FREEP: Gun Rights Poll on Hale DeMar, Wilmette, IL Self Defense Gun User being prosecuted

Illinoisleader.com ^ | January 25, 2004 | the eagle has landed

[TheEaglehasLanded]

In the wake of the self-defense shooting in Wilmette and the prosecution of the individual who defended his home with a weapon but violated the municipality's ordinance banning gun ownership, what do you think about local regulations of gun ownership?

I support local control. If a town wants to ban gun ownership, they should do so. If the people don't like it, elect new town officials.

I support pre-emption. Federal and state constitutions allow citizens the right to own firearms. Local governments should not restrict gun rights any more than the state constitution does.

Neither local control or state pre-emption cut it. The 2nd Amendment is an absolute right. No unit of government has the right to prevent law-abiding citizens from the right to keep and bear arms.

I support tougher gun control at every level, even going so far as an ownership ban like Wilmette.

Other

LEADER EDITORIAL: All Hail Hale DeMar

Friday, January 23, 2004

EDITORIAL -- On May 20, 1988, a mentally unstable Glencoe baby-sitter named Laurie Dann opened fire on a second-grade classroom in Winnetka's Hubbard Woods School. One child was killed, and five were injured. Dann killed herself before she could be taken into custody.

It was in the wake of this incident that North Shore communities including Wilmette began passing anti-gun local ordinances. The anti-gun fervor was at a fever pitch and the incident is recalled whenever the suggestion of relaxing local dictates on gun ownership is broached.

But as is so often the case when politicians respond to a tragedy with legislation designed to forever prevent the reoccurrence of that tragedy, they way over-reached.

Fast-forward fifteen years to Christmas 2003 where Wilmette resident Hale DeMar defended his family and property against an intruder with a firearm. He wounded the career criminal who was later caught by police. But because Wilmette has an ordinance prohibiting gun ownership Mr. DeMar, too, is being prosecuted.

In yesterday’s Chicago Sun-Times, Mr. DeMar fired back publicly for the first time at village officials for their importunate allegiance to the municipality’s ban on gun ownership.

Wrote Mr. DeMar, “Until you are shocked by a piercing alarm in the middle of the night and met in your kitchen by a masked invader as your children shudder in their beds, until you confront that very real nightmare, please don't suggest that some village trustee knows better and he/she can effectively task the police to protect your family from the miscreants that this society has produced.”

Thankfully, Mr. DeMar is not playing along with the patrician busybodies on the village board, some of who find gun ownership gauche and pimply and some of who have been brainwashed by anti-gun demagoguery and incidents like the Laurie Dann tragedy.

The anti-gunners, whatever the basis for their ideology, have had a very inconvenient incident -- Mr. DeMar’s defense of his family and property -- run headlong into their convenient yet stilted view of society and one’s individual rights within our society.

We would suggest the idea of prosecuting Mr. DeMar serves to highlight his point as well as the village’s own delusional thinking that banning something eliminates it.

Wilmette and other North Shore communities need to recognize that punishing the law-abiding for the transgressions of criminals is the worst kind of public policy. They are not preventing another Laurie Dann, they are telling society’s predators, “Hey, look over here, we’re prey.”

We applaud Mr. DeMar for speaking out in the wake of the trauma visited upon his family both by the intruder and now by the village of Wilmette.

This debate is long overdue in a community that thinks it can legislate away the aspects of reality it finds unpleasant regardless of consideration for individual rights or even the safety of the families who reside within its borders.

© 2004 Illinois Leader.com -- all rights reserved

________

What are your thoughts concerning the issues raised in this commentary? Write a letter to the editor at letters@illinoisleader.com and include name and town.

[TheEaglehasLanded]

This is what the liberals have done to our gun rights, let the criminals and mentally insane out so they kill people with guns and then go out and say that guns are the problem. Of course destroying the family structure has helped create more of these folks.

[Paleo Conservative]

In the wake of the self-defense shooting in Wilmette and the prosecution of the individual who defended his home with a weapon but violated the municipality's ordinance banning gun ownership, what do you think about local regulations of gun ownership?
I support local control. If a town wants to ban gun ownership, they should do so. If the people don't like it, elect new town officials.


(2.81%)
I support pre-emption. Federal and state constitutions allow citizens the right to own firearms. Local governments should not restrict gun rights any more than the state constitution does.


(11.24%)
Neither local control or state pre-emption cut it. The 2nd Amendment is an absolute right. No unit of government has the right to prevent law-abiding citizens from the right to keep and bear arms.


(76.71%)
I support tougher gun control at every level, even going so far as an ownership ban like Wilmette.


(7.23%)
Other


(2.01%)
" "I support a ban on all assault weapons.", "no controls (period)", "CCW Vermont style - no permit needed" "

[need_a_screen_name]

After I voted it said I had already voted when I hadn't. Maybe it is seeing people from FR come over there? Paste this in and go vote:

http://www.illinoisleader.com/opinion/opinionview.asp?c=11599

[TheEaglehasLanded]

From what I understand their local government is strange, they don't have a regular election where people pass out petitions, get on the ballot and run. They have some sort of screening committee that keeps certain people in control that hate guns. I think alot of local governments have strange rules like this.

[ETERNAL WARMING]

Neither local control or state pre-emption cut it. The 2nd Amendment is an absolute right. No unit of government has the right to prevent law-abiding citizens from the right to keep and bear arms.

(77.25%)
BTTT

[TheEaglehasLanded]

That was my vote

[Luke Skyfreeper]

freeped!

[Atlas Sneezed]

Bang

[clee1]

I did that in a new window, it said I voted already.

Hmmmmm. Electronic voting is a great idea! NOT!

[ChiMark]

I heard on a local radio talk show called "cop talk" the perpetraitor had over 30 arrests. The Wilmette cops took 13 minutes to respond to the call for help. 13 minutes is a long time to respond to a hot burglary! Most cops said this guy should get a medal for heroism. Shame on those reckless snobby
Wilmette board members. Their disregard for the safety and well being of this man and his family is unbelievable. Liberalism=death.

[teeman8r]

cut and paste, no problem voting... 80% pro second amendment with 330 votes in...

freepers can make all other viewpoints infinitismal...

teeman

[Shooter 2.5]

Freeped the poll.

BTT

[Graybeard58]

If you are in a poll freeping mood, freep this one too:

Colin Powell says the war in Iraq was justified, even though the country may not have had illicit weapons. Do you agree with him?Yes
53.41%

No
46.59%
Total Votes: 2872

Scroll down a little it's on the left side of the page:

http://www.azcentral.com/

[scott0347]

FReeped
(81.13%)

[stevio]

Bump

[Ancesthntr]

Neither local control or state pre-emption cut it. The 2nd Amendment is an absolute right. No unit of government has the right to prevent law-abiding citizens from the right to keep and bear arms.

(82.26%)

[scott0347]

http://www.captivate.com/poll/poll.asp

Should the Bush tax cuts be made permanent?
Needs some help. No is at 87%