22 replies to this topic

[r4ndy]

Tried a search on the iPad app and didn’t come up with anything, so sorry if already discussed... Took my renewal last night and was told Cook County Sheriffs are upholding 10 round mag limit even if you have a CCL as their stance is mag limit is part of AWB and the mag is not part of the gun which is preempted. Owner claimed people with CCL have been charged for possessing mags over 10 rounds by Cook County Sherries. I keep up on all the threads here and don’t ever recall seeing this discussed. Any truth to this?

[soundguy]

This has been debated before.

I have not heard of anyone being charged for having large mags in Cook County or anywhere else in Illinois. For a sheriff to discover you have a non-compliant magazine, you have likely done something that will be far more trouble for you than carrying a big mag. A sheriff or any other LEO is often not a reliable source for information.

I am part of the group that thinks preemption includes all parts of a handgun. If you carried a 30 round aftermarket magazine for micro 9 which normally holds 7, you might get some flack. If your pistol is outfitted with standard capacity magazines I cannot imagine you would ever have any troubles. My preferred carry pistols utilize 14 and 15 round magazines. My mini carry holds only 7. I live in Chicago. Cook County rules do not apply here.

The other side will now respond. Pay attention.

In the end, I think you have to make up your own mind.

Edited by soundguy, 20 September 2019 - 06:50 PM.

[357]

Unfounded BS.

[Bubbacs]

Maybe contact your instructor and get a bit more info?
Maybe he has links to peeps charged or has newspaper clippings?

Either way, as others said we haven’t heard or saw anyone charged!

[gunuser17]

Man charged in Chicago for possession of a high-capacity magazine according to news report and police arrest report in 2018.

 

http://publicsearch1...etails/17661712

 

https://patch.com/il...gun-chicago-cop

 

https://chicago.sunt...hatham-building

 

Charges 720 ILCS 5.0/24-1.1-A UUW - WEAPON - FELON/PAROLE-POSSESS/USE FIREARM PRIOR OFFENSE AS CITED

720 ILCS 5.0/12-2-B-4 AGG ASSAULT/PEACE OFFICER/WEAPON OFFENSE AS CITED

8-20-085(A) HIGH CAP MAG AND METAL PIERCING BULLETS - SALE/POSS PROH OFFENSE AS CITED

720 ILCS 5.0/24-1.7-A ARMED HABITUAL CRIMINAL OFFENSE AS CITED

725 ILCS 5.0/110-3 ISSUANCE OF WARRANT OFFENSE AS CITED

Edited by gunuser17, 20 September 2019 - 10:01 PM.

[gunuser17]

Another alleged offender was just charged on September 11th with unlawful possession of an extended handgun magazine along with a number of state felony charges:

 

http://publicsearch1...etails/17807379

 

8-20-085(A) HIGH CAP MAG AND METAL PIERCING BULLETS - SALE/POSS PROH OFFENSE AS CITED

Now, whether it ever goes to trial on either of these cases is hard to know.  The only way to look up criminal case outcomes in Chicago that I know of is to go to the County Clerk's office to look up individual cases.  There is no internet access to criminal cases.

[Euler]

Man charged in Chicago for possession of a high-capacity magazine according to news report and police arrest report in 2018.
...

But not a CCL-holder, so it doesn't count. Preemption only applies to CCL-holders.

[soundguy]

Man charged in Chicago for possession of a high-capacity magazine according to news report and police arrest report in 2018.

 

http://publicsearch1...etails/17661712

 

https://patch.com/il...gun-chicago-cop

 

https://chicago.sunt...hatham-building

 

Charges 720 ILCS 5.0/24-1.1-A UUW - WEAPON - FELON/PAROLE-POSSESS/USE FIREARM PRIOR OFFENSE AS CITED

720 ILCS 5.0/12-2-B-4 AGG ASSAULT/PEACE OFFICER/WEAPON OFFENSE AS CITED

8-20-085(A) HIGH CAP MAG AND METAL PIERCING BULLETS - SALE/POSS PROH OFFENSE AS CITED

720 ILCS 5.0/24-1.7-A ARMED HABITUAL CRIMINAL OFFENSE AS CITED

725 ILCS 5.0/110-3 ISSUANCE OF WARRANT OFFENSE AS CITED

 

For both cases the magazine charges are add ons. The subjects were already felons, unable to lawfully have a gun and had some other current troubles. Neither was arrested for "hi cap mags".

 

I reiterate: no one has been arrested for having a hi cap mag.

[gunuser17]

Your statement was:  "I have not heard of anyone being charged for having large mags in Cook County or anywhere else in Illinois."  The two examples cited shows that while you have not heard of it, it has occurred at least twice and those two instances were found in about 5 minutes.  Are there more?  I don't know and haven't looked but your rebuttal now sets forth a different statement - essentially I believe that you are now saying a CCL holder charged under the city ordinance and only the city ordinance.  I will think on that and see if there is a way to search that new statement.  You may be correct but having not heard of it doesn't mean that it hasn't happened.

Edited by gunuser17, 21 September 2019 - 02:46 PM.

[gunuser17]

I did just find this one - no mention of CCL or FOID but not charged with failure to have FOID or unlawful possession.  Only other charge was obstructing traffic.:

 

 

NAME

WILLIAM E CROWDER

AGE

28

CB NUMBER

19849753

ARRESTED

Saturday, August 3, 2019 9:20 PM

ARREST LOCATION

4306 W 18TH ST

ARRESTING AGENCY

CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT

RELEASED (AGENCY DETENTION FACILITY)

Sunday, August 4, 2019 3:34 AM

BOND TYPE

IBOND

BOND AMOUNT

$120

BOND DATE

2019 Aug 04

AREA

1 - Central

DISTRICT

010

BEAT

1012

 History Charges

8-20-085(A) HIGH CAP MAG AND METAL PIERCING BULLETS - SALE/POSS PROH OFFENSE AS CITED

9-80-180 OBSTRUCTION OF TRAFFIC BY NON-MOTORIST OFFENSE AS CITED

[gunuser17]

Similar situation for this one - no mention of CCL, FOID or unlawful possession

 

 

• Chicago Police Home
• Arrest Search Home

Details

Arrest NAME THEODORE L HUBBARD AGE 46 CB NUMBER 19851130 ARRESTED Tuesday, August 6, 2019 9:15 PM ARREST LOCATION 1256 S TRIPP AVE ARRESTING AGENCY CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT RELEASED (AGENCY DETENTION FACILITY) Wednesday, August 7, 2019 12:15 AM BOND TYPE IBOND BOND AMOUNT $120 BOND DATE 2019 Aug 07 AREA 1 - Central DISTRICT 010 BEAT 1011  History

Charges

8-20-085(A) HIGH CAP MAG AND METAL PIERCING BULLETS - SALE/POSS PROH OFFENSE AS CITED

8-20-085(A) HIGH CAP MAG AND METAL PIERCING BULLETS - SALE/POSS PROH OFFENSE AS CITED

625 ILCS 5.0/12-603.1 IVC - NOT WEARING SEAT BELT/DRIVER OFFENSE AS CITED

Edited by gunuser17, 21 September 2019 - 03:00 PM.

[Bubbacs]

So if you are a felon and not supposed to have a gun
If you obstruct traffic or commit a traffic offense
If you are in possession of what I assume is drugs
And as stated by others, no one has been walking in Crook County or the city of Chicago and been stopped for mag capacity!

The original charges are always something else.
Being charged and being convicted are two things
Extract charges are always thrown in and then thrown out later

BUT you did prove that they can charge, now let’s see a conviction!

I’ll buy the first round and throw in some fresh baked brownies I just baked this morning at 4:20am

[soundguy]

Your statement was:  "I have not heard of anyone being charged for having large mags in Cook County or anywhere else in Illinois."  The two examples cited shows that while you have not heard of it, it has occurred at least twice and those two instances were found in about 5 minutes.  Are there more?  I don't know and haven't looked but your rebuttal now sets forth a different statement - essentially I believe that you are now saying a CCL holder charged under the city ordinance and only the city ordinance.  I will think on that and see if there is a way to search that new statement.  You may be correct but having not heard of it doesn't mean that it hasn't happened.

 

It's an add on charge.

 

Like Euler said... It Doesn't Count.

 

Similar situation on the THEODORE L HUBBARD arrest. This was in Chicago where the listed mag capacity is 15 rounds. I'm guessing they could not find a chargeable violation other than No Seat Belt so they added HCM to it.

 

Let's see if we can get more info.

Edited by soundguy, 21 September 2019 - 06:13 PM.

[gunuser17]

Most of these are so new that no outcome will probably be known for at least a year and then the only way to actually look up an outcome is to go to the Court Clerk's office to use their terminal to look up the case.  There is almost always going to be a predicate charge since they won't find a magazine on a concealed carry holder unless they are stopped for something else.  The seat belt charge is subject to a maximum penalty of a $25 fine and the police officer cannot search the car relying only on a seat belt stop under the law so it would be interesting to see how they found the magazines in the Hubbard case.

[Tango7]

Given the felony status behind most of these charges (who knows if they were ever actually prosecuted), this sounds like another example of the great Wildlife Code definition debacle.

For those that don't remember, the Criminal Code and the Wildlife Codes used to have different definitions of what a "case" to contain a firearm was. I lost track of the number of people over the years who swore their cousin's neighbor's uncle knew a guy down the street who had once been charged for violating the WLC by having a firearm in a briefcase, a duffel bag, or other container not 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, usually by an overly enthusiastic anti-2A officer who had nothing else to charge them with (not even the offense that they claimed started the encounter).

Even though these practices were supposedly prevalent, several gun stores in our area started using 12" x 48" black plastic bags to provide to customers without cases to comply with the law while carrying their long arms to their vehicles, and none ever had issues.

Oddly enough, the people relating these stories could never provide a name, county of offense or case number for me to research, and I could never find a WLC charge that wasn't also related to the actual taking of game, either legally or illegally.

Luckily, the definition of "case" in both Codes was standardized in August of 2012 as "any case, firearm carrying box, shipping box, or container".

[NukemJim]

An interesting viewpoint from a case in California. Since California requires a magazine disconnect on handguns and the gun will not work without a magazine the argument is that the magazine is an integral part of the gun not an add on. Do not know how it will turn out but definetly an interesting viewpoint.

[Glock23]

An interesting viewpoint from a case in California. Since California requires a magazine disconnect on handguns and the gun will not work without a magazine the argument is that the magazine is an integral part of the gun not an add on. Do not know how it will turn out but definetly an interesting viewpoint.

I've made that argument here since the FCCA was passed... just haven't had a test case yet.

[carry]

The magazines are shipped with the firearms from the manufacturer - itâs probably listed on the bill of materials list and schematic drawings of the firearm. Sounds like an integral part. I recall hearing that Illinois would charge you with something like possessing a loaded firearm if your magazine was loaded even though it was separated from the firearm. Sounds like they considered it an integral and integrated part even when not connected to the gun.

Edited by carry, 27 September 2019 - 07:21 AM.

[soundguy]

carry...

Illinois specifically says that a loaded magazine is fine for transportation as long as it is not inserted in the gun. It may be in the same “case” as the unloaded gun. This was a crucial point in the days before legal carry when many transported an unloaded gun with a full magazine in fanny packs. The phrase “Six Seconds To Safety” was often used. This was legal “transport” in Illinois. I don’t think anything has changed. DuPage Co paid out a bunch of cash in a transport case.

[Talonap]

 

Man charged in Chicago for possession of a high-capacity magazine according to news report and police arrest report in 2018.
...

But not a CCL-holder, so it doesn't count. Preemption only applies to CCL-holders.

 

 

I'm pretty sure it also applies to FOID holders.

[THE KING]

Man charged in Chicago for possession of a high-capacity magazine according to news report and police arrest report in 2018.
...

But not a CCL-holder, so it doesn't count. Preemption only applies to CCL-holders.

 
I'm pretty sure it also applies to FOID holders.

Talonap is correct. There are 2 sections on preemption. The first is section 90 of the FCCA. The second is under section 13.1 of the FOID act.

[WitchDoctor]

Don't Chicago and Cook have two different laws regarding mag capacity?

[InterestedBystander]

Don't Chicago and Cook have two different laws regarding mag capacity?

On the books, Cook has a 10 round limit ant Chicago has 15.