Willamette

After Cook County prosecutors dropped a state weapons charge against him last week, Wilmette resident Hale DeMar launched a legal battle against the village ordinance which outlaws the handgun he believes may have saved his life from a home invader.

DeMar still faces fines in the less serious village ordinance charge, but his attorneys filed a counterclaim alleging the ordinance is unconstitutional because it violates privacy rights. His attorney in that case, Robert Orman, said the challenge is more narrowly drawn and takes a different approach that others which failed to overturn local gun bans.

"It's never been attacked on privacy. It would not bar Wilmette or any other town from having such an ordinance, but it would prevent them from applying it to future cases like this," Orman said.

It's a shame that judges don't have the guts to rule as the Second Amendment requires them to do.

On Wednesday, the Senate delivered a bipartisan 40-18 vote to override the governor's veto of SB 2161, which would protect citizens from local anti-gun ordinances if they use a firearm to defend themselves or their families. That legislation was inspired by the case of Wilmette resident Hale DeMar, who shot a burglar in his home with a handgun, despite the city's handgun ban. DeMar was charged with violating that ban.

Good news, to be sure, though removing the gun ban itself would be a better solution.

Rep. John Bradley fully expected Gov. Rod Blagojevich to veto legislation that would allow handgun owners to violate municipal handgun bans if they do so in self-defense in their own homes. So it came as no big surprise to Bradley, one of the bill's sponsors in the House of Representatives, when he received word Friday that the governor did just that.

"He had indicated through the press that he would veto the legislation," Bradley said. "We were hoping he would not do that, given the overwhelming support for the bill in both the House and Senate and with the citizens of Illinois." The bill passed the House with a vote of 90-25 and the Senate with a vote of 41-16.

Bradley said he is fairly confident that the veto will be overridden in the fall session. "I would hope, given the public support, that people would stand firm on their votes," he said.

With that many votes, the legislature can override the veto... if they really care about the issue. But they'll be watching the elections to figure out what the people really want them to do, no doubt. If you live in Illinois, you might want to let your elected critters know what that is -- and vote accordingly.

Last week, the Illinois Senate voted to concur with the House on SB 2165, which seeks to provide an affirmative defense for a gun owner if he uses a firearm prohibited by local ordinance in defense of himself or others. The bill?s fate is now in the hands of Governor Rod Blagojevich (D), who has threatened to veto this common sense measure. Also awaiting a threatened veto is another common sense bill, SB 2386, which seeks to prohibit civil suits against a gun owner who uses a firearm to defend himself or others. Both SB 2165 and SB 2386 passed with enough votes to override the governor?s threatened veto, but you should still call Governor Blagojevich at (217) 782-6830 and urge him to sign SB 2165 and SB 2386, and remind him that both passed with overwhelming bipartisan support.

The NRA is on the case. One of these bills is intended to fix the Willamette situation (that is, a self-defense shooting that ends without charges relating to the shooting, but does charge the justified-shooter with possession of a banned firearm used to save his life).

Ignoring a veto threat, Illinois lawmakers voted Tuesday to offer greater legal protections for homeowners who shoot intruders despite local ordinances barring handguns.

The legislation was a response to the case of Hale DeMar, a Wilmette restaurant owner who shot a burglar who had broken into his home twice. Prosecutors declined to press charges for the shooting, but Wilmette officials charged DeMar with breaking the city's ban on handguns.

Under the bill now headed to the governor, someone who shoots an intruder on his or her property couldn't be convicted of violating a local gun ban. The bill would not prevent state charges if prosecutors believed the shooter committed a crime.

Gov. Rod Blagojevich promised to veto the measure if lawmakers approved it, but the House and Senate passed it by large enough majorities to override a veto. Tuesday's Senate vote was 41-16.

This looks like a good outcome to a bad situation -- assuming that the threatened veto either does not materialize or is successfully overridden.

Gov. Rod Blagojevich on Thursday promised "wholesale vetoes" of several pieces of pro-gun legislation if lawmakers do not pass an assault weapons ban, underscoring the governor's tough new gun-control attitude.

Reacting to Thursday's House passage of a pro-gun measure he had already promised to veto, Blagojevich signaled he is losing patience over lawmakers' refusal to pass some of the gun control measures he supports while they advance a gun-friendly agenda.

The gun legislation passed in the House was inspired by a Wilmette man who shot an intruder in his home, then was charged with violating the city's gun ban. The legislation would allow someone to use self-defense as a legal argument in court.

This guy wants to trade relaxed rules in other areas for a state assault weapons ban. I say no deal. The vote was 90-25 in the house, which is probably veto-proof (depending on how the Senate votes, and whether votes to override a veto change). The Willamette case is an excellent example of why gun control laws put honest citizens in jail.

A plan to expand the legal rights of gun owners who fire in self-defense is headed for legislative purgatory in the Illinois House, a key legislator said Thursday.

The legislation was a response to the case of a Wilmette man who shot a burglar in his home and was then charged with violating a local law that outlawed owning handguns.

Remember, when the gun control advocates say that they don't want to ban guns, they are lying.

Saturday evening, a combination of uneasy Wilmette residents and gun owner rights activists met together to strategize on what, if anything, could be done to change the village's policy about allowing homeowners the right to defend themselves against home invaders.

"We're encouraging the people of Wilmette to 'Dump Wilmette trustees,'" Richard Pearson of Illinois State Rifle Association told the group of fifty gathered at Wilmette's Lakeview Community Center in an exclusive area of one of the nation's wealthiest and most educated villages, just north of Chicago.

Wilmette became the center of national controversy when in late December, local resident Hale DeMar defended himself and his family from a second-time burglar. DeMar warded off the intruder with a handgun that is banned within city limits. Now he is fighting fines the city imposed on him after DeMar shot the burglar twice. The alleged thief is recovered and facing charges.

But the controversy is over whether the village of Wilmette is denying the town's citizenry from Constitutional rights -- explicitly the right to bear arms.

Illinois lawmakers are considering a measure that would offer a defense to gun-owners charged with breaking local gun laws during a shooting.

The bill would allow the legal argument that it is O.K. to violate local gun restrictions to shoot someone in self-defense.

The measure was approved by a House committee today and now goes to the House floor. It is similar to a bill approved earlier by a Senate committee.

The Illinois State Rifle Association is reporting an adverse ruling in the Hale Demar case. Readers may recall that case, which has been mentioned here before. The judge refused to dismiss the charge of "handgun possession" based on 2nd and 14th amendment arguments. This is a disappointing but not unexpected ruling. Legislative efforts to protect citizens from this kind of absurd regulation will continue.