Skip to comments.Crime victim sues Illinois over concealed carry prohibition
Posted on 05/19/2011 5:42:37 AM PDT by skimbell
...She and the Illinois State Rifle Association are suing Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, Gov. Pat Quinn, Union County State's Attorney Tyler Edmonds, and Union County Sheriff David Livesay. The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, states she was denied the right to defend herself due to Illinois laws that prohibit citizens from carrying a handgun for self-defense...
(Excerpt) Read more at qconline.com ...
The left does it. Not a week goes by that the Brady Bunch or some other gun-grabbing outfit doesn't file a suit somewhere trying to further regulate firearms or ammunition.
Turn about sure as hell ought to be fair play. This case isn't frivolous though. This woman nearly lost her life because of the stpidity of Illinoisistan's government.
"The criminals are going to have guns no matter what the law is," he said. "They don't follow the laws in the first place.
"I understand concerns about more guns in the streets," Mr. Patton said. "(But)I've not heard anyone opposed to concealed carry pointing to any statistics or any proof from other states that they've turned into the wild, wild west."
Is it truly stupidity or malicious, perhaps both? In any event why are same officials OK w/ personal police protection? Is it right they should enjoy a level of security unavailable to the non-politically connected at tax payer expense? In fact those same tax payers are funding the organizations which would kill or prosecute them for trying to secure self protection.
Ping for NFH :)
The government giveth and taketh away your rights. Reminds me of a case in California (I posted an article on a while back) where a couple of black parents (in LA) sued California because they released a illegal alien from jail after he committed a crime without reporting him to immigration as they were supposed to, then the illegal shot and killed their son.
Entitlements and private property rights have a similarity to this 'right to protection' issue. The gubment takes away your money making it harder to save for retirement under the guise that they will protect ‘everyone’ that retires with that money, but constitionally the government owes you nothing at retirement for that money they taxed from you, anymore than the police have the legal responsibility to protect you after they take away your gun. It's all for the public good, not your good.
“...Ping for NFH :)...”
You already know what I’m gonna say, good brother!!!!!!
She should have carried anyway, spared herself the beating, AND THEN had her day in court. Let some parasite bureaucratic POS judge sit there, in front of a jury and cameras and tell an old lady that she has NO right to defend her life with a firearm.
My mom carried for many years, right up until she passed away a few years ago. A Model 36 Chief’s Special .38 snubmeister - in my collection, now. My old man taught her to shoot a long time ago, and she was determined to protect herself after he passed away. And yes, she carried it WITHOUT the state-sanctioned paper.
She was rebel. Must be where I get it...:^)
'Patriot' lady sounds more like it...
Hopefully, this lady’s family will exact REAL justice on these apes the MINUTE their feet hit the pavement on the outside world....
If they were in Louisiana, Troy could use em’ for bait.....
She was most definitely a Patriot...and one of the best people I’ve ever known.
Miss her terribly.
” And yes, she carried it WITHOUT the state-sanctioned paper.”
I did that for 15 years in California. Now in Arizona, you don’t even need a CCW.
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.