
Magazine capacity limit preemption
#1
Posted 20 September 2019 - 06:32 PM
#2
Posted 20 September 2019 - 06:47 PM
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.
#3
Posted 20 September 2019 - 08:07 PM
James Madison
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"
George Orwell
"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will loose both"
Benjamin Franklin
#4
Posted 20 September 2019 - 08:38 PM
Maybe he has links to peeps charged or has newspaper clippings?
Either way, as others said we haven’t heard or saw anyone charged!
#5
Posted 20 September 2019 - 09:59 PM
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.
#6
Posted 20 September 2019 - 10:22 PM
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.
#7
Posted 20 September 2019 - 10:26 PM
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.
- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.
#8
Posted 20 September 2019 - 10:27 PM
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.
#9
Posted 21 September 2019 - 02:45 PM
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.
#10
Posted 21 September 2019 - 02:56 PM
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.:
#11
Posted 21 September 2019 - 02:59 PM
Similar situation for this one - no mention of CCL, FOID or unlawful possession
Edited by gunuser17, 21 September 2019 - 03:00 PM.
#12
Posted 21 September 2019 - 04:34 PM
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
#13
Posted 21 September 2019 - 06:06 PM
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.
#14
Posted 21 September 2019 - 06:24 PM
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.
#15
Posted 22 September 2019 - 02:51 PM
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".
Despite their rallying around us at election time, honoring only 8 hours of Illinois' 40+ hour law enforcement class towards a 16 hour requirement shows the contempt that our elected officials hold us in.
#16
Posted 26 September 2019 - 03:56 PM
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.
#17
Posted 26 September 2019 - 08:34 PM
I've made that argument here since the FCCA was passed... just haven't had a test case yet.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.
** National Association for Gun Rights - Frontline Defender
** Gun Owners of America - Annual Member
** Illinois State Rifle Association - 3 year American Hero Member
** Second Amendment Foundation - Life Member
** National Rifle Association - Patron Life Member
#18
Posted 27 September 2019 - 07:21 AM
Edited by carry, 27 September 2019 - 07:21 AM.
#19
Posted 27 September 2019 - 07:40 AM
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.
#20
Posted 27 September 2019 - 09:00 AM
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.
#21
Posted 27 September 2019 - 09:36 AM
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.
NRA Patriot Life Member - Endowment
ISRA Member
NRA Certified Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
ISP Certified Illinois Conceal Carry Instructor
Retired Professional Firefighter / Paramedic
#22
Posted 27 September 2019 - 10:39 PM
Don't Chicago and Cook have two different laws regarding mag capacity?
3/504 Airborne
IC Sponsor
ISRA Member
Proud Parent to wonderful, most times, kids...
Tired of Chicago B.S.
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
#23
Posted 28 September 2019 - 07:32 AM
On the books, Cook has a 10 round limit ant Chicago has 15.Don't Chicago and Cook have two different laws regarding mag capacity?
ISRA Member
FFL-IL Supporter
SAF Member
GOA Member
🇺🇸
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users