Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Ill Senator Obama co-sponsored Stand Your Ground bill POTUS Obama wants overturned.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154

    Ill Senator Obama co-sponsored Stand Your Ground bill POTUS Obama wants overturned.

    "The pertinent legislation was SB 2386, amending the criminal code of 1961. It was introduced in the 93rd General Assembly session and passed into law on July 28, 2004. The text summary read: “Provides that it is an affirmative defense to a violation of a municipal ordinance that prohibits, regulates or restricts the private ownership of firearms if the individual who is charged with the violation used the firearm in an act of self-defense or defense of another. Effective immediately.” The Illinois General Assembly website indicates then-Sen. Obama signed on as a co-sponsor on March 25, 2004."

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...r-ground-law-/

    Where have we heard before, "He voted for it before he voted against it?"
    Last edited by Nightmare; 07-22-2013 at 05:01 PM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    That does not sound like SYG.

    SYG says that if you have the option to retreat and the option to stand and face a mortal threat, you need not retreat; you may use the necessary amount of force to stop the threat.

    The antis routinely misrepresent SYG as a way to undermine all self-defense with a firearm. Let's not do what they do. When we talk SYG, we should make sure that we represent SYG precisely and accurately.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    That does not sound like SYG.

    SYG says that if you have the option to retreat and the option to stand and face a mortal threat, you need not retreat; you may use the necessary amount of force to stop the threat.

    The antis routinely misrepresent SYG as a way to undermine all self-defense with a firearm. Let's not do what they do. When we talk SYG, we should make sure that we represent SYG precisely and accurately.
    I imagine that even the term Stand-Your-Ground was an anti-gunner invention. These must-retreat laws are relatively recent as I understand it, meaning, that up until comparatively recently, there was no requirement to retreat. Prior to must-retreat laws, there was no reason to distinguish, thus there was no reason to even have the term SYG.

    And, the term itself is kinda disrespectful, not too unlike make-my-day. Think about it. Stand your ground. Why make it sound like warfare. Why make it sound macho? Why not just say tactically unhindered, or WNSGD (we're not second guessing the defender.) I'm sure some creative fella or lady could come up with a term that omits aggressive or macho connotations.

    So, I suspect that SYG is an anti-gunner term.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    ... “Provides that it is an affirmative defense to a violation of a municipal ordinance that prohibits, regulates or restricts the private ownership of firearms if the individual who is charged with the violation used the firearm in an act of self-defense or defense of another...."
    What part of that is SYG? All I see is standard self-defense.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    And, the term itself is kinda disrespectful, not too unlike make-my-day. Think about it. Stand your ground. Why make it sound like warfare. Why make it sound macho? Why not just say tactically unhindered, or WNSGD (we're not second guessing the defender.) I'm sure some creative fella or lady could come up with a term that omits aggressive or macho connotations. ...
    Castle Doctrine and not SYG, but without the connotations;

    "If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and shall presume that the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim under [Wisconsin's codification of self-defense] and either of the following applies: [in dwelling, vehicle or business] ..."
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    I imagine that even the term Stand-Your-Ground was an anti-gunner invention. These must-retreat laws are relatively recent as I understand it, meaning, that up until comparatively recently, there was no requirement to retreat. Prior to must-retreat laws, there was no reason to distinguish, thus there was no reason to even have the term SYG. [ ... ] So, I suspect that SYG is an anti-gunner term.
    Vastly most states' statutes are codification of common law, so we are not likely going to find a concise statement of its elements. My impression is that the duty to retreat came in the divide between sovereign and citizen; the sovereign having the right of defense within his demesnes and the citizen having the right of defense within his demesnes.

    With the death of the sovereign the citizen must defend beyond his curtilage.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  7. #7
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    The op cites a exception to being prosecuted for having a gun (likely a handgun) and using it to defend yourself in your own home. How the OP got to a Wisconsin definition of SYG when he starts a thread about a Illinois law is beyond me. Though, it does seem to be a trend with the OP to mix and match various state laws when making his point(s).

    I'll not even try to figure out where the OP is going with the above and how it is relevant to his op.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    What part of that is SYG? All I see is standard self-defense.
    Defense of another basically implies stand your ground, unless a duty to retreat is specifically created.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Defense of another basically implies stand your ground, unless a duty to retreat is specifically created.
    WOW Thanks, I hadn't thought of that. Because we have the right and duty to defend another then we have the right to remain and not retreat form the victim's proximity.

    If we sit by the river long enough we will see our enemies bodies floating by. If we sit on the mountain top then the prophets will bring their wisdom to us. Thank you Marshaul.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  10. #10
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    (720 ILCS 5/24-10)
    Sec. 24-10. Municipal ordinance regulating firearms; affirmative defense to a violation. It is an affirmative defense to a violation of a municipal ordinance that prohibits, regulates, or restricts the private ownership of firearms if the individual who is charged with the violation used the firearm in an act of self-defense or defense of another as defined in Sections 7-1 and 7-2 of this Code when on his or her land or in his or her abode or fixed place of business.
    (Source: P.A. 93-1048, eff. 11-16-04.)

    http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/bill...nID=3&SpecSess
    This is not a SYG law, not in Illinois anyway.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran ComradeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Maple Hill, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    430

    Ill Senator Obama co-sponsored Stand Your Ground bill POTUS Obama wants overtur

    (720 ILCS 5/7-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-1)
    Sec. 7-1. Use of force in defense of person.
    (a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.
    (b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7-4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
    (Source: P.A. 93-832, eff. 7-28-04.)

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Defense of another basically implies stand your ground, unless a duty to retreat is specifically created.
    Then why do many states, like Florida, Nevada, Utah, et al, have SEPARATE "No duty to retreat" laws other than their normal self defense laws which never gave a duty to retreat?

    NDTR laws protect us by making it clear that we do not need to take critical time to determine if we have an escape. If we KNOW we have an escape, we are often wise to take it, but we might get killed while looking around to see if we have one.

    The fact remains that the law in the OP is NOT what we colloquially call a SYG law.
    Last edited by MAC702; 07-23-2013 at 11:57 AM.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    Then why do many states, like Florida, Nevada, Utah, et al, have SEPARATE "No duty to retreat" laws other than their normal self defense laws which never gave a duty to retreat?

    NDTR laws protect us by making it clear that we do not need to take critical time to determine if we have an escape. If we KNOW we have an escape, we are often wise to take it, but we might get killed while looking around to see if we have one.

    The fact remains that the law in the OP is NOT what we colloquially call a SYG law.
    The entire concept of "a SYG law" suggests a lack of familiarity with self-defense law. These states have these laws either because they formerly had an explicit duty to retreat, or because the NRA wanted to act like it does stuff.

    If there is no explicit duty to retreat, there is "SYG". Virginia, for instance, has no explicit self-defense legislations at all. This means (thanks to the common law) that we can "stand our ground", in our castle and on the street. Why? Again, because there is no law creating a "duty to retreat". There was never such a duty under the common law.

    You don't need an explicit "SYG" law. What you need is NOT to have an explicit "duty to retreat" law.
    Last edited by marshaul; 07-23-2013 at 12:07 PM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Bothell
    Posts
    586
    Per the OP, that law isn't about SYG.

    Rambling a bit here:

    Duty to Retreat? What are we, France?!

    This is America. Scratch that, this is 'Murica!!! These colors don't run! Don't tread on me!

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
    This country wasn't founded on retreating or submitting. What kind of pansy-a** would agree to a fun-for-the-hills policy? I wish the zombie apocalypse would happen. Then maybe we'd get the founding fathers back.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    The entire concept of "a SYG law" suggests a lack of familiarity with self-defense law. These states have these laws either because they formerly had an explicit duty to retreat, or because the NRA wanted to act like it does stuff.

    If there is no explicit duty to retreat, there is "SYG". Virginia, for instance, has no explicit self-defense legislations at all. This means (thanks to the common law) that we can "stand our ground", in our castle and on the street. Why? Again, because there is no law creating a "duty to retreat". There was never such a duty under the common law.

    You don't need an explicit "SYG" law. What you need is NOT to have an explicit "duty to retreat" law.
    I agree with this. The fact remains that the OP is not a specific "SYG law" as is being discussed by the politicos.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  16. #16
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    The OP cites a law that is a weapons law that has an exception in the event of a SD event. It is not a SD law, let alone a SYG law.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •