Return to Vehicle vs. FOID Carry

[Brownshoe]

Can someone help me with my understanding. If a building is posted with the "No Beretta" sign, to me that means the building owner does not allow concealed carry on the premises and carrying a concealed and loaded weapon is illegal -- as the sign carries the force of law. Most people, in that case, return to their vehicle and store their loaded firearm in the vehicle. Would an alternative, however, be to unload the firearm and FOID transport it in a bag or briefcase? In other words, posting prevents concealed carry; however, it does not prevent unloaded FOID transport, which would constitute an unloaded firearm zipped in a bag.

 

From Illinois DNR:

 

What constitutes a legal “case”? The Criminal Code refers to “a case, firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container.” However, the Wildlife Code is more specific, defining case as “a container specifically designed for the purpose of housing a gun or bow and arrow device which completely encloses such gun or bow and arrow device by being zipped, snapped, buckled, tied, or otherwise fastened, with no portion of the gun or bow and arrow device exposed.”

 

This seems simpler that schlepping back to a vehicle, if you can keep the firearm out of sight while unloading.

[Gamma]

Unless the location also has a prohibition against simple possession of a firearm or is a secured area (like a school or courthouse) it would seem your interpretation is correct. The no-Beretta/no-carry sign does not of itself prohibit all possession of firearms, just concealed carry under the FCCA.

 

This has been discussed extensively with regards to public transportation for example.

[max503]

I wish there was more information on this subject. For instance, you don't have anywhere to stash your gun when riding a bicycle. Can you FOID carry in a library? A hospital? I'm sure schools are a no-no. But what about other buildings, parks, etc. where CC is disallowed? Public transportation? Buses? Trains?

I ride my bike a lot and that is when I need to carry the most.

Sure wish I knew.

[tkroenlein]

Transport Your Firearm Legally in Illinois

 

https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink?share_type=t&share_fid=20353&share_tid=32024&url=http%3A%2F%2Fillinoiscarry%2Ecom%2Fforum%2Findex%2Ephp%3F%2Ftopic%2F32024-Transport-Your-Firearm-Legally-in-Illinois%2Fpage__view__findpost__p__360628&share_pid=360628

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DomG]

It's going to take someone getting caught transporting in a GFZ, being charged and going court to determine if there really is a difference. Until that happens, we can only assume.

[Xwing]

It's going to take someone getting caught transporting in a GFZ, being charged and going court to determine if there really is a difference. Until that happens, we can only assume.

 

Yes. If a store is posted, and they catch you "transporting" in a non-2a friendly jurisdiction (e.g. Chicago) we may get our test case. While I entirely expect it would be resolved in favor of the gun-owner, it is something I would prefer to avoid.

[mauserme]

My opinion is that since carry and transport are treated as different activities in Illinois statute, a ban on carry is not equivalent to a ban on transport.

 

The Moore ruling recognized the distinction throughout, with even the dissent calling transport a "corollary right":

 

The Illinois statutes safeguard the core right to

bear arms for self-defense in the home, as well as the carry

of ready-to-use firearms on other private property

when permitted by the owner, along with the corollary

right to transport weapons from place to place.

 

Since the FCCA is the State's answer to Moore it must comport with this ruling, including the distinctions drawn between different activities. UUW is also subject to its provisions.

[AlphaKoncepts aka CGS]

My opinion is that since carry and transport are treated as different activities in Illinois statute, a ban on carry is not equivalent to a ban on transport.

 

The Moore ruling recognized the distinction throughout, with even the dissent calling transport a "corollary right":

 

The Illinois statutes safeguard the core right to

bear arms for self-defense in the home, as well as the carry

of ready-to-use firearms on other private property

when permitted by the owner, along with the corollary

right to transport weapons from place to place.

 

Since the FCCA is the State's answer to Moore it must comport with this ruling, including the distinctions drawn between different activities. UUW is also subject to its provisions.

 

We all know you can get funny answers from the Illinois State Police. While I agree with you Mauser 100%, the ISP told me the no gun sign means no guns at all, concealed transported or otherwise. When I questioned further they quit replying to my emails. I think they just make up answers.

 

I agree with DomG, we have no case law. I however wouldn't hesitate to transport in a gun free zone not otherwise regulated by law (Schools court houses etc).

[Tod]

>>>the ISP told me the no gun sign means no guns at all, concealed transported or otherwise

 

That's my take on the official Illinois "No Gun" signs ... no means no ... just ask any woman. Men (myself included) always have trouble with this. We seem to think "no" means try a different approach.

[Trevis]

>>>the ISP told me the no gun sign means no guns at all, concealed transported or otherwise

 

That's my take on the official Illinois "No Gun" signs ... no means no ... just ask any woman. Men (myself included) always have trouble with this. We seem to think "no" means try a different approach.

What the heck are you talking about? The ISP is not in the business of legal advice, and they cannot make up their own laws.

 

Second, the sexist crap at the end there? Don't generalize people with your own issues.

[Glock23]

If the sign means no guns period, explain the floor debate from Phelps explaining that with the public transit ban, people who use public transit would have to unload and transport their firearms for their commute, then reload once reaching their destination.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

 

[DomG]

If the sign means no guns period, explain the floor debate from Phelps explaining that with the public transit ban, people who use public transit would have to unload and transport their firearms for their commute, then reload once reaching their destination.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

Easily explained. This is Illinois, with laws made by Illinois politicians. The laws mean what they want them to mean. Until there is precedent (meaning someone charged for transporting in a GFZ) we don't REALLY know. In other words- the law is ambiguous and sucks. Too much open for interpretation. Personally, I hope the test case comes somewhere in central or southern IL, where a jury or judge would be more 2A friendly, but that also makes the chances of a charge less in that area.

[mauserme]

Easily explained. This is Illinois, with laws made by Illinois politicians. The laws mean what they want them to mean. Until there is precedent (meaning someone charged for transporting in a GFZ) we don't REALLY know. In other words- the law is ambiguous and sucks. Too much open for interpretation. Personally, I hope the test case comes somewhere in central or southern IL, where a jury or judge would be more 2A friendly, but that also makes the chances of a charge less in that area.

Does the lack precedent also mean the Firearm Concealed Carry Act doesn't authorize licensees to carry a concealed, loaded firearm at all? Or is it enough that the legislature says it means that?

[DomG]

 

Easily explained. This is Illinois, with laws made by Illinois politicians. The laws mean what they want them to mean. Until there is precedent (meaning someone charged for transporting in a GFZ) we don't REALLY know. In other words- the law is ambiguous and sucks. Too much open for interpretation. Personally, I hope the test case comes somewhere in central or southern IL, where a jury or judge would be more 2A friendly, but that also makes the chances of a charge less in that area.

 

Does the lack precedent also mean the Firearm Concealed Carry Act doesn't authorize licensees to carry a concealed, loaded firearm at all? Or is it enough that the legislature says it means that?

Will you cover my court costs if volunteer to be the test case? What about serving the time?

[mauserme]

Will you cover my court costs if volunteer to be the test case? What about serving the time?

Posts like that aren't very helpful. We're here to help people understand their rights and how to exercise them, not fear them.

[lockman]

We already have several cases. The Dupage county case comes to mind, arrested on a forest preserve bike path with an unloaded firearm in his backpack. Conviction overturned by courts. FOID transport legal in otherwise gun free forest preserve. And again it must be pointed out, you do not give up rights or privilege granted under the FOID act because you have an FCCL.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[tkroenlein]

FOID transport was established in Illinois long before we had concealed carry.

 

The problem folks have is resolving how the laws interact. It's simple, if you look at it like this:

 

Illinois bans ALL firearms and ammunition possession and ownership in the criminal code 720 ILCS 5/24. Within the criminal code, exceptions are called out. The two exceptions that are called out that we're concerned with here are 1) the FOID exception and 2) the FCCA exception. Still within the criminal code, 720 ILCS 5/24, the possession and ownership particulars are spelled out as to what is legal and what is illegal given neither, either and/or both exceptions. Both licensure schemes are referenced therein, and as evidenced by the different activities that each permits, are separate and unique in what part or parts of the UUW/AUUW law that each excepts.

 

Each licensure scheme, the FOID and FCCA, are detailed in their own Acts, 430 ILCS 65 and 430 ILCS 66, respectively. The first thing to note that each is a REGULATORY ACT, dealing with licensing for each independently. The FOID Act spells out the requirements for maintaining eligibility for the FOID exception, while the FCCA does the same for the licensed carry exception. This is where most folks get crossed up. You'll note that in each regulatory act, that the penalties listed are for violating the terms of each license, not for a UUW/AUUW offense. This is best illustrated by the fact that carrying a loaded weapon in a GFZ is a misdemeanor under the terms of the FCCA license, and not a felony as it would be under the criminal code.

 

So, it is, in fact, impossible to violate the terms of one license, when another license establishes the same activity as legal.

[RandyP]

I'm 68, mostly retired, a Vietnam Vet, and I have a FOID, a Utah concealed carry permit and an Illinois Concealed Carry license. I've been an active legal recreational shooter since I was 11.

 

Gosh darn it all.... it shouldn't be THIS flippin' complicated and confusing to simply enjoy a Constitutionally recognized, evolutionally given RIGHT.

 

Should it?

 

Oh... and Get off my lawn and turn down that jungle music! - lol

[lockman]

I'm 68, mostly retired, a Vietnam Vet, and I have a FOID, a Utah concealed carry permit and an Illinois Concealed Carry license. I've been an active legal recreational shooter since I was 11.

 

Gosh darn it all.... it shouldn't be THIS flippin' complicated and confusing to simply enjoy a Constitutionally recognized, evolutionally given RIGHT.

 

Should it?

 

Oh... and Get off my lawn and turn down that jungle music! - lol

 

"Evolutionary"! Why use longer words when the shorter one in use since this countries inception is still the most powerful and succinct. God.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[RandyP]

Potayto - Potahto. It would be an error to infer or assume that everyone believes in a god, gods or God. There's plenty of room for us all under the same roof of America.

[Eric D.]

 

It's going to take someone getting caught transporting in a GFZ, being charged and going court to determine if there really is a difference. Until that happens, we can only assume.

 

Yes. If a store is posted, and they catch you "transporting" in a non-2a friendly jurisdiction (e.g. Chicago) we may get our test case. While I entirely expect it would be resolved in favor of the gun-owner, it is something I would prefer to avoid.

 

Both of Chicago's airports are GFZs. I've transported guns in both many times. On one occasion, the Southwest agent asked me to remove the firearms from my luggage and demonstrate that they were, in fact, unloaded. It disturbed me a bit, but I complied. This took place within full view of the CPD officer patrolling the terminal. He didn't bat an eye. That isn't to say that under other circumstances things might be treated differently.

 

As far as the OP's question, I transport past the "No Beretta" signs all the time. The gym where I'm a member has the sign on the door, so I bought a small "gym gun" and a properly-sized, multi-compartment case. I keep the gun and two magazines in the main compartment, and change and my membership card in the smaller front compartment, mostly so people see me using it - I may be paranoid, but I always look suspiciously at people who carry containers they never seem to need.

[firepiper]

Can someone help me with my understanding. If a building is posted with the "No Beretta" sign, to me that means the building owner does not allow concealed carry on the premises and carrying a concealed and loaded weapon is illegal -- as the sign carries the force of law. Most people, in that case, return to their vehicle and store their loaded firearm in the vehicle. Would an alternative, however, be to unload the firearm and FOID transport it in a bag or briefcase? In other words, posting prevents concealed carry; however, it does not prevent unloaded FOID transport, which would constitute an unloaded firearm zipped in a bag.

 

From Illinois DNR:

 

What constitutes a legal “case”? The Criminal Code refers to “a case, firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container.” However, the Wildlife Code is more specific, defining case as “a container specifically designed for the purpose of housing a gun or bow and arrow device which completely encloses such gun or bow and arrow device by being zipped, snapped, buckled, tied, or otherwise fastened, with no portion of the gun or bow and arrow device exposed.”

 

This seems simpler that schlepping back to a vehicle, if you can keep the firearm out of sight while unloading.

AGAIN, the DNR definition/procedure rears its head.....

 

please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the wildlife code only apply while taking part in an action covered by the code (hunting/fishing, etc)?

 

NOTE...the linked brochure is pre-FCCA and has not been updated and has been completely removed from the ISP page....

 

http://www.illinoisconcealcarryllc.com/pdfs/Transorting-Your-Firearm-Legally-Illinois-State-Police%20Brochure.pdf

 

[Xwing]

We already have several cases. The Dupage county case comes to mind, arrested on a forest preserve bike path with an unloaded firearm in his backpack. Conviction overturned by courts. FOID transport legal in otherwise gun free forest preserve. And again it must be pointed out, you do not give up rights or privilege granted under the FOID act because you have an FCCL. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Do you have details on that case? It's not illegal to carry a loaded firearm (w/ a FCCL) on a DuPage County Forrest Preserve. So not sure why it would go to FOID, unless the gun owner didn't have a FCCL

[Brownshoe]

Two observations from this very helpful (at least to me) thread:

 

1) There is a different between carry and transport

-a) Carry means a loaded and concealed firearm

-b)Transport means an unloaded and enclosed firearm

 

2) We use the term gun-free zone, but there is some question in this thread whether we really mean gun-free zone or no loaded firearm zone.

-a) The posted no-gun sign, I believe means no concealed carry, not no guns (i.e. FOID transport is allowed).

-b)Certain places (schools, courthouse) are actually gun-free zone and do not allow concealed carry OR FOID transport.

 

These differences have a significant impact for Chicagoans like me, who generally exist without a car. The ability to return to my vehicle really means go home, so being able to FOID transport in a posted area has a big upside.

[Trevis]

 

We already have several cases. The Dupage county case comes to mind, arrested on a forest preserve bike path with an unloaded firearm in his backpack. Conviction overturned by courts. FOID transport legal in otherwise gun free forest preserve. And again it must be pointed out, you do not give up rights or privilege granted under the FOID act because you have an FCCL. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Do you have details on that case? It's not illegal to carry a loaded firearm (w/ a FCCL) on a DuPage County Forrest Preserve. So not sure why it would go to FOID, unless the gun owner didn't have a FCCL

 

Yep, the only one spelled out in the law is Crook County Forest preserve... Glad to know those Chitcago guys have our best interests at heart!

[tkroenlein]

Two observations from this very helpful (at least to me) thread:

 

1) There is a different between carry and transport

-a) Carry means a loaded and concealed firearm

-b)Transport means an unloaded and enclosed firearm

 

2) We use the term gun-free zone, but there is some question in this thread whether we really mean gun-free zone or no loaded firearm zone.

-a) The posted no-gun sign, I believe means no concealed carry, not no guns (i.e. FOID transport is allowed).

-b)Certain places (schools, courthouse) are actually gun-free zone and do not allow concealed carry OR FOID transport.

 

These differences have a significant impact for Chicagoans like me, who generally exist without a car. The ability to return to my vehicle really means go home, so being able to FOID transport in a posted area has a big upside.

A pertinent note on 2( . Some no guns ever zones are affected by statutes outside the ones we're discussing here, and even more ambiguous.

[soylentgreen]

The officially-recognized sign approved by the Illinois State Police MUST call out the "430 ILCS 65/66" statute. That has no bearing whatsoever on the FOID Act or transporting under it. As was stated, transporting in O'hare and Midway and on Metra is totally legal. All those locations are posted.

[skinnyb82]

Don't forget the illogical "you can carry in state parks, but not in the buildings. But you can't carry anywhere except for on the bike/walking trail at a municipal park" language. That crap makes zero sense to me. So I can carry at a rest stop, but not INSIDE the rest stop. I can carry while hiking, but I can't carry when I need to go number two in one of the bathrooms at a state park. I can carry while on a paved trail, but the second I step off the trail, I'm committing a misdemeanor. That's...smh.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

[BigJim]

I can carry while hiking, but I can't carry when I need to go number two in one of the bathrooms at a state park.

Does this apply to outhouses? What about port-o-potties?

[skinnyb82]

It applies to every building "controlled by the executive branch." So yeah, porta-crappers, outhouses, pit toilets, whatever. It's beyond idiotic because those are the most likely places someone will be attacked. Not in the parking lot. And gotta watch it because carrying in a wildlife preserve or refuge is also prohibited. Some of the state park areas are wildlife preserves, marked with a barely visible sign due to all of the overgrowth after years of little upkeep. Certainly no "no guns" signs.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk