Hazborgufen Posted February 16, 2018 at 02:56 PM Author Share Posted February 16, 2018 at 02:56 PM Under the Diggins decision (linked above), it was established by the courts that a firearm with no magazine in it but sitting right next to a fully-loaded magazine for that gun is not "loaded", and is perfectly legal to transport within a case (and also established that a center console is a case.) This was important case-law which at least cleared up one possible ambiguity. I believe that the courts would consider a firearm with a loaded magazine inserted as "loaded" despite not having a round chambered. But this has never (that I can find) been 100% defined in Illinois. (It's been defined in other states, although not always the same way.) So there is a little bit of "gray area" here, but there is a strong belief among most for which way the courts would rule. I appreciate the explanation an the sentiment for caution, but had Michael Diggins, John Horstman, and Roderick Pritchett followed the more cautious sentiment we wouldn't have advanced gun rights in this state. Seems to me that the ambiguity in the language is a prime way for 2nd Amendment activists to push for a more lenient interpretation. As I showed in an earlier post, there isn't a clear cut accepted definition in the laws of other states, and in many cases the definition is dependent on other circumstances (e.g. hunting, child access during storage, etc). Why let Illinois win against us by their use of vague language? An unchambered firearm is "unloaded" by every sense of the word. The firearm will not discharge if the trigger is pulled. Thus, with lack of clarification or definition of the word loaded, and encased firearm in this condition seems to meet the third exemption for UUW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gangrel Posted February 16, 2018 at 03:11 PM Share Posted February 16, 2018 at 03:11 PM Under the Diggins decision (linked above), it was established by the courts that a firearm with no magazine in it but sitting right next to a fully-loaded magazine for that gun is not "loaded", and is perfectly legal to transport within a case (and also established that a center console is a case.) This was important case-law which at least cleared up one possible ambiguity. I believe that the courts would consider a firearm with a loaded magazine inserted as "loaded" despite not having a round chambered. But this has never (that I can find) been 100% defined in Illinois. (It's been defined in other states, although not always the same way.) So there is a little bit of "gray area" here, but there is a strong belief among most for which way the courts would rule. I appreciate the explanation an the sentiment for caution, but had Michael Diggins, John Horstman, and Roderick Pritchett followed the more cautious sentiment we wouldn't have advanced gun rights in this state. Seems to me that the ambiguity in the language is a prime way for 2nd Amendment activists to push for a more lenient interpretation. As I showed in an earlier post, there isn't a clear cut accepted definition in the laws of other states, and in many cases the definition is dependent on other circumstances (e.g. hunting, child access during storage, etc). Why let Illinois win against us by their use of vague language? An unchambered firearm is "unloaded" by every sense of the word. The firearm will not discharge if the trigger is pulled. Thus, with lack of clarification or definition of the word loaded, and encased firearm in this condition seems to meet the third exemption for UUW.Being a test case is risky, time consuming, and expensive. If you're volunteering, I wish you the best of luck. I have too much to lose to play those kind of games. Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkroenlein Posted February 16, 2018 at 05:50 PM Share Posted February 16, 2018 at 05:50 PM Another thing to ponder...if unloaded is so clearly defined and analyzed in the courts, does "loaded" need to be explicitly defined? Doesn't any condition (within reasonable meanings of the words) NOT meeting that definition constitute a loaded gun? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hazborgufen Posted February 16, 2018 at 06:09 PM Author Share Posted February 16, 2018 at 06:09 PM Another thing to ponder...if unloaded is so clearly defined and analyzed in the courts, does "loaded" need to be explicitly defined? Doesn't any condition (within reasonable meanings of the words) NOT meeting that definition constitute a loaded gun? Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkGood question. If a magazine inserted is considered loaded, should an AR15 with the upper and lower separated but with a magazine in the lower be considered loaded? That may seem ludicrous to think about until you realize that the lower is the firearm and if we take loaded to mean “magazine in the firearm” then this condition might qualify. It’s not unreasonable to want a clear definition of the term loaded. Absent the clear definition I would think that the least obtrusive definition would have to stand which is ammunition in the chamber. Am I wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stm Posted February 16, 2018 at 07:33 PM Share Posted February 16, 2018 at 07:33 PM Be careful what you wish for. If left up to the ILGA, I'm sure unloaded will be defined in the worst possible terms for gun owners. For example, "loaded" could be defined as a loaded magazine regardless if it is in the firearm or not. Some states have to live with that burden. It may be better to let sleeping dragons lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hazborgufen Posted February 16, 2018 at 07:50 PM Author Share Posted February 16, 2018 at 07:50 PM Be careful what you wish for. If left up to the ILGA, I'm sure unloaded will be defined in the worst possible terms for gun owners. For example, "loaded" could be defined as a loaded magazine regardless if it is in the firearm or not. Some states have to live with that burden. It may be better to let sleeping dragons lie. But we already have court cases that say that is not the case. Illinois v Diggins which established center consoles as a "case" for transportation purposes accepted as fact that an unchambered firearm with a loaded magazine in the same compartment but not inserted into the firearm is considered "unloaded." So that's a hard wall. The court would be contradicting itself if it suddenly said magazines in the case make the gun loaded and any lawyer with half a brain will be able to cite Diggins in that instance. Please note that I'm not looking for a legislative fix to this. I think that the law as written should be followed and that means, potentially, having a magazine inserted with an empty chamber. Getting arrested for that could lead to a court challenge that might be found in favor of that method. So this only leaves two possibilities. Either a firearm is considered loaded when ammunition is in the chamber (lenient) or a firearm is also considered loaded when a magazine containing ammunition is inserted into the magwell (strict). Those are the two possibilities. Gun owners are voluntarily following the strict standard and are passing that off as an authoritative definition. However even Todd has replied that the word unloaded is not actually defined in the law. Thus, due to the ambiguity of the law the more lenient definition can very legitimately be argued. As I pointed out in a previous post, several states actually do define a firearm as loaded only if there is a round in the chamber, so there is very legitimate legal ambiguity to the word. Given that the word is left undefined by law and ambiguously defined by precedent in other states, why should gun owners in Illinois voluntarily subject themselves to a stricter standard? I get being afraid of possible legal issues, totally I do. But I thought that there were some 2nd Amendment activists here who would question the conventional wisdom. As stated before, people like Michael Diggins, John Horstman, and Roderick Pritchett followed the letter of the law in a way that, at the time, would have gone against conventional wisdom. Yes they were all arrested for it but in each instance they were found to be correct and everyone here has benefited from the expansion of rights that followed. We need to fight tooth an nail to expand our rights in the face of increasing pressure to restrict them. Playing defense is a sure way to lose ground. We need to go on the offensive to gain it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gangrel Posted February 16, 2018 at 08:07 PM Share Posted February 16, 2018 at 08:07 PM Be careful what you wish for. If left up to the ILGA, I'm sure unloaded will be defined in the worst possible terms for gun owners. For example, "loaded" could be defined as a loaded magazine regardless if it is in the firearm or not. Some states have to live with that burden. It may be better to let sleeping dragons lie. But we already have court cases that say that is not the case. Illinois v Diggins which established center consoles as a "case" for transportation purposes accepted as fact that an unchambered firearm with a loaded magazine in the same compartment but not inserted into the firearm is considered "unloaded." So that's a hard wall. The court would be contradicting itself if it suddenly said magazines in the case make the gun loaded and any lawyer with half a brain will be able to cite Diggins in that instance. Please note that I'm not looking for a legislative fix to this. I think that the law as written should be followed and that means, potentially, having a magazine inserted with an empty chamber. Getting arrested for that could lead to a court challenge that might be found in favor of that method. So this only leaves two possibilities. Either a firearm is considered loaded when ammunition is in the chamber (lenient) or a firearm is also considered loaded when a magazine containing ammunition is inserted into the magwell (strict). Those are the two possibilities. Gun owners are voluntarily following the strict standard and are passing that off as an authoritative definition. However even Todd has replied that the word unloaded is not actually defined in the law. Thus, due to the ambiguity of the law the more lenient definition can very legitimately be argued. As I pointed out in a previous post, several states actually do define a firearm as loaded only if there is a round in the chamber, so there is very legitimate legal ambiguity to the word. Given that the word is left undefined by law and ambiguously defined by precedent in other states, why should gun owners in Illinois voluntarily subject themselves to a stricter standard? I get being afraid of possible legal issues, totally I do. But I thought that there were some 2nd Amendment activists here who would question the conventional wisdom. As stated before, people like Michael Diggins, John Horstman, and Roderick Pritchett followed the letter of the law in a way that, at the time, would have gone against conventional wisdom. Yes they were all arrested for it but in each instance they were found to be correct and everyone here has benefited from the expansion of rights that followed. We need to fight tooth an nail to expand our rights in the face of increasing pressure to restrict them. Playing defense is a sure way to lose ground. We need to go on the offensive to gain it.Case law is the court's interpretation of the law as it is currently on the books. That is of no help whatsoever if legislation is passed to the contrary. As said above, be careful what you wish for. Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundguy Posted February 16, 2018 at 08:16 PM Share Posted February 16, 2018 at 08:16 PM Haz... Leave this one alone. It's not even a little bad. Save your energy for the certain to come AWB fight, a push to change the legal age to purchase any gun to 21, repeal 2A and whatever else is being cooked up right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted February 16, 2018 at 08:57 PM Share Posted February 16, 2018 at 08:57 PM I think this argument might have been better made before concealed carry, and less so now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallbore Posted February 16, 2018 at 09:04 PM Share Posted February 16, 2018 at 09:04 PM I would not want to be a test case trying to convince a judge that in inserted loaded magazine but chamber empty is an unloaded gun.Try to find a gun owner who believes it.How many trained range officers will let you go down range when you having a benched gun with an inserted mag.I believe the "reasonable man" definition would also find an inserted loaded mag as a loaded gun.Why would a gun owner who emphasized safety want to argue that a gun loaded with ammo is not loaded? Your car has a full tank of gas but it is not currently injecting gas into the engine so this means the car is empty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanishjames Posted February 16, 2018 at 09:13 PM Share Posted February 16, 2018 at 09:13 PM As far as I'm concerned, we've got it good regarding loaded vs unloaded. We can have ammo in a magazine near a firearm, but not inside the gun. Let it be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hazborgufen Posted February 16, 2018 at 10:19 PM Author Share Posted February 16, 2018 at 10:19 PM I think this argument might have been better made before concealed carry, and less so now. This is a fair point I suppose. Though there are people who transport a truck gun who this might affect. Or for people who transport in prohibited locations like the CTA. Plus with how expensive concealed carry is, some people may still be fannypack carrying and this might open up a new option. I recall the motto for fannypack carry was "6 seconds to safety" due to the requirement that you unzip a pouch to produce the magazine and then insert it. If the magazine can already be in the pistol it would dramatically cut down how many seconds it takes to defend yourself. I would not want to be a test case trying to convince a judge that in inserted loaded magazine but chamber empty is an unloaded gun.Try to find a gun owner who believes it.How many trained range officers will let you go down range when you having a benched gun with an inserted mag.I believe the "reasonable man" definition would also find an inserted loaded mag as a loaded gun.Why would a gun owner who emphasized safety want to argue that a gun loaded with ammo is not loaded?Your car has a full tank of gas but it is not currently injecting gas into the engine so this means the car is empty? But we can point to other states that have defined a loaded firearm as one that is chambered. There is precedent. Haz... Leave this one alone. It's not even a little bad. Save your energy for the certain to come AWB fight, a push to change the legal age to purchase any gun to 21, repeal 2A and whatever else is being cooked up right now. I get this too. Part of why I think we should push to gain ground is so that we aren't always playing defense. Throw them off balance by loosening a perceived restriction that they didn't even know existed. It's one of the reasons I was so disappointed that suppressors weren't legalized in this state. It would have given us a lot of ground and put the anti's on the defensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papa Posted February 17, 2018 at 12:16 AM Share Posted February 17, 2018 at 12:16 AM You can't get anything passed in this state if the tyrant Madigan won't let it get to the floor for a vote. Or if he doesn't want it to pass he will pull the right strings to block it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundguy Posted February 17, 2018 at 12:19 AM Share Posted February 17, 2018 at 12:19 AM I think this argument might have been better made before concealed carry, and less so now. Haz... Leave this one alone. It's not even a little bad. Save your energy for the certain to come AWB fight, a push to change the legal age to purchase any gun to 21, repeal 2A and whatever else is being cooked up right now. I get this too. Part of why I think we should push to gain ground is so that we aren't always playing defense. Throw them off balance by loosening a perceived restriction that they didn't even know existed. It's one of the reasons I was so disappointed that suppressors weren't legalized in this state. It would have given us a lot of ground and put the anti's on the defensive. It could easily go the wrong way and become more restrictive. If a magazine is loaded and in the gun, the gun is loaded. It's just less ready to fire... Two Seconds to Safety? Stay licensed to carry concealed and carry in a manner with a gun that's appropriately ready to go. We p***** 'em off with Fanny Pack Carry, a popularized loophole they hated, which used language from the ISP brochure because it was out there and the accepted manner in which to legally transport a gun. Their terms. Their language. Our win. Right now, they (the common censers) have the ball. You may note that the MSM (aka the Real News) is using the term Assault Weapon less frequently. And they have been shooting down false claims (Everytown for Gun Safety) like 30 mass shootings or 19 school shootings already in 2018. Save this for later on when Congress is writing the rules for the National Gun Control Act of 2020 which will keep us and our children all safe with uniform reasonable restrictions across all 50 states. Maybe we can get a CCW endorsement right on our mandatory passports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagSlap Posted February 17, 2018 at 01:20 AM Share Posted February 17, 2018 at 01:20 AM I always thought 'loaded' meant.... http://www.nonstopparty.co.uk/images/_lib/fully-loaded-beer-belt-19316-478-1433236775000.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borgranta Posted February 17, 2018 at 05:07 AM Share Posted February 17, 2018 at 05:07 AM Another thing to ponder...if unloaded is so clearly defined and analyzed in the courts, does "loaded" need to be explicitly defined? Doesn't any condition (within reasonable meanings of the words) NOT meeting that definition constitute a loaded gun? Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkGood question. If a magazine inserted is considered loaded, should an AR15 with the upper and lower separated but with a magazine in the lower be considered loaded?That may seem ludicrous to think about until you realize that the lower is the firearm and if we take loaded to mean “magazine in the firearm” then this condition might qualify.It’s not unreasonable to want a clear definition of the term loaded. Absent the clear definition I would think that the least obtrusive definition would have to stand which is ammunition in the chamber. Am I wrong?The AR15 as you describe meets the definition of dis-assembled in a non-functioning state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.