Posted on 01/16/2004 7:58:13 AM PST by m1-lightning
A Chicago-area homeowner who shot a burglar in his home - only to be charged with gun violations - has spurred gun groups and lawmakers into action.
The Illinois State Rifle Association is backing legislation that would shield law-abiding citizens from prosecution under "politically motivated gun control laws."
SB 2165, sponsored by Sen. Ed Petka (R-Plainfield), is intended to protect individuals who are charged with breaking municipal gun laws - if the individual used the gun in the act of defending himself or someone else.
The bill was drafted in response to a controversial shooting in Wilmette, a Chicago suburb, late last month.
In that case, a homeowner shot and wounded a man who broke into his home around 10:30 one night - the second break-in at that home in 24 hours, press reports said.
The homeowner was later arrested for violating Wilmette's ban on private handgun ownership. The man's arrest has generated nationwide protests and a flood of calls and emails to the Wilmette village hall, the Illinois State Rifle Association said.
"People of good sense everywhere are appalled that a father could be arrested and tried for defending his wife and children from a home invader," said ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson.
"It's time to return common sense to the equation, and SB 2165 will do just that. It's difficult to imagine how anyone could oppose SB 2165, so I expect the bill to enjoy strong bipartisan support and swift passage."
The ISRA describes itself as the state's leading advocate of safe, lawful and responsible firearm ownership.
JEFF FLOCK, CNN CHICAGO BUREAU CHIEF: Rare crime in the quiet affluent Chicago suburb of Wilmette, Illinois. Police say this man, wearing a ski mask, breaks into the house. The homeowner calls 911 but also gets his gun and shoots the burglar who then steals the homeowner's SUV to drive himself to the hospital where he's arrested. The burglar is charged with felonies, but the homeowner is charged, too. Not for protecting himself, but for violating the town's ban on having a handgun.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think he did the right thing. I think the Wilmette ordinance should be repealed.
FLOCK: An angry meeting of the village board this week packed with gun proponents, not including the police chief.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My experience in this village is, that handguns create a hazard in the home.
FLOCK: All but nine states limit in some way where communities can pass local gun laws. The District of Columbia and Chicago and five towns around it are the only ones to make handguns illegal. The law has been on the book for 15 years in Wilmette but now some are rethinking.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If I owned a gun, I would probably shoot someone who came into my house who was burglarizing it as well.
FLOCK: The homeowner faces a $750 fine. I'm Jeff Flock, CNN in Chicago.
ZAHN: And joining us now, two people on opposite sides. This debate over guns, Thom Mannard of the Illinois council against handgun violence. And in Washington, Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America. Good to see both of you.
So Larry, do you think this homeowner should have to pay a fine?
LARRY PRATT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA: I think the homeowner should be given a medal. What we're seeing in the renewal of this debate, we're exposing once again the immorality of gun control, particularly gun bans where we're saying to somebody, well, we're not going to prosecute you for having defended yourself, but we are going to prosecute you because you used the most effective means available.
We've told the criminal class, not just in Wilmette but Washington, D.C. and England, that you're going to be safer if you work in these areas because people can't defend themselves. And the criminals get the message and crime has gone off the charts in Washington, D.C. and England. I think what we have to do is rethink this. And take a look at the data. We know that people in this country use guns some 7,000 times a day in self-defense. Far outstripping any criminal uses of these guns.
ZAHN: Tom, why do you have a problem with this homeowner defending himself?
THOM MANNARD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ILLINOIS COUNCIL AGAINST HANDGUN BAN: Well, Paula, in regards to defending himself, we don't look at that as the issue. The fact of the matter, is that the residents in the village of Wilmette along with law enforcement and elected officials there believe that their community is safer from gun violence by having this prohibition in place. ZAHN: But Thom, let me ask you that. There are only six municipalities in the country, including the one where this shooting happened, that have a handgun ban. The country doesn't seem to be behind these bans. Why do you support them?
MANNARD: We support the ability of people within their own communities to address the issue of gun violence in a way that they feel is appropriate. The police chief indicated, and the numbers indicate, that a gun in the home is much more likely to be used in an accidental shooting, in suicide, or in a domestic dispute than it is to be used in self-defense.
And we believe that if the people of a certain municipality believe that their municipality is safe from gun violence with this type of prohibition, then they should have the ability to do so.
ZAHN: Larry, do you have a problem with municipalities having that control? Is that the issue here?
PRATT: I don't think it's the issue, because Mr. Mannard's group and other defense groups are happy passing gun control legislation at the national level. That's just bunk that they believe in respecting local wishes and local control. What they're...
ZAHN: But why should -- hang on, Larry, why shouldn't local wishes be honored?
PRATT: Well, first of all, it's unconstitutional. Second, it's immoral. And thirdly, it was really stupid. It was legal to use a rifle in the self-defense situation. If this homeowner had used a rifle, he scored 50 percent of the time when he shot at a moving target in the dark in his house. If I could shoot that well, people would come to me for lessons. But two of the shots didn't hit. If he had used a rifle that had so much more energy, he would have probably had a round going through two or three of his neighbors' houses down the line.
ZAHN: Lets ask Tom about that.
Thom, would it have been more responsible for the homeowner to have used a different type of weapon here?
MANNARD: Well, the fact of the matter is, is that the homeowner could have had a firearm in the home. This was a prohibition on a handgun. In regards to Larry mentioning that it's unconstitutional, well this prohibition, as well as other prohibitions within the state of Illinois, have been found to be constitutional. If they were unconstitutional, they would have been taken off the books many years ago. And in fact, just yesterday, a judge ruled that the D.C. prohibition on handguns is in fact constitutional. And, therefore, the constitutional issue is irrelevant. What's relevant is what people in these communities believe will keep them safe from gun violence.
MANNARD: And the fact of the matter is that firearm death and injury is at a very low rate in the village of Wilmette.
ZAHN: Larry, we need a real quick last word from you.
PRATT: It is immoral to tell somebody, oh, be warm and be filled, go. And what they're telling them in Wilmette is go inside your room and lock your room and call 911. Well, once somebody's invaded your house, that means he's an aggressor, he's an invader. And in every jurisdiction of the country, including Wilmette, you have the right to defend yourself with force, and you should have the right to use the best means available, a handgun.
ZAHN: All right, gentleman, we're going to have to leave it there. You've certainly helped raise our consciousness about a very heated issue there in the Midwest. Larry Pratt and Thom Mannard, thank you for both of your perspectives.
MANNARD: Thanks, Paula.
Interesting. The statist on Zahn's show did not reply to this. I wonder why.
If he had replied, it would have been something like "And this shows why we have to restrict the power of rifles, too. You don't need a .30-06 to shoot an intruder in your home, which is why we have introduced this reasonable, responsible, common-sense, modest legislation to restrict rifles to .22 caliber and 40 foot pounds of maximum muzzle energy, the Keeping Neighbors Safe From Being Killed By Homeowners Wildly Missing Intruders Who Have Broken Into Their Homes Act of 2004."
Ignorance of the truth. Give these people the facts and they revert to the "programmed" response. Or change the subject.
Better to be tried by 12, than carried by 6.
Mayor Daley of Chicago pushed to get those banned (SB 1195) last year in Illinois, but thanks to so many citizens expressing their outrage over it, the legislation was tabled.
Morton Grove, Wilmette, Oak Park, Evanston and which other?
I must go outside and look for pigs in the landing pattern.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.