It seems Slate.com, The Blaze, and NBC Chicago's Ed McClelland are confused about Illinois' "stand-your-ground" law. Of course, repeating the left's talking points on the subject can do that to the intentionally misinformed.
In writing that Illinois doesn't have any "stand-your-ground" protection, the aforementioned opiners base their arguments on only one section of the self-defense law - Section 7-2. However, there are two other sections of Illinois' self-defense law they ignore. Those sections have repeatedly been interpreted by legal scholars as allowing Illinoisans to protect themselves, their property, and property for which they are responsible.
The fact is, just days after winning the 2004 Democrat nomination for U.S. Senate and becoming a statewide candidate, then-State Sen. Obama signed on as a co-sponsor of SB 2386, a bill that protected persons qualified to use a "stand your ground"-like defense from being sued in civil court by the person who was the attacker or their estate. The bill passed unanimously in a Democrat-controlled Senate, passed with an overwhelming majority in the Democrat-controlled House, and was signed into law by Democrat Gov. Rod Blagojevich.
At the time, Illinois law already protected a person from being criminally charged if he was defending himself, his dwelling or another's property. SB 2386 added civil protection.
In his column, Mr. McClelland refers to SB 2386's second section changes, adding a section (b) which added a civil liability protection. That second section refers only to a person's dwelling or his property. Mr. McClelland doesn't refer to the first section of SB 2386's changes in the law, which protects a person from civil liability if his person is attacked. And Mr. McClelland also ignores the third section of the law that adds section (b) protecting a person who is defending someone else's property.
Section 7-1 refers to defending a person (the underlined section is the amendment Obama co-sponsored)
Section 7-2 refers to defending a person's dwelling (the underlined section is part of the amendment to which Obama added his name)
And lastly, section 7-3 protects a victim from civil liability if he or she is defending another's property (Again, Obama supported legislation that added the underlined section)
The point is State Senator Barack Obama felt strongly enough about a person's right to defend himself that he co-sponsored legislation protecting a self-defense victim from civil liability.
But last week President Obama called for self-defense laws to be revisited, and Illinois' U.S. Senator Dick Durbin plans to hold U.S. Senate subcommittee hearings on the topic in September.
And it is our understanding that a 1951 Illinois Supreme Court decision ruled that a person defending himself has "no duty to retreat." That decision made Illinois a state in which a person defending himself is protected, call it "stand-your-ground" or anything else.
Is Illinois law confusing on this topic? Is it arguable? Is it controversial? Yes to all three. And perhaps that's the way Illinois lawyers want it to be, we don't know. But it's for sure that Illinois has a law in place that protects a person from criminal or civil liability if he or she passes all muster to claim a "stand your ground" defense.
And it would seem that then-State Senator Barack Obama saw SB 2386 as an opportunity to back common sense legislation in 2004. His sudden call for re-evaluation of those laws last week brought up his positions on similar legislation when he was in the Illinois Senate. He should be called on it - which is what real journalism is all about.
We stand our ground on that.
