Skip to comments.Illinois Governor vetoes protection for homeowners with handguns
Posted on 08/20/2004 5:29:19 PM PDT by concentric circles
SPRINGFIELD -- Gov. Rod Blagojevich vetoed a bill Friday meant to provide legal protection for homeowners who violate local gun ordinances by shooting intruders.
The legislation was a response to the heavily publicized case of Hale DeMar, a Wilmette restaurant owner who in December shot a burglar who had broken into his home twice.
Cook County prosecutors declined to press criminal charges against DeMar, but Wilmette officials charged him with violating the suburb's ban on handguns. DeMar is challenging the constitutionality of the ordinance.
The bill the governor vetoed Friday would have allowed people in situations like DeMar's to argue self-defense if charged with violating such an ordinance. It would not have guaranteed the defendant wouldn't be convicted.
Blagojevich said he vetoed the measure because he believed it would encourage people in cities such as Wilmette to buy handguns and hide them.
The measure could still become law. It passed both houses of the General Assembly by large enough margins that similar votes in this fall's veto session could override the governor's action.
The Governor believes that the citizens' role is to do the bidding of the state rather than the state serving at the behest of the citizens. The legislature must now do it's duty.
What's a Blagojevich?
Unbelievable. These politicians need to be recalled and dumped in the lake with cement shoes.
Here in the Peoples Republik of Illinois our "Governor" protects criminals.
I'm surprised that the Cook County DA isn't pressing charges against DeMar.
If that is the case, are you allowed to go "medieval" on an intruder?
He was the straight man to for Slobodan Milosevic. They worked the old Cook Country vaudeville circuit, billed as Ron n Sloboda.
"Here in the Peoples Republik of Illinois our "Governor" protects criminals."
Isn't that also known as the criminals have the elected officials in their back pocket$. Looks like the roaring 1920's are making a come back to Illinois. Time for the decent law abiding, tax paying citizens need to kick some butt.
I know that the SCOTUS has ruled that the police are NOT obligated to protect individuals, however, given the fact that DeMar was burglarized in the past, the city should have known that he could very well become a victim again. And by the city banning a way of protecting himself and his family, the city was obligated to provide that protection.
I know that this would get thrown out of court, but it still really pissed me off!
Gunowners need to realize that the 2nd Amendment is non-negotiable. Politicians DO NOT have a say over defending your lives.
It'll never happen. Illinois is in the same boat as New York state and California is. Socialist Dems control the statehouses while the helpless, power-hungry RINOs with no balls stand by and do nothing.
People become used to paying taxes and such, they don't give a feces about their rights just as long as someone else is footing the bill for them.
I happen to agree with the governor that the homeowners should not be encouraged to buy handguns and hide them.
They should buy them and USE them!
Pre-empt local jurisdictions, and pass a state-wide CCW measure, like civilized states have done.
ITMT, maybe if DeMar had used a 12 ga shotgun & buck or slugs, there would not have been the necessity of an expensive trial.
Da Mayor of Da City of Chicaaago runs Gov. Blago by pulling his strings.
It's an Illinois version of a Lewinsky ;-)
Not sure, sounds a lot like a Rostencowski to me.
The village only outlaws possession of handguns. DeMar could have blown the burglar to smithereens with buckshot and allowed God to complete the miscreant's education. As it is, DeMar's weapon of choice makes him a criminal.
I also thought that SOTUS not only ruled that the police are not obligated to protect an individual, but also ruled in numerous cases that "what people do in the 'privacy of their bedroom' was NOT the government's business."
Add violation of privacy to your hypoteticalo suit.
If Texans can have illegal dildoes, Illinoisans should be able to have illegal handguns.
It is an apples/oranges case, I know; but it is the type of anaolgy that passes for logic in many successful lawsuits these days.
You never know until you "try", "try", and if necessary, appeal to "try" yet again, like Brady & HGCinc etc do.
Was the logic used to pass this law, "you'll be safer without all those dangerous handguns in the village?"
hypoteticalo = tpyohypoglossical for "hypothetical".
(Can I blame the 'Kitten on the Keys'? Thought not. Oh, well.)