Chicago strikes again

ltc444 · March 27, 2012, 06:16 PM

Found this story on Drudge. An 80 year old Bar owner has been arrested for shooting a burglar. The link is below.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,3175723.story

The owner shot a burglar. He was charged with unlawful use of a weapon. The story did indicate that the bar owner had previous weapons convictions. They did detail what those convictions were. The judge apparently did not consider the charges serious as he released the owner on his " own recognizance".

ming · March 27, 2012, 06:44 PM

First conviction was for theft. Second was for possession of a firearm (due to the first felony conviction). Lots of support being generated in his community with his neighbors saying he has a right to protect himself and his family. This support wouldn't have happened several years ago, or if it did it wouldn't make the news. It's a nice change.

C0untZer0 · March 28, 2012, 10:33 AM

I think it is significant that the bar owner is African American and there has been a change of view within the African American community with respect to firearms.

Here is a link to a progressive (liberal) talk show, where the host and the guests talk about a number of issues, including changing attitudes in the African American community (typically responsible for electing staunch anti-gun politicians), they talk about a lot of different things - they start talking about gun control at around 11:16 in the piece.

http://www.illinoiscarry.com/news//3-69.php

PigFarmer · March 28, 2012, 11:40 AM

I think we are missing the important point that the charges they are pursuing against him are all based around the fact that he is a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. While I have 0 problems with his course of action, I do have a problem with a convicted felon breaking the law to have the gun in the first place.

zxcvbob · March 28, 2012, 11:45 AM

I wonder if there would have been a problem if he'd used an antique firearm? (Ruger Old Army is legally considered an antique by GCA1968, as are modern replica cap-n-ball Remingtons)

Glenn E. Meyer · March 28, 2012, 12:00 PM

Don't know about IL but in other states - once is goes bang and shoots someone, it's a firearm - even if antique.

zxcvbob · March 28, 2012, 12:16 PM

AFAIK the "felon in possession" BS is federal law, so the federal definition would apply. So it should be a deadly weapon but still not a firearm. Are they charging him with a GCA 1968 violation?

If there's also a state law prohibiting possession, the state may expand the definition to include antiques.

It's a hypothetical question, since Homer Wright used a modern gun.

hermannr · March 28, 2012, 12:32 PM

The only people that should be restricted from owning a firearm for SD are those that are in the poky or the mental hospital.

Your sentence has been served when you are released...Not today...

The charge should always be USE of a firearm to commit a violent crime...and if so, you become one of those in the poky.

Let me add a little story and a question;

Young girl (under 18) was selling drugs (illegal), three teen boys decided they were going to rob her and beat her up (illegal also). Young girl has a pistol (illegal, too young) and when the boys try to rob her she shoots and kills one of them.

Is this SD? If you think this is/or is not self defence, what should happen to the girl (forget the drugs for this part, question stricktly has to do with SD)

rem44m · March 28, 2012, 06:50 PM

Yes self defense, but unfortunately I don't make the laws

gunsmokeTPF · March 28, 2012, 07:37 PM

The '68 Gun Control Act has nothing to do with an antique firearm once it is loaded and that applies to pinfires, flintlocks, percussions, cartridge, whatever. They're considered non guns where mailing them are concerned, but you'd be surprised how using the fed law as a defense would be laughable in a local court. The judicial system doesn't give a damn about what makes sense in the minds of reasonable citizens, but once loaded it's a gun and whether, or not it's fired means nothing.

As a matter of fact you can't find black powder cartridge handguns on the tables of any gunshow in NYS anymore. There's a gray area in the law, which considers an antique an antique if the ammo isn't readily available. Gee, that's a big help. Readily like 38LC, 41LC, 44Russian, etc.? There are plenty of residents who purchased so-called antiques 8, or 9 years ago legally, who would be considered breaking the law by possession of them today. People think federal law supercedes local laws and nothing could be further from the truth.

I personally would like to know of any state that wouldn't consider an antique a gun once it's loaded. I think there's no such animal, but then again this old dinosaur could be wrong.

zxcvbob · March 28, 2012, 08:14 PM

Sure it's a gun, but is it really illegal for a felon to possess it? It may vary from state to state.

Mr. James · March 28, 2012, 10:38 PM

More to the point, and as others have explained, if he was safe enough to be abroad, he was safe enough to exercise his right to self defense (and the necessary tools thereto). If not, lock him up.

Freedom isn't free. And it often isn't "safe."

gunsmokeTPF · March 28, 2012, 10:54 PM

As long as it's loaded it's illegal for a felon to possess it, or for anyone else to possess who isn't legally authorized. It's that way in the entire country and in all US possessions. Some felonies are rediculous, but that you can blame all the politicians for. A theft involving more than $250 around here is a felony.

Being only 16 and paying for it for the rest of your life is a little drastic, I think. If one can get a good conduct certificate, which is issued by the ATF, the conviction can be set aside in order for them to get all their rights back, which includes possessing a firearm. Most people haven't a clue about this. This can only be gotten if the crime committed didn't have a gun possessed at the time by the individual. This I know for a fact, because a number of years ago I assisted in looking up someone's old arrest record for the robbery of a gas station. This individual was involved with a couple of others and upon being convicted was sentenced to approximately one year in prison. He was seeking employment as a state corrections officer in the same facility he served time in. Fortunately for him it was someone else with the gun. I was told he was getting the job by the ATF agent.

It may sound kinda strange, but when you think hard about it you have to take into consideration all the facts involved and maybe it ain't that far fetched. Some of the best people in LE going way back did time. I've seen a couple of the most straight as an arrow people go rogue. Guess no one's perfect, including me.

Sorry, didn't mean to make this into a legal brief.

gunsmokeTPF · March 29, 2012, 09:48 PM

I also meant to say that even though federal law allows antique firearms(pre 1899) to be sent through the mail, because they are non guns, they're still restricted from being sent to a number of places. In addition, ammo is also permitted to be purchased through the mail, but is also restricted from being sent to certain places, such as NYC being just one example. This shows how federal law doesn't supercede all local laws.

raimius · March 30, 2012, 02:52 AM

It's not a question of supremacy.

Say, a federal law restricts something to X amount. Now, the state decides that X isn't far enough and further restricts it to Y amount. Unless some part of the federal law or the Constitution (the higher authorities) prohibits further restriction to Y amount, the state is free to make their laws as restrictive as they want. There is simply nothing in the higher laws that is contradicted by the state law, in such a case.

March 27, 2012, 06:16 PM	#1
ltc444 Senior Member Join Date: March 3, 2011 Location: Vernon AZ Posts: 1,195	Chicago strikes again Found this story on Drudge. An 80 year old Bar owner has been arrested for shooting a burglar. The link is below. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,3175723.story The owner shot a burglar. He was charged with unlawful use of a weapon. The story did indicate that the bar owner had previous weapons convictions. They did detail what those convictions were. The judge apparently did not consider the charges serious as he released the owner on his " own recognizance".

March 28, 2012, 11:40 AM	#4
PigFarmer Member Join Date: August 24, 2011 Location: Texas Posts: 97	Missing important point... I think we are missing the important point that the charges they are pursuing against him are all based around the fact that he is a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. While I have 0 problems with his course of action, I do have a problem with a convicted felon breaking the law to have the gun in the first place.

March 28, 2012, 11:45 AM	#5
zxcvbob Senior Member Join Date: December 20, 2007 Location: S.E. Minnesota Posts: 4,720	I wonder if there would have been a problem if he'd used an antique firearm? (Ruger Old Army is legally considered an antique by GCA1968, as are modern replica cap-n-ball Remingtons) __________________ "Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth

March 28, 2012, 12:00 PM	#6
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	Don't know about IL but in other states - once is goes bang and shoots someone, it's a firearm - even if antique. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

March 28, 2012, 12:16 PM	#7
zxcvbob Senior Member Join Date: December 20, 2007 Location: S.E. Minnesota Posts: 4,720	AFAIK the "felon in possession" BS is federal law, so the federal definition would apply. So it should be a deadly weapon but still not a firearm. Are they charging him with a GCA 1968 violation? If there's also a state law prohibiting possession, the state may expand the definition to include antiques. It's a hypothetical question, since Homer Wright used a modern gun. __________________ "Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth

March 27, 2012, 06:44 PM	#2
ming Member Join Date: July 26, 2009 Posts: 65	First conviction was for theft. Second was for possession of a firearm (due to the first felony conviction). Lots of support being generated in his community with his neighbors saying he has a right to protect himself and his family. This support wouldn't have happened several years ago, or if it did it wouldn't make the news. It's a nice change.

March 28, 2012, 10:33 AM	#3
C0untZer0 Junior member Join Date: April 21, 2011 Location: Illinois Posts: 4,555	I think it is significant that the bar owner is African American and there has been a change of view within the African American community with respect to firearms. Here is a link to a progressive (liberal) talk show, where the host and the guests talk about a number of issues, including changing attitudes in the African American community (typically responsible for electing staunch anti-gun politicians), they talk about a lot of different things - they start talking about gun control at around 11:16 in the piece. http://www.illinoiscarry.com/news//3-69.php

March 28, 2012, 12:32 PM	#8
hermannr Senior Member Join Date: March 24, 2011 Posts: 730	The only people that should be restricted from owning a firearm for SD are those that are in the poky or the mental hospital. Your sentence has been served when you are released...Not today... The charge should always be USE of a firearm to commit a violent crime...and if so, you become one of those in the poky. Let me add a little story and a question; Young girl (under 18) was selling drugs (illegal), three teen boys decided they were going to rob her and beat her up (illegal also). Young girl has a pistol (illegal, too young) and when the boys try to rob her she shoots and kills one of them. Is this SD? If you think this is/or is not self defence, what should happen to the girl (forget the drugs for this part, question stricktly has to do with SD) Last edited by hermannr; March 28, 2012 at 12:40 PM.

March 28, 2012, 06:50 PM	#9
rem44m Senior Member Join Date: August 18, 2011 Location: Utah Posts: 171	Yes self defense, but unfortunately I don't make the laws __________________ I'd rather have it and not need it then need it and not have it. "If gun owners are as violent as anti-gunners said we are, there wouldn't be any anti's left"

March 28, 2012, 07:37 PM	#10
gunsmokeTPF Junior member Join Date: February 14, 2012 Posts: 268	The '68 Gun Control Act has nothing to do with an antique firearm once it is loaded and that applies to pinfires, flintlocks, percussions, cartridge, whatever. They're considered non guns where mailing them are concerned, but you'd be surprised how using the fed law as a defense would be laughable in a local court. The judicial system doesn't give a damn about what makes sense in the minds of reasonable citizens, but once loaded it's a gun and whether, or not it's fired means nothing. As a matter of fact you can't find black powder cartridge handguns on the tables of any gunshow in NYS anymore. There's a gray area in the law, which considers an antique an antique if the ammo isn't readily available. Gee, that's a big help. Readily like 38LC, 41LC, 44Russian, etc.? There are plenty of residents who purchased so-called antiques 8, or 9 years ago legally, who would be considered breaking the law by possession of them today. People think federal law supercedes local laws and nothing could be further from the truth. I personally would like to know of any state that wouldn't consider an antique a gun once it's loaded. I think there's no such animal, but then again this old dinosaur could be wrong.

March 28, 2012, 08:14 PM	#11
zxcvbob Senior Member Join Date: December 20, 2007 Location: S.E. Minnesota Posts: 4,720	Sure it's a gun, but is it really illegal for a felon to possess it? It may vary from state to state. __________________ "Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth

March 28, 2012, 10:38 PM	#12
Mr. James Senior Member Join Date: April 10, 2001 Location: The Old Dominion Posts: 1,521	More to the point, and as others have explained, if he was safe enough to be abroad, he was safe enough to exercise his right to self defense (and the necessary tools thereto). If not, lock him up. Freedom isn't free. And it often isn't "safe." __________________ "...A humble and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise." Ps. li "When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law." —Frederic Bastiat

March 28, 2012, 10:54 PM	#13
gunsmokeTPF Junior member Join Date: February 14, 2012 Posts: 268	As long as it's loaded it's illegal for a felon to possess it, or for anyone else to possess who isn't legally authorized. It's that way in the entire country and in all US possessions. Some felonies are rediculous, but that you can blame all the politicians for. A theft involving more than $250 around here is a felony. Being only 16 and paying for it for the rest of your life is a little drastic, I think. If one can get a good conduct certificate, which is issued by the ATF, the conviction can be set aside in order for them to get all their rights back, which includes possessing a firearm. Most people haven't a clue about this. This can only be gotten if the crime committed didn't have a gun possessed at the time by the individual. This I know for a fact, because a number of years ago I assisted in looking up someone's old arrest record for the robbery of a gas station. This individual was involved with a couple of others and upon being convicted was sentenced to approximately one year in prison. He was seeking employment as a state corrections officer in the same facility he served time in. Fortunately for him it was someone else with the gun. I was told he was getting the job by the ATF agent. It may sound kinda strange, but when you think hard about it you have to take into consideration all the facts involved and maybe it ain't that far fetched. Some of the best people in LE going way back did time. I've seen a couple of the most straight as an arrow people go rogue. Guess no one's perfect, including me. Sorry, didn't mean to make this into a legal brief.

March 29, 2012, 09:48 PM	#14
gunsmokeTPF Junior member Join Date: February 14, 2012 Posts: 268	I also meant to say that even though federal law allows antique firearms(pre 1899) to be sent through the mail, because they are non guns, they're still restricted from being sent to a number of places. In addition, ammo is also permitted to be purchased through the mail, but is also restricted from being sent to certain places, such as NYC being just one example. This shows how federal law doesn't supercede all local laws. Last edited by gunsmokeTPF; March 29, 2012 at 11:01 PM.

March 30, 2012, 02:52 AM	#15
raimius Senior Member Join Date: January 27, 2008 Posts: 2,199	It's not a question of supremacy. Say, a federal law restricts something to X amount. Now, the state decides that X isn't far enough and further restricts it to Y amount. Unless some part of the federal law or the Constitution (the higher authorities) prohibits further restriction to Y amount, the state is free to make their laws as restrictive as they want. There is simply nothing in the higher laws that is contradicted by the state law, in such a case.