Tompo Posted September 1, 2014 at 06:12 PM Share Posted September 1, 2014 at 06:12 PM I haven't lived in Chicago in over 25 years. I've read conflicting rules about magazine capacity in the city. Can a Chicagoan give me what's legal to own in Chicago, as far as magazines? My brother--Chicagoan-- wants to buy a used Springfield XDM, which has a mag capacity of 19. Is that mag legal in the city? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WillT Posted September 1, 2014 at 06:26 PM Share Posted September 1, 2014 at 06:26 PM Theoretically, state-wide, yes. Chicagoetically, no. You'll hear both answers. Until somebody gets arrested for it and a court hears it, we'll never know. Personally, I would say yes, it's legal. F Chicago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirflyguy Posted September 1, 2014 at 06:27 PM Share Posted September 1, 2014 at 06:27 PM This issue and the laser issue are test cases waiting to happen. I sure would think that preemption included in the FCCA would make null and void any mag restriction Chicago might try to still enforce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aerxx Posted September 1, 2014 at 06:40 PM Share Posted September 1, 2014 at 06:40 PM Chicagoetically, no. LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomKoz Posted September 1, 2014 at 06:46 PM Share Posted September 1, 2014 at 06:46 PM · Hidden by mauserme, September 1, 2014 at 06:59 PM - No reason given Hidden by mauserme, September 1, 2014 at 06:59 PM - No reason given If he's a democrat / lib, he should be happy with living by whatever the democrat / lib controlled Chicago politicians imposed upon him. Link to comment
Tompo Posted September 1, 2014 at 06:54 PM Author Share Posted September 1, 2014 at 06:54 PM · Hidden by mauserme, September 1, 2014 at 06:59 PM - No reason given Hidden by mauserme, September 1, 2014 at 06:59 PM - No reason given If he's a democrat / lib, he should be happy with living by whatever the democrat / lib controlled Chicago politicians imposed upon him. You live under laws/rules, too....right? Thanks for your deep well thought out insight. Link to comment
mauserme Posted September 1, 2014 at 07:00 PM Share Posted September 1, 2014 at 07:00 PM Off topic removed so Tompo's question can get the answer(s) it deserves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Posted September 1, 2014 at 07:57 PM Share Posted September 1, 2014 at 07:57 PM I think real life that Chicago is not going to want to charge someone with the laser or a magazine limit because they are afraid of a test case. truthfully, that's not much to hang your hat on. Chicago is such a rogue authority that i would be super cautious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCroskey Posted September 1, 2014 at 08:13 PM Share Posted September 1, 2014 at 08:13 PM As stated above, it's currently ambiguous, which is what Chicago wants. The state law is clear: the regulation of handguns and handgun ammunition is solely a function of the state. However, the city didn't specify their mag restrictions applied only to long guns when they "fixed" the ordinance after the state law was passed. They also haven't moved to edit or rescind their ban on "transfer of ammunition" within city limits (which is ambiguous in and of itself). Basically, the argument lies in whether magazines are included. I say the are, since a gun is nothing but an expensive paperweight without one, but IANAL. The city plays this game deliberately. My guess is that if someone was picked up for violating the mag cap restriction and fought it, the city would end up losing. But the city attorneys would still sandbag and draw it out as long as possible to make it as painful and expensive as possible. Your friend has to be willing to go through that. In the end, it would be great if someone with deep pockets challenged this and get the ordinance clarified. Know any rich people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tompo Posted September 1, 2014 at 08:13 PM Author Share Posted September 1, 2014 at 08:13 PM So, if someone buys a gun with a high cap mag, and a resident of Chicago, they're not knowingly breaking the law--correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patriots & Tyrants Posted September 1, 2014 at 08:18 PM Share Posted September 1, 2014 at 08:18 PM I think real life that Chicago is not going to want to charge someone with the laser or a magazine limit because they are afraid of a test case. truthfully, that's not much to hang your hat on. Chicago is such a rogue authority that i would be super cautious. I agree; they don't really *want* fuel for the fire until the Highland Park and Cook Co. AWB cases are settled. Right now they are not sure if their charges under local AWB's will end up holding up in court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WillT Posted September 1, 2014 at 08:21 PM Share Posted September 1, 2014 at 08:21 PM So, if someone buys a gun with a high cap mag, and a resident of Chicago, they're not knowingly breaking the law--correct? No guns I know of come with a high capacity mag. They come with standard capacity magazines as designed for the firearm in question Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yas Posted September 1, 2014 at 08:21 PM Share Posted September 1, 2014 at 08:21 PM In general dog pile of charges seems to be SOP and Cook / Chicago is infamous for plea bargaining out charges. So in a CCL incident I would not be surprised to see a magazine limit charge thrown into the stack, but should be pretty easily dealt with by a competent attorney. Providing its a pistol and accused has valid illinois CCL permit . There just hasn't been a case yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Rat Posted September 1, 2014 at 08:35 PM Share Posted September 1, 2014 at 08:35 PM So, if someone buys a gun with a high cap mag, and a resident of Chicago, they're not knowingly breaking the law--correct? Knowingly or not, they are breaking the ordinance and I assume will be prosecuted for it. It'll be up to the courts to determine whether Chicago's ordinance conflicts with the FCCA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WillT Posted September 1, 2014 at 08:39 PM Share Posted September 1, 2014 at 08:39 PM It wouldn't surprise me if one of the big gun groups (SAF, ISRA, NRA, etc.) would take up the cause for the accused. Seems like it would be a pretty easy payday. Seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jatwood29 Posted September 1, 2014 at 10:30 PM Share Posted September 1, 2014 at 10:30 PM does someone have to first be charged to fight it. I mean can someone say that the restriction violates the state law and therefore their rights without having to be pinched first?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeavyDuty Posted September 1, 2014 at 11:07 PM Share Posted September 1, 2014 at 11:07 PM All Chicago needs is one case to go their way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCroskey Posted September 1, 2014 at 11:10 PM Share Posted September 1, 2014 at 11:10 PM does someone have to first be charged to fight it. I mean can someone say that the restriction violates the state law and therefore their rights without having to be pinched first?? You could sue them outright, but in order to have a case you have to prove that you're somehow aggrieved. In other words, you have to have something to sue them over and it's a lot easier if you've either been arrested for something, or you go the Otis McDonald route and try to purchase something and get denied. I imagine you could try to purchase a magazine in excess of Chicago's cap limit from someone known to deny sales of such magazines to residents of Chicago due to the ordinance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundguy Posted September 2, 2014 at 12:15 AM Share Posted September 2, 2014 at 12:15 AM In general dog pile of charges seems to be SOP and Cook / Chicago is infamous for plea bargaining out charges. So in a CCL incident I would not be surprised to see a magazine limit charge thrown into the stack, but should be pretty easily dealt with by a competent attorney. Providing its a pistol and accused has valid illinois CCL permit . There just hasn't been a case yet. For decades, with a ban on handguns, Chicago did not charge anyone on the good side of a defensive handgun shooting. I honestly do not see any indication that this practice has changed. If you were being a jerk AND had plus 15 round mags or a Crimson Trace on your carry gun, they might add these "violations of city ordinance" to whatever other stuff they threw at you. As has been said nearly a zillion times... The state prohibits regulation of handguns. The City kept mag limits and laser bans 'cause they want to. I'm NEVER gonna worry about. Someone has to be a test case... Might as well be you? "Think for yourselves" Life of Brian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundguy Posted September 2, 2014 at 12:17 AM Share Posted September 2, 2014 at 12:17 AM All Chicago needs is one case to go their way. Ain't gonna happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundguy Posted September 2, 2014 at 12:23 AM Share Posted September 2, 2014 at 12:23 AM So, if someone buys a gun with a high cap mag, and a resident of Chicago, they're not knowingly breaking the law--correct? Knowingly or not, they are breaking the ordinance and I assume will be prosecuted for it. It'll be up to the courts to determine whether Chicago's ordinance conflicts with the FCCA. If the Chicago deal was real law... Nothing can prevent you from BUYING or OWNING a 16 round mag or pistol with a laser sighting device. They could (if it was real law) jam you up for keeping it in the City. It's a City Ordinance... Glorified parking ticket with a bigger potential financial downside. Visit your Alderman and INSIST they strike this ordinance from the books. If we all make a polite big deal out of this... We CAN easily push the car up the mountain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundguy Posted September 2, 2014 at 12:28 AM Share Posted September 2, 2014 at 12:28 AM So, if someone buys a gun with a high cap mag, and a resident of Chicago, they're not knowingly breaking the law--correct? Double answering... You can buy all you want. What know one knows is what will happen if they catch you in the City with it. My personal guess is that no one will ever know.... SSSShhhhh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xd9subcompact Posted September 2, 2014 at 01:28 AM Share Posted September 2, 2014 at 01:28 AM Yes, there is disagreement here on magazine capacity restrictions.We know the state law has taken over the entire field of handgun regulation as well as ammunition for handguns.If we accept the premise that the city of Chicago has the authority to regulate the possession of magazines (over whatever capacity they deem to be the limit as of today), this will have the effect of regulation which handguns are suitable to be possessed inside the city limits.In the OP original post, he cites the XD(M).http://www.springfield-armory.com/products/xdm-4-5-9-mm/Here we see that the handgun, part number XDM9201HCSP, XDM9211HCSP and the XDM9231HCSP all come with two (2) 19 round magazines as standard equipment.Does the manufacturer of these models offer a reduced capacity magazine? No, This option is not listed on their website. The only 13 round magazine is listed for the XD(M) compact model.http://store.springfield-armory.com/shop/pc/9MM-c35.htmTherefore the city is regulating the types of handguns that may be possessed inside the city limits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Fife Posted September 2, 2014 at 01:31 AM Share Posted September 2, 2014 at 01:31 AM They used to regulate types on guns before, even had a list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Rat Posted September 2, 2014 at 01:52 AM Share Posted September 2, 2014 at 01:52 AM So, if someone buys a gun with a high cap mag, and a resident of Chicago, they're not knowingly breaking the law--correct? Knowingly or not, they are breaking the ordinance and I assume will be prosecuted for it. It'll be up to the courts to determine whether Chicago's ordinance conflicts with the FCCA. If the Chicago deal was real law... Nothing can prevent you from BUYING or OWNING a 16 round mag or pistol with a laser sighting device. They could (if it was real law) jam you up for keeping it in the City. It's a City Ordinance... Glorified parking ticket with a bigger potential financial downside. Visit your Alderman and INSIST they strike this ordinance from the books. If we all make a polite big deal out of this... We CAN easily push the car up the mountain. I have no idea what you're trying to say here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSD Posted September 2, 2014 at 04:20 AM Share Posted September 2, 2014 at 04:20 AM Not living in Chicago (anymore) I have not read the specific ordinances. However, it could be more than a "ticket" depending on how the ordinance is drafted. A municipality may pass ordinances with a penalty of up to 1 year in jail. That time would be in crook county jail not a state pen. Not saying they have or would enforce that way. The ordinance would likely also give the right to confiscate and destroy (or loose) the contraband. I agree the ordinance is or should be unconstitutional, but I wouldn't call it not real. It is real and has real penalties. It will be up to some poor (or braver than I) sole to challenge it in court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkroenlein Posted September 2, 2014 at 05:01 AM Share Posted September 2, 2014 at 05:01 AM Let's not forget that due to Mr. Vandermyde's effort to educate the city, Chicago did add, in a very modest display of concession, the "except anything that's preempted" (paraphrased) clause at the end of their weapons ban ordinance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solareclipse2 Posted September 2, 2014 at 01:23 PM Share Posted September 2, 2014 at 01:23 PM I know my answer doesn't help much but I carry my Sig with 15 round mags in the city all the time. I'm not the least bit concerned about which law or ordinance the city has about my magazine capacity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wtr100 Posted September 2, 2014 at 01:29 PM Share Posted September 2, 2014 at 01:29 PM does someone have to first be charged to fight it. I mean can someone say that the restriction violates the state law and therefore their rights without having to be pinched first?? I think so - you need standing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchet Posted September 2, 2014 at 01:34 PM Share Posted September 2, 2014 at 01:34 PM I know my answer doesn't help much but I carry my Sig with 15 round mags in the city all the time. I'm not the least bit concerned about which law or ordinance the city has about my magazine capacity.Didn't Chicago change theirs to 15 anyways in the last round when they add the "except anything that's preempted" Believe cook is still 10 but chicago is 15. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.