Mission statement:

Armed and Safe is a gun rights advocacy blog, with the mission of debunking the "logic" of the enemies of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

I can be reached at 45superman@gmail.com.You can follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/45superman.

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Chicago homeowner shoots robber

Not much information to go on yet, but I wonder how this will be handled?

A man was shot by a resident of a home he was allegedly invading on the West Side late Sunday.

About 10 p.m., a man in his 20s was allegedly committing a home invasion and a resident inside the home at 4453 W. Cortez St. shot him, according to a Harrison District police lieutenant.

Charges were pending Monday morning against the man shot, who was transported to Mount Sinai Hospital in an unidentified condition.

Police have not ruled out the possibility that the shooter would face charges also.
This being Chicago, there's a very good chance that the legal hoops through which the homeowner would have to have jumped in order to legally own the firearm with which he defended his life and home were more than he was able and willing to deal with. If that's the case, that "possibility that the shooter would face charges" is a rather good one.

Working in his favor is legislation passed in 2004 that provides a defense against charges for violations of municipal gun laws, when the gun in question was used in defense of one's home.

Our president (in a couple hours), by the way, voted against that legislation, but the Brady Campaign says that's OK, because people should just break the law and pay the fine.

Will post updates as they become available.

Note: I may have made an incorrect assumption in calling the intended victim of the robbery a "homeowner," as the article refers to him as a "resident." Still, I don't see that his right to self-defense is predicated on him owning the property.


Anonymous said...

Hmmm... The robber was "allegedly invading..." Yet the homeowner didn't "allegedly" shoot the invader. That's out-and-out fact. And you tell me there's no media bias???

Anonymous said...

Hoops? My brother lives in Chicago and owns a firearm. He got it shortly after his garage was broken into twice. It didn't take much time so anyone who wants to get a gun legally should be able to do so. If this resident didn't register their gun they should be charged.

Anonymous said...

No, Iowa Hunter, you are lying or your brother lied to you.

But as you said in another item, you don't buy the "individual rights argument" as regards the 2nd amendment.

Which raises some interesting questions, does your brother? If not, is the firearm he got a "community gun" available to all?

Does your brother have and FOID card? How long did it take? Does he really live in Chicago proper? And if he shares your views, should he not be arrested and charged if he has a firearm in Chicago, because I know he doesn't have permission to have it, if he actually lives in Chicago?

And if he has no individual right to a firearm under the 2nd amendment where the Hell did he get the right to acquire one just because somebody broke into his garage? After all, protecting his property would fall under an "individual" right, unless of course everything in his garage is public property for which he has a permit to store, but no individual right to own or protect.

Are you really sure you want to play stupid with the "don't buy the individual rights arguments"?

Rights can only be individual. Think about it. If you can't figure out why, ask a pre-schooler.

Kurt '45superman' Hofmann said...

An accusation of cowardice from Mr. Bravely Anonymous--that's priceless.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Bravely Anonymous, in this case it isn't a matter of agreeing with me. What makes it certain that someone is lying is the fact that if his brother actually does live in Chicago, he is forbidden by law from possessing a firearm in the city.

It's more a matter of not agreeing with Richard Daley. And of course, not agreeing with himself when he points to an act of exercise of individual rights as the proof that individual rights do not exist as regards the subject under discussion.

There is no way he is telling the whole truth. Don't know if it is intentional or not, but some of the things he purports are mutually exclusive of each other.