71 replies to this topic

[mstrat]

I'd be curious to hear more of this story...

http://www.chicagotr...0,5025257.story

Quote

A Nevada man got himself arrested Saturday night after acknowledging to Greyhound security officers that he did indeed have weapons and ammunition in his luggage, authorities said.

About 7:30 p.m. Saturday, as part of a routine security inquiry to all passengers getting on the Greyhound bus at the South Loop station, Daniel Fenstemacher was asked if he had any weapons with him, police said.

His guns were in a bag, locked under the bus... They asked passengers about weapons in their bags, and this guy answers them honestly.  I don't think he was much of a threat.  W.t.f

And they charged him with Aggravated UUW.  Take note folks.  I've heard some speculate that they never break out the "ag uuw" charge except against bangers.  This is looking to disprove that.

[mauser98]

mstrat, on 16 April 2012 - 07:57 AM, said:

I'd be curious to hear more of this story...

http://www.chicagotr...0,5025257.story

Quote

A Nevada man got himself arrested Saturday night after acknowledging to Greyhound security officers that he did indeed have weapons and ammunition in his luggage, authorities said.

About 7:30 p.m. Saturday, as part of a routine security inquiry to all passengers getting on the Greyhound bus at the South Loop station, Daniel Fenstemacher was asked if he had any weapons with him, police said.

His guns were in a bag, locked under the bus... They asked passengers about weapons in their bags, and this guy answers them honestly.  I don't think he was much of a threat.  W.t.f

And they charged him with Aggravated UUW.  Take note folks.  I've heard some speculate that they never break out the "ag uuw" charge except against bangers.  This is looking to disprove that.

Shouldn't this be a case where the FOPA should kick in, and why we need HR4269 to pass, to strengthen it?

Edited by mauser98, 16 April 2012 - 08:14 AM.

[kurt555gs]

Is Chicago insane?

[ckmorley]

mstrat, on 16 April 2012 - 07:57 AM, said:

And they charged him with Aggravated UUW.  Take note folks.  I've heard some speculate that they never break out the "ag uuw" charge except against bangers.  This is looking to disprove that.

They charged me with AG UUW for having a unloaded/encased gun. I think the reality is that they let the bangers go with simple UUW while they reserve the AG for normal people who they know they run thru the system and destroy their lives. I've read about repeat offenders who have only been charged with simple UUW for carrying loaded guns.

ckmorley

[C0untZer0]

It's about advancing an agenda and its wrong.

I don't see how this person violated Illinois law.

[C0untZer0]

Also, if Greyhound has a policy on it, it isn't spelled out clearly on their website.

They have restrictions for weapons On Board but if they have restrictions about transporting them in luggage - it's not easily found.

[kurt555gs]

Violating a company policy is reason to be put off the bus. Not a felony.  I am wondering if the guns were loaded or not? This must be political because I can't see any law being violated from the information in the newspaper article. FOPA, shouldn't even be an issue if the firearms were unloaded an enclosed in a case. I hope Todd looks into this.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

[pyre400]

This is what happens when politicians and law enforcement are given broad discretion. Just like with the FOID act, and soon to be demonstrated with the NDAA.

Now who's the "Bad Guy"?

[RandyP]

Firearms and ammunition are prohibited in checked baggage per their website:

http://www.greyhound...nformation.aspx
"Prohibited Items for Checked Baggage
Acids, ammunition, animals, combustible liquids, compressed gases, corpses, cremated remains, explosives, firearms of all types, fireworks, flammable liquids, furniture, hazardous materials (poisons, radioactive materials, etc.), materials with a disagreeable odor, matches, merchandise for resale, protruding articles, or any unsecured articles including those in plastic or paper bags are prohibited. Electronic equipment (television, stereos, etc.), film (flammable), and perishable items (food) may be sent using Greyhound PackageXpress with appropriate packing. Items such as money and prescription medication may not be checked as baggage and are to be carried in the customer's possession."

How that is then applied within Chicago City limits to a non-resident someone traveling with a firearm would seem to be a matter for the courts?

[Jonnie Knuckles]

Unless the Trib isn't reporting ALL the facts, this guy better turn around and sue. That's insane.

[kurt555gs]

Why the courts RandyP? Company policy means told to get off the bus and take a train or plane. As far as I know, companies can't make their rules state law. Yet.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

[pyre400]

Greyhound, as a recipient of federal subsidies, is bound by federal transport law, right?
Wasn't there a case with Amtrak a year or 2 ago?

[wilessiuc]

My guess is that the gun was loaded. If not, then he is being held without probable cause, which wouldn't surprise me in Chicago.

[C0untZer0]

Thanks for looking up their checked baggage policy.

Quote

Items such as money and prescription medication may not be checked as baggage and are to be carried in the customer's possession

So if you left some medication in your suitcase this ^ would land you in the slammer with a 50K bail too ???

[Gunslinger]

I would like to know the condition of the weapon. A lot of people don't take the time to read the law and consider mag inserted and empty chamber to be an unloaded gun. Unfortunately that is not the case in Illinois. I hope to hear more details about this in the future.

[C0untZer0]

Last year CPD took down a drug dealer, his drug house and his gang.  Even though the gang members had firearms and were convicted felons - even they didn't get AG UUW, they got possesion of a weapon by a felon, and they weren't held on 50K bail, and they were only facing 2 - 4 year sentences (according to the paper).

This is another example of Chicago politians having absolute hatred and contempt for citizens who dare to believe that they have rights under the second amendment and simultaneously being soft on gangs and real crime.

[citrix_guy]

RandyP, on 16 April 2012 - 09:21 AM, said:

Firearms and ammunition are prohibited in checked baggage per their website:

http://www.greyhound...nformation.aspx
"Prohibited Items for Checked Baggage
Acids, ammunition, animals, combustible liquids, compressed gases, corpses, cremated remains, explosives, firearms of all types, fireworks, flammable liquids, furniture, hazardous materials (poisons, radioactive materials, etc.), materials with a disagreeable odor, matches, merchandise for resale, protruding articles, or any unsecured articles including those in plastic or paper bags are prohibited. Electronic equipment (television, stereos, etc.), film (flammable), and perishable items (food) may be sent using Greyhound PackageXpress with appropriate packing. Items such as money and prescription medication may not be checked as baggage and are to be carried in the customer's possession."

How that is then applied within Chicago City limits to a non-resident someone traveling with a firearm would seem to be a matter for the courts?

So what....

Let me try that again. SOOOOOO WHAAAAAAAAT?
Worst case scenario you are "trespassing" or violating a corporate policy (which is not illegal).

The State courts have ALREADY ruled that an out of state visitor cannot be required to get a FOID because they can't!

So if you have gun (in a case, unloaded) you are legally transporting. He cant register a gun in Chicago... he doesnt have a FOID, and is not a Chicago resident.  So what the F&^%!!!  AUUW! REALLY?!?!

I dont care if they have a policy against it. Chicago police dont enforce corporate policy. They could enforce trespass if they guy wouldnt get off the bus or leave. But this is silly.

[Uncle Harley]

wait a min,   is this the same guy that   they got suspicious of  when they announced a search so he got off at the next exit,  they thought that was strange so the called the police  and when police questioned him they found the bag with the gun in it,  IN A TRASH CAN where he ditched it!   DEFFANTLY more to this story that what we are being told I think.   I will see if I can dig up the article that talks about him ditching it.



Edit:  Here ya go.  This reported reported that it was UNLOADED AND IN A BAG.

http://www.nbcchicag...-146965905.html


Yet he ditched it.  Something is fishy

Edited by Uncle Harley, 16 April 2012 - 11:11 AM.

[Lou]

kurt555gs, on 16 April 2012 - 08:19 AM, said:

Is Chicago insane?

Quite simply, YES.

[lieut89]

Yeah, there has to be more to it or this charge is bunk.

Think about it, you have a felon that shot an intruder a couple of weeks back and no charges were filed, yet if the story holds true here, this is simply a violation of a corporation's policy and he is being charged with AUUW?

Even if the firearms were loaded, but otherwise inaccessible, and he didn't violate one of the 8 or so additional factors required for the "aggravated" upgrade, how could this not be dismissed as a bogus charge?

[lieut89]

Uncle Harley, on 16 April 2012 - 11:06 AM, said:

wait a min,   is this the same guy that   they got suspicious of  when they announced a search so he got off at the next exit,  they thought that was strange so the called the police  and when police questioned him they found the bag with the gun in it,  IN A TRASH CAN where he ditched it!   DEFFANTLY more to this story that what we are being told I think.   I will see if I can dig up the article that talks about him ditching it.



Edit:  Here ya go.  This reported reported that it was UNLOADED AND IN A BAG.

http://www.nbcchicag...-146965905.html


Yet he ditched it.  Something is fishy

Two entirely different cases. The person involved in ditching the gun was on his way to California. This guy was on his way from Reno NV.

Edited by lieut89, 16 April 2012 - 11:21 AM.

[Patriots & Tyrants]

This right here is why I told my brother in law to leave his piece at home when he visited me last weekend. If the gun was unloaded I don't see how the charges of AUUW can hold any water. If the gun was unloaded and in a case this is downright false arrest. Why I avoid Chicago like the plague when going...well anywhere with my gun. Looks like the CPD are taking lessons from the NYPD and Philly PD in making up the law as they go along.


Interesting side note/thought: Does chicago have any laws that count a loaded magazine as a loaded "gun" sort of like California or Ohio?

Edited by Patriots & Tyrants, 16 April 2012 - 11:29 AM.

[Uncle Harley]

that is alot of Greyhound cases this week.

[BadWaterBill]

Does chicago have any laws that count a loaded magazine as a loaded "gun" sort of like California or Ohio?

Several years ago I was told by several CPO that if you had a loaded magazine in your car anywhere in the state of Illinois the LEO will consider you have a LOADED gun in your car. It does not matter that the gun is in a case inside of an ammo can in the trunk and the magazine only has 1 round in it an a separate ammo can in your trunk, according to them YOU are traveling with a LOADED gun.

[citrix_guy]

My buddy (a cop in an suburb) said he could charge you... it may not stick, but you are going to jail in cuffs, going to get a lawyer and probably never going to see the weapon again.

Basically he said lots of cops are cool about a gun in a shooting bag and loaded mags, etc. BUT there are those that would see a gun and loaded mags, maybe the gun is in a holster in the trunk or in a case with a few mags loaded... they could split hairs, make the arrest and off they go... its up to someone else if you are actually going to go all the way to court. He can just say "the guy gave me some mouth, was non-responsive to some of my commands so I made the arrest"

[Uncle Harley]

citrix_guy, on 16 April 2012 - 12:12 PM, said:

My buddy (a cop in an suburb) said he could charge you... it may not stick, but you are going to jail in cuffs, going to get a lawyer and probably never going to see the weapon again.

Basically he said lots of cops are cool about a gun in a shooting bag and loaded mags, etc. BUT there are those that would see a gun and loaded mags, maybe the gun is in a holster in the trunk or in a case with a few mags loaded... they could split hairs, make the arrest and off they go... its up to someone else if you are actually going to go all the way to court. He can just say "the guy gave me some mouth, was non-responsive to some of my commands so I made the arrest"

yes, but they don't give a statement to the news reporter that it was unloaded inside a case

[lockman]

If the guns were unloaded an in his case and he could legally carry or possess them in his home state, then UUW or Agg UUW does not apply because the traveler is treated as if they possess a FOID due to being exempt under the FOID act from the need to acquire one.

Quote

My buddy (a cop in an suburb) said he could charge you... it may not stick, but you are going to jail in cuffs, going to get a lawyer and probably never going to see the weapon again.

Your cop buddy is a play ground bully pushing around the smaller kids. The very charge they leveled has the cased/unloaded exemption spelled out. A recent IL Supreme Court decision took any doubt about the non resident /FOID issue from being used to negate the exemption. Arresting for UUW when the possessor is otherwise legal and are in compliance with cased and unloaded falls under the category of persecution not prosecution.

Since this issue has been already answered by the statutes and the courts legal rendering of them, this should be addressed by the victim as a 42 USC 1983 civil action. Any violation occurring here was that of a Greyhound rule, not a violation of law.

Also note: Based on Greyhounds own rules, this prohibition only applies to checked bags. He could have carried it on in his briefcase, fanny pack or day planner and not even broken their petty rules.

[papa]

One of the reasons we need the right to record " voice and video " under one party consent law. That and a few 1983 suits and they would stop doing these things.

[citrix_guy]

papa, on 16 April 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:

One of the reasons we need the right to record " voice and video " under one party consent law. That and a few 1983 suits and they would stop doing these things.

And to have a few of these suits assumes you have to be willing to get arrested like this guy. go through that hassle and lose the weapon.

[citrix_guy]

lockman, on 16 April 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:

If the guns were unloaded an in his case and he could legally carry or possess them in his home state, then UUW or Agg UUW does not apply because the traveler is treated as if they possess a FOID due to being exempt under the FOID act from the need to acquire one.

Quote

My buddy (a cop in an suburb) said he could charge you... it may not stick, but you are going to jail in cuffs, going to get a lawyer and probably never going to see the weapon again.

Your cop buddy is a play ground bully pushing around the smaller kids. The very charge they leveled has the cased/unloaded exemption spelled out. A recent IL Supreme Court decision took any doubt about the non resident /FOID issue from being used to negate the exemption. Arresting for UUW when the possessor is otherwise legal and are in compliance with cased and unloaded falls under the category of persecution not prosecution.

Since this issue has been already answered by the statutes and the courts legal rendering of them, this should be addressed by the victim as a 42 USC 1983 civil action. Any violation occurring here was that of a Greyhound rule, not a violation of law.

Also note: Based on Greyhounds own rules, this prohibition only applies to checked bags. He could have carried it on in his briefcase, fanny pack or day planner and not even broken their petty rules.

he was explaining to me how it happens... Dont jump down his throat. THIS IS REALITY. the cops get the pats on the back for felony arrest. They also are protected from NOT KNOWING EVERY LEGAL EXEMPTION...  A cop can plea that he didn't know about the "console rule" or that you "didnt have to have a FOID" and he is protected as he acted reasonably and cant be expected to know every exception to every law.

In Chicago it is pretty easy, they are rewarded for these types of stops. "getting guns off the street". It matters not if it actually goes anywhere, the victim here pays lawyers, loses freedom, etc. And the Cops and City/State attorneys never are held personally liable for mistakes.

Even if this guy is released this afternoon because a judge throws it all out (I doubt it) he will never see the guns again, and never get back his time, bus tickets, etc.