Somehow I missed the December 5 post on the Civilian Gun Self Defense Blog.
In short, an 87 year old Illinois man fought off a 20 yr old attacker who forced his way into his home. Over the course of a 45 minute battle, the bloodied and battered elderly man grabbed a rifle and eventually shot the attacker in the foot (he didn't want to kill him) to end the fight and held him at gunpoint for the police to arrive.
The police arrived, arrested the attacker and then confiscated the elderly man's two rifles. Although they had been in his family for a very long time, the man did not have a permit for them and thus the police had to take them away. The sheriff told him that he had done a "hell of a job" and that if he successfully obtained a permit, the sheriff would try to help him get his rifles back.
Meanwhile, the 87 year old veteran is now without the tools that probably saved his life. What happens when the next attacker comes or when this crazy attacker is released on bail?
While I do not advocate breaking the laws of the land, I do think this is a classic example of how stupid many of our gun laws have become. It is likely that this man owned these family rifles before a permit was needed to legally posses them. Chances are also good that this man would have been seriously injured or killed had he not had these rifles at his disposal. Why should we have a law that makes it illegal for this 87 year old man to posses a family heirloom, especially one that he ultimately used to save his life, protect his home and capture a home breaking criminal assailant?