Mr. Fife Posted June 15, 2019 at 03:50 PM Share Posted June 15, 2019 at 03:50 PM 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; Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Fife Posted June 15, 2019 at 04:37 PM Share Posted June 15, 2019 at 04:37 PM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted June 15, 2019 at 07:41 PM Share Posted June 15, 2019 at 07:41 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NRApistol Posted June 15, 2019 at 08:02 PM Share Posted June 15, 2019 at 08:02 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Fife Posted June 15, 2019 at 09:11 PM Share Posted June 15, 2019 at 09:11 PM 66/65 only applies to people carrying under the FCCL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockman Posted June 15, 2019 at 09:40 PM Share Posted June 15, 2019 at 09:40 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 *** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHICAGO HANDGUN OWNER Posted June 15, 2019 at 10:43 PM Author Share Posted June 15, 2019 at 10:43 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted June 15, 2019 at 10:48 PM Share Posted June 15, 2019 at 10:48 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tip Posted June 16, 2019 at 12:02 AM Share Posted June 16, 2019 at 12:02 AM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Fife Posted June 16, 2019 at 12:21 AM Share Posted June 16, 2019 at 12:21 AM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Posted June 16, 2019 at 11:35 AM Share Posted June 16, 2019 at 11:35 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockman Posted June 16, 2019 at 01:28 PM Share Posted June 16, 2019 at 01:28 PM 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 *** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russ S. Posted June 16, 2019 at 02:49 PM Share Posted June 16, 2019 at 02:49 PM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockman Posted June 16, 2019 at 03:07 PM Share Posted June 16, 2019 at 03:07 PM 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 *** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubbacs Posted June 16, 2019 at 04:01 PM Share Posted June 16, 2019 at 04:01 PM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vito Posted June 16, 2019 at 06:13 PM Share Posted June 16, 2019 at 06:13 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chislinger Posted June 16, 2019 at 07:05 PM Share Posted June 16, 2019 at 07:05 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHICAGO HANDGUN OWNER Posted June 16, 2019 at 08:18 PM Author Share Posted June 16, 2019 at 08:18 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Fife Posted June 16, 2019 at 08:41 PM Share Posted June 16, 2019 at 08:41 PM We'll know the answer if this ever gets to trial... https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7430047/solomon-v-madigan/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted June 16, 2019 at 09:03 PM Share Posted June 16, 2019 at 09:03 PM We'll know the answer if this ever gets to trial... https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7430047/solomon-v-madigan/ That case is challenging the constitutionality of the Forest Preserve prohibition based on a previous CCL violation. We already know the answer for how the CCL violation was resolved. ... Plaintiff is currently licensed by the State of Illinois to carry a concealed firearm pursuant to the Illinois Concealed Carry Act. Plaintiff is 59 years old. On 4/30/2015 Plaintiff was licensed to carry a concealed weapon and went fishing in the Cook County Forrest Preserve. Plaintiff was stopped by the Cook County Sheriff Forrest Police in relation to his fishing activity. When questioned Plaintiff disclosed that he had a permit to carry and was armed with two concealed handguns. Plaintiff was arrested and charged with a violation of 430 ILCS 66/65 (a)(14). Plaintiff’s cause of action was dismissed after completion of community service with no adjudication of guilt, supervision, or finding of guilt. [People of The State Of Illinois V. Simon Solomon 15200153105 Circuit Court Of Cook County.] ... TL;DR: A guy is charged in 2015 for carrying in Cook County Forest Preserve while fishing; He did community service prior to any verdict; The FCCA case was dismissed with no court supervision or verdict; Now he's challenging the prohibition itself in Federal District Court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted June 16, 2019 at 09:55 PM Share Posted June 16, 2019 at 09:55 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. I'm not sharing anything related to this topic with anyone. The part you missed (as usual) was I spoke with an ATTORNEY. That ATTORNEY was referred to me by my ATTORNEY and might end up representing someone who was arrested last week for an unintentional discharge in a restaurant bathroom and a suburban PD took his handgun and CCL. The ISP is in the process of revoking his CCL. I looked up where the Forest Preserve District Of Cook County Department Of Law Enforcement and saw that their barracks was literally a few miles from my house so I also sought clarification from them. They aren't friends, just LEOs. Basically I don't care if you think the "exemption clause" voids (430 ILCS 66/65). Sec. 65. Prohibited areas. (a) (22) or gives you the ability to pick and choose what is "exempt". Feel free to use the "exemption clause" in anyway you want and then complain to the Feds. Oh wait I think that's a shoot on sight thing so have your estate argue it. He/she had every right to have a concealed handgun at the Braidwood Nuclear power plant, it's part of the "exemption clause". I have clarification from two sources on the subject and since I will end up paying an attorney for legal advice and spent my time talking with the Forest Preserve District Of Cook County Department Of Law Enforcement because I wanted absolute clarification, I wont be sharing the answer. You could be right or you could be wrong but you wont be finding out from me. I'm done with this silliness so you can respond until you pass out. Have fun "traveling". It would be better to leave hyperbole out of this. Your relentless sarcasm adds nothing to logical discussion, either. There is no exemption in the FCCA for Federally prohibited locations. I think you already know that. Please tone it down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Fife Posted June 16, 2019 at 11:34 PM Share Posted June 16, 2019 at 11:34 PM Wait, we can carry at nuke plants now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billzfx4 Posted June 17, 2019 at 01:09 AM Share Posted June 17, 2019 at 01:09 AM Wait, we can carry at nuke plants now? Only if you're fishing for three eyed bass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Fife Posted June 17, 2019 at 01:18 AM Share Posted June 17, 2019 at 01:18 AM Bonus! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHICAGO HANDGUN OWNER Posted June 17, 2019 at 04:06 AM Author Share Posted June 17, 2019 at 04:06 AM · Hidden by Xwing, June 17, 2019 at 02:06 PM - accidentally clicked on "unhide". sorry. Hidden by Xwing, June 17, 2019 at 02:06 PM - accidentally clicked on "unhide". sorry. Mick I don't care what you think either. Mauser is right you can't have a logical debate because you are so emotionally invested in your opinion. Link to comment
Plinkermostly Posted June 17, 2019 at 11:59 AM Share Posted June 17, 2019 at 11:59 AM sigh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHICAGO HANDGUN OWNER Posted June 17, 2019 at 01:42 PM Author Share Posted June 17, 2019 at 01:42 PM I'm going to keep on eye on this court case. I think it will be ruled in our favor. I think someone should file a lawsuit to get the right to carry on public transportation next after this incident on the South Sidehttps://www.foxnews.com/us/woman-with-concealed-carry-license-shoots-kills-would-be-robber-at-chicago-bus-stop-police-say. This woman was carrying on public transportation and on this day it likely saved her life! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted June 17, 2019 at 04:25 PM Share Posted June 17, 2019 at 04:25 PM Fixed url: Fox News: Woman with concealed carry license shoots, kills would-be robber at Chicago bus stop, police say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted June 17, 2019 at 04:29 PM Share Posted June 17, 2019 at 04:29 PM Fixed url: Fox News: Woman with concealed carry license shoots, kills would-be robber at Chicago bus stop, police say She probably carried on buses, but this shooting was at the bus stop, not on a bus. ... The woman, who suffered minor injuries during the incident, is not expected to face charges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xwing Posted June 17, 2019 at 06:24 PM Share Posted June 17, 2019 at 06:24 PM She probably carried on buses, but this shooting was at the bus stop, not on a bus. And the story said "near a bus stop". So at the time when she saved her own life, she wasn't breaking the law. (She would've been breaking the law a min later when the bus came, but they can't charge you because you will "break the law in the future".) Of course, this is Illinois, so the "Though Police" may be the next bill in the General Assembly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.