# 87 year-old captures home intruder



## KenpoTex (Dec 17, 2004)

Home defense incident in Macomb, Illinois



> Resident captures intruder
> By Stacey Creasy/Editor
> 
> MACOMB - Leonard Gamage is sore today, which is understandable since he spent more than 45 minutes fighting off an intruder late Friday.
> ...


http://www.macombjournal.com/articl.../news/news2.txt

*"I do not have a gun permit so they had to take my rifles," Gamage said. "The sheriff told me if I get my permit, he would see what he could do to help me get them back."* 
This is absolutely disgusting!  Here we have an army vet (who based on his age, probably served in WWII) who has his guns confiscated because he was faced with the unfortunate little problem of having to fight for his life.   :angry:


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 17, 2004)

Or, perhaps the guns were confiscated because he was violating the rules of the community concerning those weapons.

I especially like his first use of the weapon. One that I can completely agree with.



> "I was finally able to get my hands on one of the guns and hit him in the back with the gun stock," Gamage said.


Mike


----------



## INDYFIGHTER (Dec 17, 2004)

He wouldn't have been able to fight this guy off much longer and it's a good thing he was able to get to the rifle. It's obvious that this guy intended on harming the man. The intruders just lucky that this man didn't want to kill anyone because he'd have been in the right to do so.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 17, 2004)

A different version of the events.

http://www.pjstar.com/stories/120604/REG_B4U804KP.045.shtml


> Man feared intruder had a knife
> 
> Student was shot in foot by Macomb homeowner after heated struggle
> 
> ...


----------



## Erik (Dec 17, 2004)

Stupid reporters cannot even agree on the color of poop.

 Kudos to the guy, however!  He should have just gotten permits for the weapons and let it be.


----------



## MJS (Dec 17, 2004)

A few things to take into consideration here.

1-  NEWS papers want to do one thing, and that is to sell papers!!  Who wants to read a boring paper??  That being said, the reporters are going to take the info. from the incident, and modify it to make that paper sell.  However, in the process of doing that, important things can and at times are left out.  

2-  We have 2 different stories here regarding the same matter.  Obviously they differ.  Again, how can an accurate report be obtained from the info. that we have?

3-  What are the laws of the state that he lives in regarding guns?  Did he have to have a permit for those guns?  If he did and he did not have one, then it makes no difference at all if he was a WW 2 vet or whatever, the fact of the matter is, it doesnt give him the right to do something against the law.

Hats off to the guy though for fighting back.  You hear all the time to just do what the bad guy says, give him the money, the keys to the car, etc. your life can't be replaced but the money and car can.  True, but whats to say that the guy won't kill you anyway? I just heard on the NEWS today of an armed robbery that happened in CT.  The guy took the money and still shot the clerk.

Mike


----------



## KenpoTex (Dec 17, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Or, perhaps the guns were confiscated because he was violating the rules of the community concerning those weapons.





> 3- What are the laws of the state that he lives in regarding guns? Did he have to have a permit for those guns? If he did and he did not have one, then it makes no difference at all if he was a WW 2 vet or whatever, the fact of the matter is, it doesnt give him the right to do something against the law.



My point was that it is pathetic that there are places that require peaceful, law-abiding citizens to obtain a permit to exercise their rights to protect themselves by means of a firearm.  In other words, I was not saying that since he was an old soldier or b/c he was justified in his actions that he was not breaking the law; but rather that the law shouldn't exist in the first place.


----------



## TigerWoman (Dec 17, 2004)

I guess the moral of the story is to forget martial arts at age 87, we will all have to not only get guns but register them.   (and some of us will actually have to learn how to use them.) TW


----------



## MJS (Dec 17, 2004)

kenpotex said:
			
		

> My point was that it is pathetic that there are places that require peaceful, law-abiding citizens to obtain a permit to exercise their rights to protect themselves by means of a firearm.  In other words, I was not saying that since he was an old soldier or b/c he was justified in his actions that he was not breaking the law; but rather that the law shouldn't exist in the first place.




Well, I can't speak for years past, but having a permit today seems like its the norm.  I would tend to think that all guns would need to be registered in some way.  How can someone take anothers word that they are a law abiding citizen?  

I would think that if this person had the proper paperwork, chances are, he still would have those guns today.

I don't know the laws of every state, but I'm sure that every state has some sort of gun law in place.

Mike


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 17, 2004)

Forget about the permit ... 


the guy has guns that are either a) hidden or b) on a gun rack, ... 
that he hasn't held in years ... 
and he doesn't know if they are loaded or not.


And you want to congratulate him for protecting himself ?

With that amount of respect shown toward his firearms, I think, perhaps, they should be taken away.

Mike


----------



## KenpoTex (Dec 18, 2004)

MJS said:
			
		

> Well, I can't speak for years past, but having a permit today seems like its the norm.  I would tend to think that all guns would need to be registered in some way.  How can someone take anothers word that they are a law abiding citizen?


 Actually, most places don't require a permit/registration to own a firearm which is the way it should be because:  1)Registration is the precursor of confiscation.
and
2)Permits and registration serve to imply that ownership is a privilege as opposed to a right.



			
				MJS said:
			
		

> I don't know the laws of every state, but I'm sure that every state has some sort of gun law in place.
> Mike


Like I said most states and/or cities don't require permits/registration.  Some of the more restrictive (with regard to concealed carry and purchace requirements and restrictions) states/areas include D.C., Hawaii, Illinois, Mass., MD, and NY


----------



## MJS (Dec 18, 2004)

kenpotex said:
			
		

> Actually, most places don't require a permit/registration to own a firearm which is the way it should be because:  1)Registration is the precursor of confiscation.
> and
> 2)Permits and registration serve to imply that ownership is a privilege as opposed to a right.
> 
> Like I said most states and/or cities don't require permits/registration.  Some of the more restrictive (with regard to concealed carry and purchace requirements and restrictions) states/areas include D.C., Hawaii, Illinois, Mass., MD, and NY



Personally, I find that a little had to believe.  If thats the case, how can you keep track of the guns??  

Can you provide some links to those claims??

Mike


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 18, 2004)

Mike,

These question go to the 2nd Amendment. 

Many take the position that the Constitution gives residents (citizens?) *the right* to bear arms; which they interpret as meaning there can be no paperwork associated the exercise of that right (e.g. registration, permit, et al).

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/schools/gun.control/

I don't know if kenpotex's assertion that "*most places*" don't require registration or permit would hold up to scrutiny or not. However, it is interesting to look at the laws in various states.

Incidentally, Connecticut does not require any permit or registration of rifles or shotguns ... comforting, isn't it?

Mike

P.S. In Illinois, where the incident described in this thread occurred, the local municipality can write the rules concerning registration. Presumably, the citizens voted for this rule, including Mr. Gamage.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 18, 2004)

Related Update



> MACOMB - A 20-year-old Geneva man who allegedly attempted to force his way into a rural Macomb residence Friday turned himself into police Monday.
> 
> The Macomb Journal Article
> Tuesday, December 07, 2004
> ...


----------



## MJS (Dec 18, 2004)

OK....before this discussion gets too far off the path here, lets try to get back to the topic at hand, and that being the NEWS paper article!

Regardless of what the gun laws are in any of the other 49 states, we're talking about the State of Illinois.  We need to focus on the laws of that town.  We also need to look at the SD laws of that state/city/town.  

I think that its important to know, because again, we're basing * all * of our replies on a few articles.  Do we know * all * the facts?  Do we know * exactly * what happened in that house?  Was using a gun the right thing to do in this situation?  

Mike


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 18, 2004)

As an Illinios gun Owner Let me clear up the issue of the Law.

To Purchase or Own a Firearm or Ammunition in the State of Illinois you need a Valid FOID Card (Firearm Owners Identification Card) issued by the state police.  The card costs approximatley 8 dollars, and Expires every 5 years.

Also, you do NOT register your firearms in Illinois.  I can go LEGALY purcahse a firearm and the government would have no knowlage of my ownership of that weapon, only that I am a gun owner. 

http://http://www.isp.state.il.us/docs/ptfire.pdf

That is a PDF document put out by the Illinois state police on gun laws in the state.  Enjoy.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 18, 2004)

Technopunk ... I couldn't open that PDF.

Anyhow, I would assume that all would agree that Mr. Gamage was not a 'law-abiding gun owner', as he did not have the appropriate paperwork for possessing a weapon.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 18, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Anyhow, I would assume that all would agree that Mr. Gamage was not a 'law-abiding gun owner', as he did not have the appropriate paperwork for possessing a weapon.


That is correct.  If he had no FOID, or if his FOID was expired, he was in violation of the Law.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 18, 2004)

Oh yeah

Extra HTTP in that link, sorry

http://www.isp.state.il.us/docs/ptfire.pdf


----------



## Tgace (Dec 18, 2004)

A permit for a long gun?? Even here in the Republik of New York you only need a "permit" for a handgun. Long guns only require the background check at the time of purchase. Sounds like a state moneymaker more than anything else....

Of course here in NY we have tax after tax for that....


----------



## Ender (Dec 18, 2004)

As a side note from the Center for Disease Control:

During 2000--2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws....

The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of ANY of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes.

This report can be found on the CDC website.


----------



## KenpoTex (Dec 19, 2004)

MJS said:
			
		

> Personally, I find that a little had to believe.  If thats the case, how can you keep track of the guns??
> 
> Can you provide some links to those claims??
> 
> Mike


Check the link michaeledward was kind enough to provide.  It is accurate other than the fact that  some states (Missouri and Ohio) have passed legislation that allows concealed carry since that information was gathered.




			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> I don't know if kenpotex's assertion that "most places" don't require registration or permit would hold up to scrutiny or not. However, it is interesting to look at the laws in various states.


Click on the states in the link you provided (btw, thanks for posting this, it's a neat little reference source).  To my knowledge, all states that allow concealed carry (except for Vermont and Alaska) require some sort of license.  The majority don't require a permit to purchase nor do they have registration.  A number of them require a permit to purchase a handgun.  One of these is Missouri (where I currently live) and if the procedures in other states are like MO's they are nothing but a money making operation (and pain in the butt) due to the fact that they don't actually accomplish anything.  



Moving on...

As far as the original topic, Yes the guy was in violation of the law since he didn't have a FOID.  Aside from that, I think his use of the weapon was justified based on the information I have seen.  Personally I think he should have used it sooner and more decisively.  If it had been me, the guy would have left in a body-bag rather than the back seat of a sqad-car.


----------



## MJS (Dec 19, 2004)

kenpotex said:
			
		

> Check the link michaeledward was kind enough to provide.  It is accurate other than the fact that  some states (Missouri and Ohio) have passed legislation that allows concealed carry since that information was gathered.
> 
> 
> Click on the states in the link you provided (btw, thanks for posting this, it's a neat little reference source).  To my knowledge, all states that allow concealed carry (except for Vermont and Alaska) require some sort of license.  The majority don't require a permit to purchase nor do they have registration.  A number of them require a permit to purchase a handgun.  One of these is Missouri (where I currently live) and if the procedures in other states are like MO's they are nothing but a money making operation (and pain in the butt) due to the fact that they don't actually accomplish anything.



Yes, I saw that he posted that after my request.  I checked it out.





> Moving on...
> 
> As far as the original topic, Yes the guy was in violation of the law since he didn't have a FOID.  Aside from that, I think his use of the weapon was justified based on the information I have seen.  Personally I think he should have used it sooner and more decisively.  If it had been me, the guy would have left in a body-bag rather than the back seat of a sqad-car.



Personally, I think its important to know the laws of SD in the state that you live in.  We live in a very sue happy world.  Cops take a 'beating' everytime they shoot someone.  "Why did you shoot my son?"  "Why did you have to kill him?" and on and on and.....

Again, I'm not a gun owner, but I would think that the person using the gun, would have to make sure that they were justified in using it.  The same for empty hand SD.  Do I need to break someones arm and leg, take an eye and dislocate their shoulder just because someone pushes me?

Mike


----------



## AC_Pilot (Jan 6, 2005)

No registration at all here in WA state. 

I think it's criminal for the authorities to hassle a decent old guy who defended himself in his own home, and then DISARM him. Outrageous, but here's the reason we pro gunners call IL "ILL-ANNOY".

In Washington, there is no requirement to retreat from assault on the street, and if someone breaks into my home and is any threat to me and mine, (If my Rottweilers don't get them) I am fully and legally justified in using lethal force, and I will, with my 12 GA loaded riot gun or .45 ACP 1911 pistol

If I'm not there and my lady is alone, 24/7 she has her .357 magnum revolver handy. Just call her "Dirty Harriet".


----------

