Jump to content


Photo

How have CCL violations of gun free zones been adjudicated in Illinois?


  • Please log in to reply
83 replies to this topic

#31 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,563 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 15 June 2019 - 12:56 AM

... 24-1 isn't good enough because I don't manufacture firearms, etc....


Where are you getting the idea that 720 ILCS 5/24-1 UUW is only about manufacturing firearms?

Edited by Euler, 15 June 2019 - 12:59 AM.

The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#32 Mick G

    Former Member

  • Members
  • 1,120 posts
  • Joined: 26-September 17

Posted 15 June 2019 - 01:41 AM

I guess at issue is the "subsection"  The law says "A licensee shall not be in violation of this Section while he or she is traveling along a public right of way that touches or crosses ANY OF THE PREMISES (Parks and Forest Preserves) UNDER SUBSECTION (a), (a-5), or (a-10) of this Section if the concealed firearm is carried on his or her person in accordance with the provisions of this Act or is being transported in a vehicle by the licensee in accordance with all other applicable provisions of law."  I think the prohibited areas are all under the same section in the Statute.

 

 

Chicago handgunner is correct. If the path or trail enters from outside the forest preserve and continues through the forest preserve exiting at a different location you can carry as long as you stick to that path. This would apply to roadways, highways, bike paths or sidewalks going through the preserve. It would not include those paths or trails that are contained entirely within the Cook County Forest preserve. ^ this ***

 

CHICAGO HANDGUN OWNER: guess and think are not the law and either is adding to Illinois Compiled Statutes. Can you show me where © A licensee shall not be in violation of this Section while he or she is traveling along a public right of way that touches or crosses any of the premises under subsection (a), (a-5), or (a-10) of this Section if the concealed firearm is carried on his or her person in accordance with the provisions of this Act or is being transported in a vehicle by the licensee in accordance with all other applicable provisions of law.

SAYS:(Parks and Forest Preserves) because I cannot find it.

"I think the prohibited areas are all under the same section in the Statute." WILL get you arrested or worse.

 

Alright this my final post on this. I can enter Bemis Woods south (the Cook County Forest Preserve that is the farthest west to the south). If I take the path west it ends at the I-294. According to a gross misinterpretation of statute I would be in violation of 430 ILCS 66/65(a)(14). If I took the path east I could go to Brookfield Zoo through different Cook County Forest Preserves. I wouldn't be in violation of 430 ILCS 66/65(a)(14) because I would exit Bemis woods north and cross Wolf Rd into Salt Creek Woods. That's NOT how 430 ILCS 66/65(a)(14) is worded. It prohibits me from carrying the second I get out of my car because Firearms and other concealed weapons are not allowed on Forest Preserve District property, except by police officers or active-duty servicemen and women kicks in and is right on the Cook County Forest Preserve website. This isn't rocket science and (430 ILCS 66/65) Sec. 65. Prohibited areas. (14) Any real property under the control of the Cook County Forest Preserve District is very clear as to this. The trails are real property under the control of the Cook County Forest Preserve District and therefore considered prohibited areas. It doesn't matter if they take you to the county line or the zoo, they are prohibited areas.

 

That's why there is a simple quiz:

 

Am I in a Cook County Forest Preserve?

Am I carrying a handgun?

If you answer yes to both you are breaking the law.

 

430 ILCS 66/65(a)(13) does not apply because you are not in a park and(430 ILCS 66/65)(23)© A licensee shall not be in violation of this Section while he or she is traveling along a public right of way that touches or crosses any of the premises under subsection (a), (a-5), or (a-10) of this Section if the concealed firearm is carried on his or her person in accordance with the provisions of this Act or is being transported in a vehicle by the licensee in accordance with all other applicable provisions of law does not apply because (430 ILCS 66/65) Sec. 65. Prohibited areas. (14) Any real property under the control of the Cook County Forest Preserve District could not be any clearer and specifically spells out the law regarding Cook County Forest Preserves.

 

Sorry Lockman, you are wrong. Call (708)771-1001 and they will tell you the exact same thing. NO FIREARMS in a Cook County Forest Preserve unless you are a LEO or on active duty. It doesn't matter where the trail begins or ends. It ends in the same place if you get caught breaking the law, in a squad car.



#33 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Admin
  • 20,614 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 15 June 2019 - 08:06 AM

...Can you show me where © A licensee shall not be in violation of this Section while he or she is traveling along a public right of way that touches or crosses any of the premises under subsection ( a ), (a-5), or (a-10) of this Section if the concealed firearm is carried on his or her person in accordance with the provisions of this Act or is being transported in a vehicle by the licensee in accordance with all other applicable provisions of law.
SAYS:(Parks and Forest Preserves) because I cannot find it.
...


It doesn't need to specify parks and forest preserves because it creates an exception to all of the prohibitions listed in (a), among others.


 

...(430 ILCS 66/65)(23)© A licensee shall not be in violation of this Section while he or she is traveling along a public right of way that touches or crosses any of the premises under subsection ( a ), (a-5), or (a-10) of this Section if the concealed firearm is carried on his or her person in accordance with the provisions of this Act or is being transported in a vehicle by the licensee in accordance with all other applicable provisions of law does not apply because[/size] (430 ILCS 66/65) Sec. 65. Prohibited areas. (14) Any real property under the control of the Cook County Forest Preserve District could not be any clearer and specifically spells out the law regarding Cook County Forest Preserves.[/font]

 

You're arguing that the prohibition on carry in (14) Any real property under the control of the Cook County Forest Preserve District cannot be part of the exceptions created in ( b ) and ( c ) simply because the preserves are included in the list of prohibited locations. If that were an accurate reading, it would act to negate the entirety of the exceptions created in ( b ) and ( c ) for all prohibited locations simply because they are also in the prohibited list. It turns ( b ) and ( c ) into surplusage - meaningless words that are not part of the law's effect.

Yet, we know that the legislative intent can never be to include meaningless words in the law it created, that all the words in the law have meaning.

In this case the meaning is to create an exception to the entirety of ( a ), (a-5) and (a-10) when the specified conditions are met by the licensee.



#34 CHICAGO HANDGUN OWNER

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 535 posts
  • Joined: 16-June 08

Posted 15 June 2019 - 08:08 AM

 

I guess at issue is the "subsection"  The law says "A licensee shall not be in violation of this Section while he or she is traveling along a public right of way that touches or crosses ANY OF THE PREMISES (Parks and Forest Preserves) UNDER SUBSECTION (a), (a-5), or (a-10) of this Section if the concealed firearm is carried on his or her person in accordance with the provisions of this Act or is being transported in a vehicle by the licensee in accordance with all other applicable provisions of law."  I think the prohibited areas are all under the same section in the Statute.

 

 

Chicago handgunner is correct. If the path or trail enters from outside the forest preserve and continues through the forest preserve exiting at a different location you can carry as long as you stick to that path. This would apply to roadways, highways, bike paths or sidewalks going through the preserve. It would not include those paths or trails that are contained entirely within the Cook County Forest preserve. ^ this ***

 

CHICAGO HANDGUN OWNER: guess and think are not the law and either is adding to Illinois Compiled Statutes. Can you show me where © A licensee shall not be in violation of this Section while he or she is traveling along a public right of way that touches or crosses any of the premises under subsection (a), (a-5), or (a-10) of this Section if the concealed firearm is carried on his or her person in accordance with the provisions of this Act or is being transported in a vehicle by the licensee in accordance with all other applicable provisions of law.

SAYS:(Parks and Forest Preserves) because I cannot find it.

"I think the prohibited areas are all under the same section in the Statute." WILL get you arrested or worse.

 

Alright this my final post on this. I can enter Bemis Woods south (the Cook County Forest Preserve that is the farthest west to the south). If I take the path west it ends at the I-294. According to a gross misinterpretation of statute I would be in violation of 430 ILCS 66/65(a)(14). If I took the path east I could go to Brookfield Zoo through different Cook County Forest Preserves. I wouldn't be in violation of 430 ILCS 66/65(a)(14) because I would exit Bemis woods north and cross Wolf Rd into Salt Creek Woods. That's NOT how 430 ILCS 66/65(a)(14) is worded. It prohibits me from carrying the second I get out of my car because Firearms and other concealed weapons are not allowed on Forest Preserve District property, except by police officers or active-duty servicemen and women kicks in and is right on the Cook County Forest Preserve website. This isn't rocket science and (430 ILCS 66/65) Sec. 65. Prohibited areas. (14) Any real property under the control of the Cook County Forest Preserve District is very clear as to this. The trails are real property under the control of the Cook County Forest Preserve District and therefore considered prohibited areas. It doesn't matter if they take you to the county line or the zoo, they are prohibited areas.

 

That's why there is a simple quiz:

 

Am I in a Cook County Forest Preserve?

Am I carrying a handgun?

If you answer yes to both you are breaking the law.

 

430 ILCS 66/65(a)(13) does not apply because you are not in a park and(430 ILCS 66/65)(23)© A licensee shall not be in violation of this Section while he or she is traveling along a public right of way that touches or crosses any of the premises under subsection (a), (a-5), or (a-10) of this Section if the concealed firearm is carried on his or her person in accordance with the provisions of this Act or is being transported in a vehicle by the licensee in accordance with all other applicable provisions of law does not apply because (430 ILCS 66/65) Sec. 65. Prohibited areas. (14) Any real property under the control of the Cook County Forest Preserve District could not be any clearer and specifically spells out the law regarding Cook County Forest Preserves.

 

Sorry Lockman, you are wrong. Call (708)771-1001 and they will tell you the exact same thing. NO FIREARMS in a Cook County Forest Preserve unless you are a LEO or on active duty. It doesn't matter where the trail begins or ends. It ends in the same place if you get caught breaking the law, in a squad car.

 

 

You are just giving your interpretation of the law. It has  NOT been tested in court.  You are giving your opinion. I believe when  it says the exemption for public right of way that touches or crosses any of the prohibited premises it is referring to all the prohibited zones which would include the Cook County Forest. . The section that lays out all the prohibited areas is one section



#35 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Admin
  • 20,614 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 15 June 2019 - 08:08 AM

How have CCL violations of gun free zones been adjudicated in Illinois?


None in Cook County Forest Preserves, that I know of.

#36 CHICAGO HANDGUN OWNER

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 535 posts
  • Joined: 16-June 08

Posted 15 June 2019 - 08:14 AM

...Can you show me where © A licensee shall not be in violation of this Section while he or she is traveling along a public right of way that touches or crosses any of the premises under subsection ( a ), (a-5), or (a-10) of this Section if the concealed firearm is carried on his or her person in accordance with the provisions of this Act or is being transported in a vehicle by the licensee in accordance with all other applicable provisions of law.
SAYS:(Parks and Forest Preserves) because I cannot find it.
...


It doesn't need to specify parks and forest preserves because it creates an exception to all of the prohibitions listed in (a), among others.


 

...(430 ILCS 66/65)(23)© A licensee shall not be in violation of this Section while he or she is traveling along a public right of way that touches or crosses any of the premises under subsection ( a ), (a-5), or (a-10) of this Section if the concealed firearm is carried on his or her person in accordance with the provisions of this Act or is being transported in a vehicle by the licensee in accordance with all other applicable provisions of law does not apply because[/size] (430 ILCS 66/65) Sec. 65. Prohibited areas. (14) Any real property under the control of the Cook County Forest Preserve District could not be any clearer and specifically spells out the law regarding Cook County Forest Preserves.[/font]

 
You're arguing that the prohibition on carry in (14) Any real property under the control of the Cook County Forest Preserve District cannot be part of the exceptions created in ( b ) and ( c ) simply because the preserves are included in the list of prohibited locations. If that were an accurate reading, it would act to negate the entirety of the exceptions created in ( b ) and ( c ) for all prohibited locations simply because they are also in the prohibited list. It turns ( b ) and ( c ) into surplusage - meaningless words that are not part of the law's effect.

Yet, we know that the legislative intent can never be to include meaningless words in the law it created, that all the words in the law have meaning.

In this case the meaning is to create an exception to the entirety of ( a ), (a-5) and (a-10) when the specified conditions are met by the licensee.


I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU MAUSERME. THIS IS WHAT THE LAW SAYS IN ENGLISH. I WOULD NOT SIT AT A PICNIC TABLE ON COOK COUNTY FOREST PRESERVE PROPERTY. I THINK THAT WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF THE LAW AS WRITTEN BUT I BELIEVE I AM LEGAL ON THE PUBLIC TRAILS THAT GO THROUGH THE COOK COUNTY FOREST.

#37 Mr. Fife

    Nip it

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,056 posts
  • Joined: 03-July 10

Posted 15 June 2019 - 09:12 AM

Where are you getting the idea that 720 ILCS 5/24-1 UUW is only about manufacturing firearms?

I guess my point is that you would need to be charged for violating a specific statute, and it would have to be more specific than just 720 ILCS 5/24-1(a).

What I'm trying to get at ultimately is "What would you be charged with if carrying without a CCL in Cook County Forest Preserves"

Unless you were wearing a hood, and didn't enter any buildings, and no liquor is sold, and no admission is charged, the the only things you could be charged with are 720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)4 or 720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)10 or possibly 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6

Now, you can't be exempted by carrying under the FCCL as stated in 720 ILCS 5/24-2(a-5) because the FCCL specifically mentions Cook County Forest Preserves.

But... If you are not carrying under FCCL and have a fishing license and gear, and there's a lake with fish, you are exempted by 720 ILCS 5/24-2 ( b.)


(720 ILCS 5/24-2) 
  Sec. 24-2. Exemptions. 

(b.) Subsections 24-1(a)(4) and 24-1(a)(10) and Section 24-1.6 do not apply to or affect any of the following: 

(3) Hunters, trappers or fishermen with a license or permit while engaged in hunting, trapping or fishing.

Stupid speelchick.

Edited by Mr. Fife, 15 June 2019 - 09:55 AM.

Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
 
 

#38 Mr. Fife

    Nip it

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,056 posts
  • Joined: 03-July 10

Posted 15 June 2019 - 09:50 AM

430 ILCS 66/10

(g) A licensee shall possess a license at all times the licensee carries a concealed firearm except:

(2) when the person is authorized to carry a firearm under Section 24-2 of the Criminal Code of 2012, except subsection (a-5) of that Section; 
Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
 
 

#39 Mr. Fife

    Nip it

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,056 posts
  • Joined: 03-July 10

Posted 15 June 2019 - 10:37 AM

when the person is authorized to carry a firearm under Section 24-2 of the Criminal Code of 2012,  
Sounds like not only an exemption, but also an authorization.
Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
 
 

#40 Mick G

    Former Member

  • Members
  • 1,120 posts
  • Joined: 26-September 17

Posted 15 June 2019 - 12:27 PM

I AM GLAD THAT YOU TOTALLY AGREE WITH MAUSERME. WHAT THE LAW SAYS IN ENGLISH AND WHAT THE COOK COUNTY FOREST PRESERVE SAYS ARE "NO FIREARMS IN THE COOK COUNTY FOREST PRESERVE." UNTIL MAUSERME POSTS HIS LAW DEGREE THEN IF I WERE HIM I WOULD CALL (708) 771-1001 AND ASK AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF ILLINOIS CARRY WHAT DOES Firearms and other concealed weapons are not allowed on Forest Preserve District property, except by police officers or active-duty servicemen and women exactly mean? ASSUMING THE COOK COUNTY FOREST PRESERVE POLICE DON'T HANG UP THINKING THAT ITS A PRANK CALL, WHEN THEY GET DONE LAUGHING THEN WE WILL HAVE A DEFINITIVE ANSWER. MAUSER YOU POSTED YOUR OPINION SO NOW PLEASE NOW GET A CLARIFICATION FOR EVERY MEMBER OF ILLINOIS CARRY. 

The police say it's a crime. Most instructors teach it's a crime so lets learn the definitive facts from this inane argument.

 

THE LAW UNDER  (430 ILCS 66/65) Sec. 65. Prohibited areas. 14) ANY REAL PROPERTY UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE COOK COUNTY FOREST PRESERVE DISTRICT. IS WRITTEN IN PLAIN ENGLISH THAT A CHILD COULD UNDERSTAND. THE TRAILS ARE UNDER CONTROL OF THE COOK COUNTY FOREST PRESERVE DISTRICT. THE WHOLE ARGUMENT THAT YOU ARE TRAVELING A TRAIL SOUNDS LIKE SOVEREIGN CITIZEN NONSENSE.

YOU HAVE POSTING THIS ARGUMENT FOR YEARS:http://illinoiscarry...showtopic=67786

It has been going on for years:http://illinoiscarry...showtopic=57262

 

Mauser you can clarify this with a phone call and put this very long (years) debate to rest.

Please do so. Lets turn this into a learning experience and take any ambiguity out of it.



#41 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Admin
  • 20,614 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 15 June 2019 - 01:41 PM

Mick, you can't pluck a single sentence from Section 65 and expect it to represent the complete meaning. The interaction between subsections and paragraphs adds to and alters the meaning.



#42 Mick G

    Former Member

  • Members
  • 1,120 posts
  • Joined: 26-September 17

Posted 15 June 2019 - 01:59 PM

Mick, you can't pluck a single sentence from Section 65 and expect it to represent the complete meaning. The interaction between subsections and paragraphs adds to and alters the meaning.

 

Basically you are saying that you wont make the call to the forest preserve district of cook county department of law enforcement and get a definitive answer then? They would have a definitive answer and are the ones responsible for enforcing the law.

Lets stop the nonsense and get the answer from the people who patrol the cook county forest preserves.

They will have the absolute last word as to how the law is interpreted, they are responsible for enforcement of said law.

This discussion has been going on for years on this forum, for the members knowledge lets get a absolute answer to this.

I don't think that is unreasonable and you or Molly would have to do it so that it is believable.



#43 NRApistol

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 535 posts
  • Joined: 28-August 13

Posted 15 June 2019 - 02:02 PM

 

Mick, you can't pluck a single sentence from Section 65 and expect it to represent the complete meaning. The interaction between subsections and paragraphs adds to and alters the meaning.

 

Basically you are saying that you wont make the call to the forest preserve district of cook county department of law enforcement and get a definitive answer then? They would have a definitive answer 

If would NOT be a definitive answer.  It WOULD be a Cook county department of law enforcement OPINION. Cops are not judges.


NRA Training Counselor
Refuse to be a Victim Regional Counselor

 


#44 Mick G

    Former Member

  • Members
  • 1,120 posts
  • Joined: 26-September 17

Posted 15 June 2019 - 02:17 PM

 

 

Mick, you can't pluck a single sentence from Section 65 and expect it to represent the complete meaning. The interaction between subsections and paragraphs adds to and alters the meaning.

 

Basically you are saying that you wont make the call to the forest preserve district of cook county department of law enforcement and get a definitive answer then? They would have a definitive answer 

If would NOT be a definitive answer.  It WOULD be a Cook county department of law enforcement OPINION. Cops are not judges.

 

 

Actually it would be how the people who are responsible for enforcing the law, interpret the law.

They are the ones who will use their judgement when applying the law if the need arises.

What happens afterwards would set precedent and technically be the definitive answer.

A simple phone call would have one of two answers. You get arrested or you don't. No semantics involved.

We have had enough opinions on this, lets get some facts without someone being a test case.



#45 Mr. Fife

    Nip it

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,056 posts
  • Joined: 03-July 10

Posted 15 June 2019 - 03:11 PM

66/65 only applies to people carrying under the FCCL
Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
 
 

#46 lockman

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,988 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 15 June 2019 - 03:40 PM


 


 


Mick, you can't pluck a single sentence from Section 65 and expect it to represent the complete meaning. The interaction between subsections and paragraphs adds to and alters the meaning.


 
Basically you are saying that you wont make the call to the forest preserve district of cook county department of law enforcement and get a definitive answer then? They would have a definitive answer 


If would NOT be a definitive answer.  It WOULD be a Cook county department of law enforcement OPINION. Cops are not judges.
 


 
Actually it would be how the people who are responsible for enforcing the law, interpret the law.
They are the ones who will use their judgement when applying the law if the need arises.
What happens afterwards would set precedent and technically be the definitive answer.
A simple phone call would have one of two answers. You get arrested or you don't. No semantics involved.
We have had enough opinions on this, lets get some facts without someone being a test case.



The police can not and do not give legal advise. The police can give an opinion but the answer they generally will provide is the one which makes there jobs easier and minimal thought and effort, legally on point or not. In short, whatever you ask that is permissive the answer is ‘ NO ‘. Any question that is restrictive the answer is ‘ YES ‘.

I find this the norm more often then not.


^ this ***

"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA,  CCRKBA, GOA, & SAF


#47 CHICAGO HANDGUN OWNER

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 535 posts
  • Joined: 16-June 08

Posted 15 June 2019 - 04:43 PM

When the statute says that the exemption for public right of way applies to "ANY OF THE PREMISES"  IT MEANS ALL OF THE PROHIBITED AREAS. ITS A BLANKET EXEMPTION. I agree that you won't get a valid legal opinion from a Police Officer there is no point in calling Cook County. I think most CCL students have more knowledge of the Illinois concealed carry law than a Police Officer because we actually read it. The job of the attorneys and judges is to clarify the meaning of a law in court when a case is disputed. I can see a judge reading the law and throwing the case out if someone is charged with this and comes to trial. 



#48 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Admin
  • 20,614 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 15 June 2019 - 04:48 PM

When the statute says that the exemption for public right of way applies to "ANY OF THE PREMISES"  IT MEANS ALL OF THE PROHIBITED AREAS. ....


Subject to the specific criteria outlined in the exemption, of course. I wouldn't want to use the term "blanket" in an overly broad sense.

#49 Tip

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 525 posts
  • Joined: 11-March 14

Posted 15 June 2019 - 06:02 PM

A trail IS A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY so you can interpret the law any way you wish. I will continue to carry on the trails of the Chicago beaches and the Cook County Forest Preserves


Is it?

Or is a trail an easement granted to allow public passage?

Easements are legal things with specific legal meanings.
Rights of Way are also legal things with specific legal meanings.

You claim that the trails are public rights of way. Where is that legally defined?

You predicate your whole argument upon the premise that the trails are a public right of way, a premise that may very well be seriously flawed.
Never Engage in a Battle of Wits with an unarmed person.

#50 Mr. Fife

    Nip it

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,056 posts
  • Joined: 03-July 10

Posted 15 June 2019 - 06:21 PM

I would agree that a trail is not a public way. When I owned some acreage a few years ago, there was a trail on my property that people used as a shortcut. I considered them trespassers. Not a public way.
Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
 
 

#51 Gaius

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 119 posts
  • Joined: 04-June 13

Posted 16 June 2019 - 05:35 AM

Just out of curiosity, does anyone actually know the answer to the original post? How many gun free zone violations have been prosecuted in Illinois? Don't tell me about the Cook County Forest Preserve. Not the question. Thanks. 



#52 Mick G

    Former Member

  • Members
  • 1,120 posts
  • Joined: 26-September 17

Posted 16 June 2019 - 06:45 AM

Just out of curiosity, does anyone actually know the answer to the original post? How many gun free zone violations have been prosecuted in Illinois? Don't tell me about the Cook County Forest Preserve. Not the question. Thanks. 

 

I have an exact count going back to 2015. That's assuming that you are writing about the title of the thread and not the original post.

A good attorney will be able to find that out for you and they charge a considerable amount of money. I don't give out legal advice or knowledge anymore. Good question, Thanks.



#53 lockman

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,988 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 16 June 2019 - 07:28 AM

Just out of curiosity, does anyone actually know the answer to the original post? How many gun free zone violations have been prosecuted in Illinois? Don't tell me about the Cook County Forest Preserve. Not the question. Thanks. 


So you want the total number of GFZ FCCL violations excepting those occurring in Cook county forest preserves? If not, your question is a brazen attempt to steer this thread back on topic.




^ this ***

"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA,  CCRKBA, GOA, & SAF


#54 Mick G

    Former Member

  • Members
  • 1,120 posts
  • Joined: 26-September 17

Posted 16 June 2019 - 07:40 AM

I have the official answer to the the discussion that I took place in from an attorney AND the Forest Preserve District Of Cook County Department Of Law Enforcement. I have my answer and since the people who run or represent this site don't really care as to what the actual law is and it cost me money and time to find out, I wont be sharing it. I will say the correct legal answer is in Page 1 of the thread. The attorney said some of the things he has read on this site are downright wrong when it comes to laws and legalities and to take it with a grain of salt. That is actually pretty funny because that's exactly what the two LEOS who taught my CCL class said. If you want opinions that have no bearing in case law then this a great site. If you want to know what the ever changing laws are, talk to them or an attorney. I will write one thing about the Forest Preserves of Cook County Department of Law Enforcement. They have a great sense of humor and really are basically just some good old boys. They had a good laugh over this and wanted to know if I was going leave a good Google review because they needed one. "Don't forget to mention that we gave you a can of Coke" and they busted out laughing. It was a fun but also very informative time and they do give legal ADVICE when it pertains to them.



#55 Russ S.

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 99 posts
  • Joined: 18-February 14

Posted 16 June 2019 - 08:49 AM

For those who wish to push the boundaries of legal interpretation, feel free to do so.  The rest of us will wait here to read the results.


You'll not stand out in any way. Your entire image is crafted to leave no lasting impression on anyone you encounter. You're a rumor, recognizable only as deja vu, and dismissed just as quickly.

#56 lockman

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,988 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 16 June 2019 - 09:07 AM

For those who wish to push the boundaries of legal interpretation, feel free to do so.  The rest of us will wait here to read the results.


We push the limits all the time. You have too, otherwise the law as written becomes meaningless because you follow what authorities tell you and not what the law actually states. Without people pushing the limits you would not have CCL in Illinois. The person following the law transporting a firearm on a forest preserve trail was arrested for following the law, now that case is cited all the time.

Look at 18 USC 930, it it clearly states in plain English an exemption for firearms carried in federal buildings ( other exceptions noted) for lawful purposes. It is not the law thatâs messed up. The law is plain and clear, there is no ambiguity in this law. It is the messed up interpretation by some US attorney who got a plea arrangement and hence we got stuck with some bad caselaw. Pushing the limits can get this off the books. But itâs a lot harder when the penalty is a felony. I canât cross that line, at least not until my kids are grown and Iâm retired then Iâll rethink it.





^ this ***

Edited by lockman, 16 June 2019 - 09:10 AM.

"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA,  CCRKBA, GOA, & SAF


#57 Bubbacs

    #Fear The Clown

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,731 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 14

Posted 16 June 2019 - 10:01 AM

C7BBE6B1-F33E-4CB8-BCEB-28BFEA45734C.jpeg

#58 vito

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,950 posts
  • Joined: 30-October 04

Posted 16 June 2019 - 12:13 PM

Does anyone care to comment on the question that started this thread? How have violations been handled? Let the issue of whether or not a trail in a CC Forest Preserve is an exception or not be handled separately. FWIW, I appreciate that it is legal to carry in Forest Preserves that are anywhere but C®ook County. 

 

I doubt that there are many cases of where someone was arrested for carrying in a prohibited place. You would likely have to be pretty sloppy in how you "concealed" for any of fellow brain dead, head-in-the-smartphone citizens to see that someone is carrying, and then to report that to the police. 


Retired U.S. Army and Veteran of the Vietnam conflict

NRA Life Member

Fully retired!

 


#59 chislinger

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,483 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 16 June 2019 - 01:05 PM

It is the messed up interpretation by some US attorney who got a plea arrangement and hence we got stuck with some bad caselaw.

Only an appeals court can make binding case law, and I don't think plea bargains are even applicable there.
"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams

#60 CHICAGO HANDGUN OWNER

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 535 posts
  • Joined: 16-June 08

Posted 16 June 2019 - 02:18 PM

Mick G I think it would be great if you could share the exemption clause in the prohibited area statute with all your friends in law enforcement so they don't make false arrests. You know back in the day we had the same issue with Police Officers and other naysayers. They use to say that FOID carry was illegal!  They never READ the law that stated that carrying an encased or in a fanny pack unloaded hand gun with a loaded magazine by someone in possession of a FOID card was LEGAL! It took a false arrest and later a trial where the judge read the law and threw out the case to clarify this. Later the whole ban on carrying a loaded handgun was overturned and so now we finally have the right to carry in Illinois. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users