? Are people safer in Illinois? Heck no. - Pot calling kettle - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 1:28 pm: The idea is a bad one. The language includes a presumption, which would seem to throw out any investigation and includes the concern for “bodily harm” which could include just about anything. The suggestion by Gun Control that folks opposing this law think a woman should allow herself to be raped is beyond ridiculous. The current standard is that you should walk away if you can. If you cannot, you have every right to defend yourself. The recent incident in Florida shows an inherent flaw in the concept of stand your ground in that Martin certainly had a right to stand his ground when he was being followed by Zimmerman, and he had the right to punch Zimmerman in the nose. Likewise, Zimmerman would seem to have had the right to use force against Martin. So, the Florida law would appear to have created a legal environment where this kind of confrontation is bound to happen. - Aaron - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 1:30 pm: I voted no. Here’s part of the reason why: On EveryBlock, there was a recent thread regarding an incident on my corner. A neighbor called the police multiple times between 10:00 p.m. and 3:30 a.m. because of drug activity, and large numbers of people loitering. The situation eventually ended with the group moving west after an SUV slowed near the group, then sped away, with one member of the group fumbling with a gun getting ready to fire at whoever was in the SUV. A commenter on EveryBlock argued that stand your ground laws would have enabled the neighbor to go down to the street, confront the group, and defend himself should he feel threatened. This is why I voted no: I don’t want people to feel they can walk into the street and feel justified in shooting people they suspect of illegal activity, rather than calling the police. - no wire hangers - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 1:34 pm: No, because you are already able to use deadly force to defend yourself or the life of others. - Pot calling kettle - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 1:40 pm: ==These laws have saved more lives than caused lives to be lost.== I would love to see the data on that. - Pot calling kettle - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 1:56 pm: It makes sense that this kind of bill would appeal to conservatives but not to liberals. Research in brain structure and function indicates that conservatives are more threat-oriented and more likely to respond to threats aggressively than are liberals. Here is a study from last year: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/retrieve/pii/S0960982211002892 (this study has links to previous studies on the same topic) - John A Logan - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 2:05 pm: People should not be allowed to own guns anywhere for any reason ever. - lincoln's beard - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 2:07 pm: I love the idea that people are packing heat, get into serious trouble, consider themselves in danger of “imminent death or bodily harm” and, due to the current legal environment, are considering their potential civil liability and choosing to keep their concealed weapon in the holster and just submitting to depredation. “Boy, I sure would like to avoid getting murdered in the course of this mugging, but I’m worried about my civil liability. Guess I’ll just take my beating.” I’m glad we’re finally doing something for all the well-armed people who are more afraid of civil liability than of death. I can’t bear to see another “Comatose Mugging Victim Didn’t Pull Gun” headline. - Just Because - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 2:16 pm: Voted Yes, Why shouldn’t I be able to carry a weapon legally? Criminals all have them. there are times I am scared. Not that I want to kill someone but I don’t want to get Hurt myself or my family. There has to be a way to write a law that works - 47th Ward - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 2:17 pm: In case anyone missed it, Krugman sees the hand of ALEC in this sort of legislation. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/opinion/krugman-lobbyists-guns-and-money.html?ref=paulkrugman - Anonymous - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 2:18 pm: The polling is running 40% in favor, but the comments are running about 90% against. I guess supporters of the law are not willing to Stand Their Ground to defend it. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 2:18 pm: BTW, as I’ve warned before, Illinois’ Wrongful Death Act protects the unborn: The state of gestation or development of a human being when an injury is caused, when an injury takes effect, or at death, shall not foreclose maintenance of any cause of action under the law of this State arising from the death of a human being caused by wrongful act, neglect or default. Any pro-life lawmaker who votes to weaken Illinois’ Wrongful Death Act does so at their own political peril. You will be accused, and rightfully so, of weakening laws that protect the unborn. Best of luck explaining yourself after that barrage of robocalls starts. - JL - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 2:20 pm: I voted no. I don’t think I can say it better than this op-ed by David Simon, which I encourage you all to read. http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/24/v-print/2711539/welcome-to-florida-beware-of-gunmen.html - Anonymous - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 2:23 pm: I support it. In too many areas of our country we have surrendered the streets to thugs. This is especially noticeable in low income areas, and I believe these citizens need a law like this to take their neighborhoods back from gang influence and control. - Anonymous - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 2:25 pm: And why couldn’t the Bears arm themselves at the start of every game? They could certainly conclude that bodily harm is imminent when they’re lining up against the Packers. The upside? A perfect season. No perfect season with Lovie coaching. Maybe 10-4 with this armed advantage. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 2:31 pm: @Just Because - The law ALREADY protects you. Find me a case in Illinois where a jury awarded damages to the family of a burglar who broke into someone’s house and was shot to death. The only such case I can find NATIONALLY was dismissed prior to trial in 2008 in Wisconsin. The reason you don’t find more is because plaintiff’s attorneys only get paid for cases they can win. No attorney in his right mind would waste an hour in defense of a burglar who was shot. - Ivory-billed Woodpecker - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 2:35 pm: Voted “no”; but after reading the current self-defense statute, am reconsidering. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=072000050K7-1 I think Irish is right: the only significant change would seem to be expanding the “castle” rule. - CircularFiringSquad - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 2:36 pm: “All this fuss is over one death, and it’s unfortunate, but it’s only one. Since this young man was killed, how many gang members have killed each other in Chicago, and how many innocent civilians have been lost as collateral damage? ” What a magoo…it is “only one” yeah and he was going to die anyway …50 or 60 or 70 years from now…this is a good excahnge it allows the 2A Whack jobs to be themselves…pretty scary - Pot calling kettle - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 2:37 pm: I find it interesting that the backers keep supporting their position with talk about their right to self defense. I have yet to read any response that suggests there is not a right to defend yourself. The questing is whether or not, if you have the opportunity, you should walk away instead of using deadly force. I would think that this is a pretty easy concept to grasp. I also find it ironic and disturbing that some of the same people who think a pregnant woman should not consider abortion an option, even when her life or health are in danger, think they have the right to kill someone when they could just walk away. - Cheryl44 - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 2:37 pm: The Christian Science Monitor says: Since the Stand Your Ground law took effect in Florida, the number of killings found to be justifiable homicide has jumped there. The annual number of such cases has gone from 13 a year on average before 2005 to an average of 36 a year after the law took effect. - Mom - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 2:40 pm: If I find someone in my home, must I check all the doors and windows for signs of forcible entry, even those on the second floor, before I shoot? When my neighbor came home unexpectedly and found his house full of young men, would it be justifiable for him to enter shooting? My neighbor had no idea that his son had thrown an unauthorized party, and since his son was 19, and legally living at his mother’s house in another town, and since a screen was obviously taken out of a window to gain entry, what would prevent the man from legally shooting a house full of teenagers? How about the time I heard noises in my garage and discovered a neighborhood kid in my garage? He was looking for a bicycle pump for a flat tire, but I had no way of knowing that. Since he was trespassing, could I shoot him with immunity? Teenagers are some of the stupidest creatures on the face of the earth. This law makes it clear that it is open season on a group of people society doesn’t trust with a beer. - Cook County Commoner - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 2:55 pm: I voted “No” although the law, as reprinted, appears to have promise. Why it doesn’t extend to criminal as well as civil liability is unclear. It seems reasonably restricted as to location; it’s not an “anywhere” law. But the part at the end regarding awards to the person using the force is ambiguous. Who pays the award? The injured alleged perpetrator or his/her estate? A bit to biased towards the user of force. Seems like a hastily crafted piece of work more intended to gather name recognition for the drafter. Back to the drawing board and law writing school. - DCOETWAN - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 2:56 pm: The hypocrisy on this issue is delicious. Most times when an act of violence is committed with a gun, I’d wager a lot of people commenting on this thread would cite a need for ‘tougher gun laws’, as if passing more laws would take the guns out of criminal hands. Who knew that these people could be anti-legislation also. - Mom - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 2:59 pm: So, if you’re against a bad law, you’re anti-legislation? What a delightfully simplistic way to look at the world. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 3:01 pm: == These laws have saved more lives than caused lives to be lost. All this fuss is over one death, and it’s unfortunate, but it’s only one. == Yeah, John Jacob? I bet you’d see things a little different if we were discussing the death of John Jacob Jr. I seriously doubt these laws have saved ANY lives. Under common law, everyone has the right to defend themselves from the imminent threat of bodily harm. You do not, however, have the right to run around the neighborhood like Dirty Harry, Charles Bronson or The Punisher. The jobs of judge, jury and executioner are already taken…and they are three different jobs for a darn good reason. On the other hand, if you wanna shoot people for walking down the street carrying Skittles and iced tea — and let’s be honest, being black — I can’t stop ya, nor can society. Just don’t ask for a get-out-of-jail free card. Because Treyvon Martin was one of those “innocent civilians” you so casually refer to as “collateral damage.” And according to the facts available, Zimmerman is no better or different than a drive-by shooter. - Deep South - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 3:06 pm: I voted no with this thought in mind: “I reasonably expected that he was gonna have some reason to feel threatened by my actions, so I shot first.” - Steve - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 3:08 pm: Yes. Stand your ground is a great idea unless you think only police officers should own guns to defend themselves. I guess many people commenting from Chicago feel great with cops like William Handardt, Jerome Finnegan and the rest of the SOS having a monopoly on the use of force is a good idea. Question for the gun banners: when is any major city in Florida or Texas going to have more murders in gross numbers than Chicago??? - Rich Miller - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 3:09 pm: Some of you gun guys need to realize that quite a large number of state legislators (you know, the people who vote on these bills) actually read this blog. Your over the top comments ain’t helping you. - Lil' Enchilada - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 3:10 pm: scary… - wizard - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 3:19 pm: skeeter 12:51 dwelling vs business- am i in any less danger if the “bad guy” is breaking into my dwelling or my business if i am present in either location? i should have the right to protect myself in any case. i am of the type that would much rather walk away, but should someone “not let me walk away”, i have no problem with shooting such person. - wizard - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 3:25 pm: mom 2:40pm in the cases you cited, i would not have shot. one must determine if there is danger of life or not. careful inspection of what is occuring (yes, with firearm carefully drawn but not aimed) would have resulted in firearm holstered and problem resolved. firearms do not cause the problems. - wordslinger - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 3:37 pm: –These laws have saved more lives than caused lives to be lost. All this fuss is over one death, and it’s unfortunate, but it’s only one.– Such a fuss. But pretend we’re from Missouri, and show us how more lives have been saved. Meanwhile….. Plenty of folks have been killed by lawful conceal/carry shooters. and the Gabrielle Giffords shooter was clean, too. http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm http://www.salon.com/2011/01/09/giffords_shooting_assault_weapons_ban/ - Anonymous - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 3:41 pm: The weird thing is why anyone who is “pro-life” would support this bill. The existing common law on self defense developed over hundreds of years and is a careful balance of the right to protect yourself and the right to life. Hence, you can shoot if you’re in danger and unable to retreat (advantage: protect yourself). But you’re required to retreat if you have that opportunity, safely (advantage: protect life). To support this bill, a pro-life person would have to jettison any interest in protecting life, which just seems hypocritical. - Mom - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 3:50 pm: Wizard, there is nothing in this law which would hold someone accountable for shooting in either of the situations I posted. “I was in fear for my life” becomes an automatic get out of jail card. - ah HA - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 3:55 pm: everyone has the right to defend himself/loved ones. if someone is stupid enough to try to rob someone and gets killed…oh well… everyone has the right to live life to the fullest and not be interfered with criminals that want the short term satisfaction of cash… if someone disagrees with me or calls me every name in the book, so be it but if they lay a finger on me or mine… - soccermom - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 3:58 pm: I realize it is pointless to argue with true believers, but… Suppose I am at the bank, depositing a check. Someone sitting in his car in the parking lot sees a young man coming toward him, wearing a hoodie. The man in the car feels threatened, shoots at the hoodie guy — and misses and hits me. So much for my right to live life to the fullest, eh? - Yellow Dog Democrat - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 4:09 pm: @ah HA - As I implied before: there’s really nothing society can do to stop or deter you if you shoot an intruder in the back while walking out the front door with your t.v. However, we do not have to condone it or make it legal. Nor should we. - wordslinger - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 4:11 pm: –everyone has the right to defend himself/loved ones. if someone is stupid enough to try to rob someone and gets killed…oh well…– Is that what happened in Flordia? - Todd - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 4:16 pm: Can’t vote from my IPAD, but the new bill is unnecessary. The current law, 720ILCS5/7 is more than adequate. In my eyes,mit has the best of both worlds as requires the that the person is facing great bodily harm or death or a forcible felony. Rapists beware It has remained largely untouched since passed in 1968 with a teek in 2004 due to the Willmette incident, where immunity was added to where the agressor of such action could not civily sue the victim. I.e. Someone attacks you with a tireiron and then sues you for shooting thiem. And we are not a retreat state, in the home or in public. So the change in law is un-needed. - reflector - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 4:28 pm: I intend to defend my family.This bill can be made workable. - amalia - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 4:29 pm: uh, no, cause Self Defense does it. if a person defends, that is big. that said, until the evidence is out, it’s difficult to say what a full case is, and the Florida case big in the news is no exception, especially with today’s witness statements. - Steve Bartin - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 4:33 pm: “Some of you gun guys need to realize that quite a large number of state legislators (you know, the people who vote on these bills) actually read this blog. Your over the top comments ain’t helping you.” Rich’s comment has some truth to it. Yes, a lot Illinois legislators read this fine website. But, many of Madigan’s foot soldiers have already made up their mind. It’s a small group who run things in Illinois and they are for gun control. The Cook County operatives aren’t going to allow Stand Your Ground legislation. But, the good news is Chicago and Cook County will continue to lose population and influence in Springfield and Washington D.C. The Obama regime will not last forever. Who are Cook County politicians going to plead with in Washington D.C. to bail them out of unfunded pensions? Illinois is way outside the mainstream on views on guns. More liberal national gun laws may be coming. Just a reminder. One has to laugh when one hears Cook County politicians talk about “reasonable” handgun laws. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/03/chicagos_handgun_ban_and_rico.html - wordslinger - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 4:34 pm: –I intend to defend my family.This bill can be made workable.– Me, too (and I’ve managed to do that all this time, and they’re almost out the door). What does that have to do with the proposed legislation? My old man managed to do it without the proposed legislation, too. What are you so scared of? - Anon - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 4:36 pm: Yes. Although the case in Florida is tragic, even Jeb Bush has said that Stand Your Ground did not apply. I am in favor of conceal carry and legislation like this, but only with extreme levels of regulation and training. If adopted along with conceal carry (and even adopted alone for the in-home parts), required training should delve in-depth into the law and make it very clear when it is and is not applicable. - wordslinger - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 4:50 pm: –Illinois is way outside the mainstream on views on guns. More liberal national gun laws may be coming.– Huh? Careful, dude, you go from fourth to reverse like that, you might drop your tranny. And what do pensions have to do with anything? - Kasich Walker, Jr. - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 4:57 pm: When some dawg comes dealing on my turf I need assurance that I can “stand my ground” without the law gettin’ in the way. And when I need to expand my operations I want legal protection if some g shoots at me and I shoot back. I’ll fight for market share, but don’t bust me for it. - hisgirlfriday - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 5:00 pm: Is the Illinois NRA or ALEC pushing this bill? Or both? I voted no because I oppose taking power away from juries on principle. But especially in the case of if you shoot someone, I don’t think it’s too much to ask you to have to explain yourself in Court to a jury if someone thinks you messed up and sues you. Let the jury actually hearing the case determine whether someone acted reasonably. Who is Rich Morthland to prejudge all these cases from Springfield and presume that in every case the defendant acted reasonably? - hisgirlfriday - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 5:11 pm: Anon, So you are in favor of concealed carry and yet you are in favor of this legislation as long as it imposes more burdensome regulations and training on gun owners? Huh? - Rod - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 5:29 pm: Ok, this issue is somewhat more complex in Florida because of the concealed carry law. Banishing is still against the law. Banishing in FLA is basically taking your gun out in public or threatening someone with your gun. This has raised a rather complex question for those in FLA who legally carry a concealed weapon, if you feel threatened and pull your gun and do not shoot are you guilty of illegally banishing your weapon? Improper exhibition of a firearm and or improper display of a weapon are crimes governed by Florida Statute 790.10. This statute is officially titled as “improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms”, and the statute states that “if any person having or carrying any . . . weapon shall, in the presence of one or more (other) persons, exhibit the same in a rude, careless, angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self defense, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree”. I am sure Illinois has a similar law. This has created a crazy quandary among gun advocates in FLA, some argue that if you pull your gun you had better shoot and not threaten another with the weapon. It is simply crazy - the idea that a person carrying a gun cannot pull it to threaten off a potential attacker. The killing of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin again raises this issue and what was going through the mind of Mr. Zimmerman even if he had been punched by Trayvon as the police report apparently claims [http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-26/news/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-account-20120326_1_miami-schools-civil-rights-punch] I think our Illinois HB 5681 and bills like it even without concealed carry laws create the banishing/ self defense problem in some gun advocates heads. As I read it if someone has unlawfully and forcibly entered your car, business, or home and your claim as the law says is that you “reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or bodily harm to himself or herself or to another person” you too may be faced with the problem. If you pull a gun and tell the perpetrator get out do you really believe force was necessary to prevent imminent death, if you shoot - well apparently you did believe force was necessary and can claim self defense. The police are allowed to shoot after announcing their office and asking for surrender unless they have no other option and show professional judgement, citizens should be required to demand surrender of those they believe are going to kill them too unless they have no other option. This is not clearly stated in HB 5681 and in the existing “castle” rule law and it should be. - DuPage Dave - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 6:18 pm: I can’t vote yes unless the bill gets more specific about the kinds of people you can consider to be threatening. - Carl Nyberg - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 6:24 pm: How is this law not a license to kill people? 1. Obtain firearm. 2. Identify victim. 3. Confront. 4. Wait for response. 5. Kill victim. 6. Tell cops “I felt threatened.” I have a hard time discussing this without crossing into territory that should get me banned or investigated by law enforcement, so I will stop. - reformer - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 7:49 pm: Rod: Did you mean brandishing a weapon, not banishing it? - Excessively Rabid - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 8:33 pm: Carl Nyberg - and that is not too far from what appears to have happened in Florida, is it? - Pot calling kettle - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 8:59 pm: I think Rod is conflicted about whether or not he should have a gun. - Duke - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 10:12 pm: Way to go Rich. As a life member of the NRA I am behind you 100%. Duke - Retired Non-Union Guy - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 10:48 pm: Todd, I know you said Illinois is not a “retreat” State (and you should know) but, as it has been explained to me by various police friends, the current Illinois law *does* require you to retreat if possible even inside your own home. You have to be literally in fear for your or your family’s life *and* have no viable path of retreat. I actually had that exact discussion last weekend with one of my friends who is retiring in a few weeks after a long law enforcement career. I have to presume, from all the years of training and service, that they understand the law better than I do. If you read the bill carefully, you have to “be in fear” and the other person has to be committing an act of invasion on your property. That seems to be a fairly limited scenario and fairly similar to the current law but less open to interpretation by individual District Attorney’s. That’s why I voted yes. Since you would still be liable to criminal prosecution, I don’t see it opening any floodgates for vigilantism. If the sponsor(s) want to improve the bill, it could specify that the civil immunity applies UNLESS / UNTIL you are criminally CONVICTED of misuse of force or manslaughter or whatever threshold criteria you want to use to remove the immunity on a individual case by case basis. - JoeVerdeal - Monday, Mar 26, 12 @ 11:40 pm: The thing that I find to be fascinating is the view that concealed carry and even this proposed law would result in some sort of “Wild West” situation to come into being in our state. Is this what those who favor gun control see when they visit all of the other states in the union…..all of which have concealed carry laws….?? Ridiculous! Again….as is frequently the case…..the issues are strongly influenced by the dominant position of Chicago’s culture in our politics. I can understand why it is culturally difficult for Chicago to enthusiastically embrace the right to keep and bear arms. It is also fairly obvious that a strong majority of the citizens of the rest of Illinois would prefer to have the defensive options legally available to the rest of the citizens of the United States. Eventually, a division of Illinois into a “Chicago State” and a “South Illinois” state would be an excellent way to allow these two distinctly different and uniquely opposite societies to each have a more tolerable situation for themselves. As the differences become more and more pronounced, I believe (and hope) that it is only a matter of time. - hisgirlfriday - Tuesday, Mar 27, 12 @ 2:43 am: I just don’t see this bill as coming from the same place as concealed carry. Concealed carry has to do with someone’s right to bear arms. This “stand your ground” legislation has to do with someone’s right to bear arms without having to deal with the responsibility and consequences of deciding to bear arms. It’s like comparing the right to free speech with the right to yell fire in a crowded theater. And this legislation is similar to if a legislator established a law that required juries to operate with a presumption that when someone yells fire in a crowded theater that the person reasonably believed there’s a fire even if chaos ensues and that person who shouted fire gets sued. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Mar 27, 12 @ 6:53 am: –Eventually, a division of Illinois into a “Chicago State” and a “South Illinois” state would be an excellent way to allow these two distinctly different and uniquely opposite societies to each have a more tolerable situation for themselves. As the differences become more and more pronounced, I believe (and hope) that it is only a matter of time. – Yeah, there will be a lot of citizens signing up for that South Illinois solution to accommodate conceal/carry. And Congress allows existing states to undertake the enormously disruptive, difficult and expensive process of splitting into new states all the time for just about any old reason. Why, it just happened…..? Why not four or five states? Every one gets two U.S. Senators. Congress will have no problem with that. They must grow good weed in South Illinois to support this perennial pipe dream in some quarters. Seriously, just pass a bill with a home rule component. It would have the same effect, wouldn’t it? - Keith E. Turner - Tuesday, Mar 27, 12 @ 7:39 am: It sounds like htis would only apply in a home or business and it says …”forcibly AND illegally…” This law needs to be rewritten and it needs to include a phrase to the affect that you can use force to defend yourself and other wherever you happen to be. - Springfieldish - Tuesday, Mar 27, 12 @ 8:51 am: This bill is a monstrosity. It provides immunity from liability while not requiring that you just put your foot on the gas and get the hey-hoo out of there? The real problem is that an armed individual won’t consider the nuances of this law before pulling the trigger. This is truly ready-shoot-aim legislation. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.