JohnRich 4 #1 May 1, 2004 From the news: Wilmette, Illinois, resident Hale DeMar used his handgun in self defense in his own home against a burglar. The shooting was ruled legitimate self-defense. However, the city had an ordinance which banned all handgun ownership by it's residents. Thus, the city is now prosecuting Mr. DeMar for daring to own a handgun for self-defense. DeMar faces a $750 fine and loss of his handgun. Full Story I suppose it would have been far better, according to the city of Wilmette, if a defenseless Mr. DeMar had been murdered by the intruder in his home. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #2 May 1, 2004 John, I think you are being ridiculous here, you right wing wacko. Clearly, the ordinance would have prevented the burglar from having a firearm, and therefor there is no need for a private citizen to protect himself. If the burglar had a firearm, he could be prosecuted for breaking the law. See? Everyone is happy because the arm-wielding burglar would be prosecuted for possession of the firearm, burglary and murder. That way, society functions best. We don't want citizens protectign themselves, John. They are incompetent to do so, and societal needs are best met by putting criminals in jail and victims of criminals in the ground. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JJohnson 0 #3 May 1, 2004 If you could manage to say that with a straight face you could probably run for office.JJ "Call me Darth Balls" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #4 May 1, 2004 QuoteIf you could manage to say that with a straight face you could probably run for office. Yeah, that's the scary part; some people talk like that - and actually mean it! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #5 May 1, 2004 QuoteYeah, that's the scary part; some people talk like that - and actually mean it! Indeed. These are the ones who have armed security to protect them, a la Rosie McDonnell. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #6 May 2, 2004 Shyster, I've said it before and I'll say it again: I love you, man. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #7 May 2, 2004 QuoteHowever, the city had an ordinance which banned all handgun ownership by it's residents. How is this not a slap directly in the face of the second amendment? Why hasn't the ordinance been challenged?So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,174 #8 May 2, 2004 The Wilmette ordinance has been in effect for many, many years and is well known. If Wilmette residents don't like it they can (a) elect a new city council and have it changed, or (b) move to another town. On the whole, for home defense, I'd choose a shotgun. They are allowed in Wilmette.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KevinMcGuire 0 #9 May 2, 2004 It seems to me that the charge against the home owner/gun owner would not stand if the home owner/gun owner were to challenge it all the way to the top. If it were me, I'd press the issue all the way up to the supreme court if necessary, then file suit against all those in the Willmet city counsel for vilolating my civil rights guaranteed me by the constitution if the United States. Can any lawyers out there tell me if my strategy would fly? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,174 #10 May 2, 2004 QuoteIt seems to me that the charge against the home owner/gun owner would not stand if the home owner/gun owner were to challenge it all the way to the top. If it were me, I'd press the issue all the way up to the supreme court if necessary, then file suit against all those in the Willmet city counsel for vilolating my civil rights guaranteed me by the constitution if the United States. Can any lawyers out there tell me if my strategy would fly? IIRC, it went all the way when Morton Grove enacted the first such ban. The Supremes refused to overturn the lower court ruling that the ban is constitutional. For those that don't know, Wilmette is in the top 5 richest suburbs of Chicago (out of over 200). Fancy homes; mostly attorneys, stockbrokers, and businessmen live there, a bastion of capitalism. 90% white, 0.56% black, median family income $122,500. No low income housing.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #11 May 2, 2004 QuoteFor those that don't know, Wilmette is in the top 5 richest suburbs of Chicago (out of over 200). Fancy homes; mostly attorneys, stockbrokers, and businessmen live there, a bastion of capitalism. 90% white, 0.56% black, median family income $122,500. No low income housing. One of the top 5 and the median income is only $122,500? I expected that that number would have been higher in a city (or metropolitan area) the size of Chicago."Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,174 #12 May 2, 2004 Quote QuoteFor those that don't know, Wilmette is in the top 5 richest suburbs of Chicago (out of over 200). Fancy homes; mostly attorneys, stockbrokers, and businessmen live there, a bastion of capitalism. 90% white, 0.56% black, median family income $122,500. No low income housing. One of the top 5 and the median income is only $122,500? I expected that that number would have been higher in a city (or metropolitan area) the size of Chicago. It's the rust belt, what do you expect, The Hamptons?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
panzwami 0 #13 May 2, 2004 QuoteFor those that don't know, Wilmette is in the top 5 richest suburbs of Chicago (out of over 200). Fancy homes; mostly attorneys, stockbrokers, and businessmen live there, a bastion of capitalism. 90% white, 0.56% black, median family income $122,500. No low income housing. What does this information have to do with this thread? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #14 May 2, 2004 QuoteQuoteFor those that don't know, Wilmette is in the top 5 richest suburbs of Chicago (out of over 200). Fancy homes; mostly attorneys, stockbrokers, and businessmen live there, a bastion of capitalism. 90% white, 0.56% black, median family income $122,500. No low income housing. What does this information have to do with this thread? I think he was just trying to show that rich white people don't need to adhere to the bill of rights. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RoadRash 0 #15 May 2, 2004 QuoteJohn, I think you are being ridiculous here, you right wing wacko. Clearly, the ordinance would have prevented the burglar from having a firearm, and therefor there is no need for a private citizen to protect himself. If the burglar had a firearm, he could be prosecuted for breaking the law. See? Everyone is happy because the arm-wielding burglar would be prosecuted for possession of the firearm, burglary and murder. That way, society functions best. We don't want citizens protectign themselves, John. They are incompetent to do so, and societal needs are best met by putting criminals in jail and victims of criminals in the ground. That is one of the best posts I have read in a long time!!! Unfortunately, ridiculous isn't a strong enough word to use to describe this situation and law. Makes me want to join the NRA... QuoteIf you could manage to say that with a straight face you could probably run for office. lawrocket, you looking to change careers?!? ~R+R...Actually, my father would be tickled sh!tless that his little girl joined the NRA...'cause the man was royally pissed when I told him that I joined the ACLU in high school...~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ Fly the friendly skies...^_^...})ii({...^_~... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #16 May 2, 2004 QuoteShyster, I've said it before and I'll say it again: I love you, man. That's very nice, but you're not getting my Bud Light... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,174 #17 May 2, 2004 QuoteQuoteFor those that don't know, Wilmette is in the top 5 richest suburbs of Chicago (out of over 200). Fancy homes; mostly attorneys, stockbrokers, and businessmen live there, a bastion of capitalism. 90% white, 0.56% black, median family income $122,500. No low income housing. What does this information have to do with this thread? Context: Noun. 1 : the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning 2 : the interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #18 May 2, 2004 QuoteQuoteWhat does this information have to do with this thread? Context: Noun. 1 : the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning 2 : the interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs. Wasn't there a less smarmy, smug and trite way to respond to an honest question? --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
panzwami 0 #19 May 3, 2004 QuoteQuoteWhat does this information have to do with this thread? Context: Noun. 1 : the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning 2 : the interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs. Well, you certainly seem to know your parts of speech. Gold star for you. Now, will someone please explain how the fact that this town is comprised mostly of affluent, successful individuals has anything to do with the fact that one of its residents used a legal firearm to legally (and legitimately) defend his house from someone trying to burglarize it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,174 #20 May 3, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteWhat does this information have to do with this thread? Context: Noun. 1 : the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning 2 : the interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs. Wasn't there a less smarmy, smug and trite way to respond to an honest question? - People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. You should read some of your own posts sometime.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,174 #21 May 3, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteWhat does this information have to do with this thread? Context: Noun. 1 : the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning 2 : the interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs. Well, you certainly seem to know your parts of speech. Gold star for you. Now, will someone please explain how the fact that this town is comprised mostly of affluent, successful individuals has anything to do with the fact that one of its residents used a legal firearm to legally (and legitimately) defend his house from someone trying to burglarize it? Well, since you can't figure it out for yourself, it was information on the type of community that passes ordinances banning handgun ownership. Wealthy, white, conservative.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #22 May 3, 2004 QuoteWell, since you can't figure it out for yourself, it was information on the type of community that passes ordinances banning handgun ownership. Wealthy, white, conservative. I thought that point was clear in the original and the irony is not lost here. 1 - (extreme) liberals will pass that law because they think they are smarter than the rest of the stupid population and must take care of them in spite of themselves. (Despite that it will encourage criminals to rob these areas) 2 - (extreme) conservatives will pass that law because the city council has members who market home security services or maybe retail shotguns and handgun ownership would impact their profits. 1 - is just arrogant and insulting 2 - I understand and we can deal with it. Lawrocket is funny and insightful to #1 above. Kallend is right - elect a new council and change the law. Kallend is also right - a shotgun is an excellent choice and just the sound of chambering that thing will drive off many intruders. And the 45 degree rule is false and dangerous. I like chocolate and think I'll go now and buy some. Lastly, just because people make over $100K/year doesn't make them conservatives. Maybe the council is manned by a bunch guilty white democrat/elitists who (by stereotype) would pass just these types of laws??? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #23 May 3, 2004 QuoteWell, since you can't figure it out for yourself, it was information on the type of community that passes ordinances banning handgun ownership. Wealthy, white, conservative. So Washington DC is wealthy, white, and conservative? Is Richard M Daley conservative? I'm sure he'd love to pass such a law (if he doesn't have one already). Since when do conservatives want to pass gun control laws? (instead of criminal control, the two are mutually exclusive in most instances)witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
panzwami 0 #24 May 3, 2004 QuoteQuote Well, you certainly seem to know your parts of speech. Gold star for you. Now, will someone please explain how the fact that this town is comprised mostly of affluent, successful individuals has anything to do with the fact that one of its residents used a legal firearm to legally (and legitimately) defend his house from someone trying to burglarize it? Well, since you can't figure it out for yourself, it was information on the type of community that passes ordinances banning handgun ownership. Wealthy, white, conservative. So now we've gone from wealthy and white to wealthy, white, and conservative? Does the fact that this community is mostly white and in a higher income bracket automatically make it conservative? Better not tell all the movie stars in Hollywood. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #25 May 3, 2004 QuoteThe Wilmette ordinance has been in effect for many, many years and is well known. If Wilmette residents don't like it they can (a) elect a new city council and have it changed, or (b) move to another town. So you are in favor of law-abiding people being driven out of their homes and forced to move, because some goofball city councilmen pass an ordinance that contradicts the common laws most everywhere else in America? Just reply "yes" or "no". Try not to avoid answering the question with your usual noncommittal deflection. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
