AP - Rejecting the governor's veto, Illinois lawmakers overwhelmingly voted to give new legal protection to homeowners who use a banned handgun to shoot burglars.
The House voted 85-30 Tuesday to override Governor Rod Blagojevich's veto. The Senate had approved the bill earlier, so it now becomes law.
The legislation applies only in specific and uncommon circumstances, but it became a symbol in the tug-of-war over gun control.
The bill's supporters saw it as a statement of support for the basic concept that people should be able to defend themselves in their own homes. Opponents viewed it as an attempt to undercut local gun laws.
It was inspired by the case of Hale DeMar, a Wilmette restaurant owner who shot a burglar who had broken into his home twice. County prosecutors declined to press charges for the shooting, but Wilmette officials charged DeMar with breaking the city's ban on handguns.
Under the new state law, someone who shoots an intruder on his or her property could not be convicted of violating a local gun ban. The new law does not, however, prevent state charges if prosecutors believe the shooting itself was a crime.
Blagojevich, a Chicago Democrat, vetoed the bill earlier this year, arguing it would encourage people to defy local gun laws. There was no debate Tuesday in the House, but the bill's supporters say people forced to defend their home should not then be put through the trauma of facing charges.
"I think the General Assembly shut down the governor's hunting season on homeowners,'' said Todd Vandermyde, a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association.
About half a dozen Illinois cities, including Chicago, ban handguns, according to the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence.
The council's executive director, Tom Mannard, said he was disappointed by the veto override. He called it a dangerous overreaction to a single incident.
The gun-banners don't like people defending themselves in THEIR homes. To them that's a "dangerous overreaction." Its too bad IL won't adopt Shall Issue CCW because Madigan and Daley object. Still, a crumb off the loaf is better than none at all.
maybe the governor wanted to protect his base(burglars)
The council's executive director, Tom Mannard, said he was disappointed by the veto override. He called it a dangerous overreaction to a single incident.
Yes, lets wait first till the intruder rapes the wife and shoots the dog before we react.
This is a good small first step.Now what needs to happen is these sentors need to impeach the governor for violating his oath of office to uphold the constitution when he stripped away the 2cd amendment for illinois gunowners. Then after he is gone we need to do the same to mayor ditzy in chicago and while we are at it go back during his entire administation and tally up the number of people that were murdered in chicago while they were unarmed and charge him with that many counts of accesory to murder.Then execute him by lethal injection or even better yet by firing squad
>>The council's executive director, Tom Mannard, said he was disappointed by the veto override. He called it a dangerous overreaction to a single incident.<<
What did he think of the Brady Bill?
yahoooooooooo
I'm sure the crooks will be disappointed too, to find armed citizens inside their homes when they kick the door in. It will make their exit less certain.
Considering he is a left-wing democrat, I prefer to call him, governor blowjobovitch.
Finally! Some common sense legislation in Springfield!!!!
My money says it drops.
Bang List?
Astounding. In Illinois? Will Wonders never cease?
Well, it is a giant step in the right direction.
Frankly, I think all the gun bans in the country are unconstitutional.
Hard to believe our overlords supported this.
WILMETTE, Ill. - Illinois lawmakers have voted overwhelmingly to give new legal protection to homeowners who use a banned handgun to shoot burglars. But they're not done fighting in north suburban Wilmette, where the controversy started.
When WBBM Newsradio 780 informed Village President Nancy Canafax of the vote, she said she was "disappointed," but not surprised.
"This really raises the levels of danger," she said. "It encourages people to use a gun." Canafax said she is pleased that her local legislators opposed both Senate Bill 2165 and the override. And she tells WBBM that the village now will explore ways to trump the newly-approved state law.
"I have no hesitancy in saying that our residents would want us to look into another ordinance that counteracts what I consider to be the danger effect of this override," she said.
Canafax tells WBBM she is directing village attorney Timothy Frenzer first to explore Wilmette's rights as a home rule community to opt out of the state law. Canafax is not sure where the legal research will lead, but she expects the village board to take up Wilmette's answer after the holidays.
Canafax expects another onslaught of comment on both sides.
"I've got a lot of reaction, but locally, as far as my constituents in Wilmette are concerned, they're supportive of this (ban)," she said. "Most of the resistance and the opposition were, almost all, were from outside the village."
She said Wilmette residents should be free to decide what is safe and acceptable in their community.
"We don't impose this law on any other villages or towns or cities," she said. "This is what local people want. It's strongly supported, and it doesn't really affect anyone else."
Wilmette adopted its handgun ban in 1989, and trustees again voiced strong support early this year, when the decision was made to charge restaurant owner Hale DeMar with violating the ban after shooting 31-year-old Morio Billings, who broke into his home on successive nights in December 2003. County prosecutors declined to press charges for the shooting.
Under the new law, someone who shoots an intruder on his or her property could not be convicted of violating a local gun ban. The new law does not, however, prevent state charges if prosecutors believe the shooting itself was a crime.
"I think the General Assembly shut down the governor's hunting season on homeowners," said Todd Vandermyde, a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association. "The good citizens of Illinois deserve to be secure in their homes...from nitwit local ordinances," said Joe Waldron, executive director of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. (The Associated Press contributed to this story)
Gov got PWN3D
Don't misunderstand what I am about to say. This is a good thing. Unfortunately, Illinois gun owners will never have any gun rights until we change our state Constitution. This law will be quickly ruled by a court to be in violation of the state Constitution as interpeted by the 7th circuit court of appeals in Quilici vs. Village of Morton Grove.
Since 1982, Quilici vs. Village of Morton Grove has been the controlling legal authority in Illinois. Since the Supreme Court has refused to review the case, it will continue to be the law in Illinois until the state Constitution is amended. The power of the legislative branch has already been usurped by the courts concerning home rule gun bans.
For those who may not be aware of what the court has ruled, the following are the pertinent parts of the ruling that every Illinois gun owner should know:
1. The Illinois Constitution provides: Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
2. The right to keep and bear arms in Illinois is so limited by the police power that a ban on handguns does not violate that right.
3. Section 22's (the state Constitutions) plain language grants only the right to keep and bear arms, not handguns.
4. The Illinois Constitution authorizes local governments to function as home rule units to exercise any power and perform any function pertaining to its government and affairs.
5. Illinois home rule units have expansive powers to govern as they deem proper, including the authority to impose greater restrictions on particular rights than those imposed by the state.
6. There is no right under the Illinois Constitution to possess a handgun, nor does the state have an overriding state interest in gun control that requires it to retain exclusive control in order to prevent home rule units from adopting conflicting enactments.
7. Morton Grove may exercise its police power to prohibit handguns even though this prohibition interferes with an individual's liberty or property.
Neither the ISRA, the NRA, nor the defenders of freedom in the General Assembly seem to want to do what's necessary to restore the God-given rights that gun owners lost when the 1972 state Constitution was ratified.
Until they decide that it is no longer acceptable for the peoples' "liberty teeth" to be "subject only to the police power" and "home rule" and are ready to amend the state Constitution, let's cut the bogus "political dog and pony show." It's become really annoying, and quite frankly it's insulting.
The Illinois courts will adopt the most expansive interpetation of Art I, Sec 22 of the Illinois constitution and allow any gun ban that some home rule body will adopt. The Quilici vs Morton Grove decision even said that the right to possess a handgun was not protected by the Miller decision of 1939!!! As though the US military never adopted the 1851 Navy Colt, the Colt single action ARMY revolver, the 45 cal. M1911A1 auto pistol, the Beretta M9 9MM pistol, the S&W Model 10 MILITARY & POLICE .38 cal revolver along with many other handguns. Even though the enactment of this provision of the Illinois constitution is in effect unconstitutional and amounts to an unconstitutional infringment of the RKBA under the federal constitution, the Supreme Court will never deem it so and refuses to accept cert on hearing any local handgun ban. The only options for us are to either elect politicians who will repeal these idiotic and anti-freedom laws, or get the Illinois constitution amended. Note that there appears to be no right in Illinois to own a handgun if some home rule provision prevents it. In Cook County Chicago bans handguns and Cook has an assault weapons ban. As long as we understand that our rights are subject to the whims of politicians at all levels of government than we should be able to see what must be done. I think that we can all agree that this situation is being primarily fueled by the tyrant in Chicago's City Hall.
Since 1982, Quilici vs. Village of Morton Grove has been the controlling legal authority in Illinois. Since the Supreme Court has refused to review the case, it will continue to be the law in Illinois until the state Constitution is amended. The power of the legislative branch has already been usurped by the courts concerning home rule gun bans.
Uurah, now just get that "individual" out of the Governor's office.