Posted on 05/28/2010 7:14:57 AM PDT by marktwain
Early yesterday morning, an 80-year-old Korean War veteran in Chicago faced an armed home invader, whose first reaction upon seeing the homeowner was to fire two shots at him. Fortunately, both missed. Also fortunately, his was not the only gun on the scene.
An 80-year-old Army veteran shot and killed an armed man who’d broken in to the two-flat where he and his wife live in East Garfield Park early this morning and fired at him.
Other accounts of the incident reveal that the homowner's firearm was a handgun, possession of which in Chicago is--at least pending the Supreme Court's McDonald v. Chicago decision expected next month--illegal. This upstanding citizen, in other words--by all accounts well liked and respected by neighbors--is a "gun criminal."
What would have persuaded such a man to break the law with regard to Chicago's handgun ban--to think, in other words, that it's (to paraphrase) "better for the police to catch him with it than the robber to catch him without it"? A previous armed robbery:
A couple of months ago, the man — a Korean war veteran with three children and six grandkids — had been robbed at gunpoint at his home by three intruders, his son said. The robbers took $150, he said — and his father bought a gun and vowed never to be a victim again.
So where does this leave the man, legally speaking? Apparently, not in bad shape.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
/johnny
This guy should sue to get his gun back. RKBA organizations should be offering to provide his legal representation. This is a PERFECT test case. All in one package, it demonstrates a citizen’s unmistakeable need to own a gun and keep it readily accessible and loaded, demonstrates the beneficial outcome resulting from an armed citizen, and demonstrates the state’s obstinate unwillingness to keep career criminals behind bars. And the guy is 80, so public opinion and a jury will be sympathetic to him, and he doesn’t have the pesky complications younger people usually have, such as a job that he’d be risking if the state decided to invent some felony charge as retaliation for his suing to get his gun back.
The article said they did not charge him. In fact, there is a law in IL (that Obama opposed as a state senator!) that exempts people from prosecution for a gun law violation if the gun was used in self-defense. Still, it may be difficult for the elderly man to get another gun now. I’m sure the cops took his.
One of the comments in the story said the old guy should have dumped the thug’s body in an alley somewhere and avoided the hassle with the police.
Even Shortshanks wouldn’t be stupid enough to persecute the guy. ARROGANT enough, YES. But not politically STUPID enough. If I were this guy, I’d buy another gun in a heartbeat. Hopefully, he already has. Or some other actual American has given him one to use. I know I would have, were I a neighbor.
Is that lady missing a foot?
She broke it off in her husbands..... LOL
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.