M3brad Posted August 29, 2017 at 07:35 PM Share Posted August 29, 2017 at 07:35 PM I've exhausted all my resources and now I am turning to all of you. Can we carry a laser-equipped handgun in Cook county and/or Chicago? Some reliable sources have said "yes" and others have said "there's no clear answer." Anybody out there with the answer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richp Posted August 29, 2017 at 07:55 PM Share Posted August 29, 2017 at 07:55 PM Hi, Don't expect a clear answer until there is a court case that goes through the full range of appeals, or the General Assembly makes it crystal clear. FWIW. Rich Phillips Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted August 29, 2017 at 08:17 PM Share Posted August 29, 2017 at 08:17 PM The legislature's intent was to preempt local ordinance in regard to the sights you use as a licensee (among other things). Sometimes the City dances to its own drummer but I think I've read in our forums that lasers haven't been a problem for the one or two people who posted about contact with law enforcement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raw Power Posted August 29, 2017 at 08:20 PM Share Posted August 29, 2017 at 08:20 PM If it's a part of the gun (ships that way from the factory), I think you're definitely in the clear. If it's an aftermarket add-on, there may be a little less protection under the legislative intent of the FCCA, but we haven't seen a test case on that yet (as far as I know). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M3brad Posted August 29, 2017 at 10:16 PM Author Share Posted August 29, 2017 at 10:16 PM A lieutenant for a suburban police department basically said the same thing. His words were, "Not a word about lasers and there's a lot of words!" How about maximum magazine capacity while I have your attention? Thanks for your lightening quick responses!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glock23 Posted August 29, 2017 at 10:42 PM Share Posted August 29, 2017 at 10:42 PM I think Chicago/Cook is 15 rounds per recent discussion? One might be 12... Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InterestedBystander Posted August 29, 2017 at 11:52 PM Share Posted August 29, 2017 at 11:52 PM Lasers are in the Chicago local ordinances but not aware of anyone convicted (or charged?) with the violation. 8-20-060 Possession of a laser sight accessory, firearm silencer or muffler. (a) It is unlawful for any person to carry, possess, display for sale, sell or otherwise transfer any laser sight accessory, or a firearm silencer or muffler. (b ) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any members of the armed forces of the United States, or the organized militia of this or any other state, or peace officers, to the extent that any such person is otherwise authorized to acquire or possess a laser sight accessory, or firearm silencer or muffler, and is acting within the scope of his duties. (c ) Any laser sight accessory, or firearm silencer or muffler, carried, possessed, displayed or sold in violation of this section is hereby declared to be contraband and shall be seized by and forfeited to the city.(Added Coun. J. 7-2-10, p. 96234, § 4) 8-20-070 Unlawful firearm, laser sight accessory, or firearm silencer or muffler in a motor vehicle Impoundment. (a) The owner of record of any motor vehicle that contains an assault weapon, a laser sight accessory, or a firearm silencer or muffler, shall be liable to the city for an administrative penalty of $2,000 plus any towing and storage fees applicable under Section 9-92-080. If the violation takes place within 500 feet of the boundary line of a public park or elementary or secondary school, the penalty shall be $3,000 plus towing and storage fees. Any such vehicle shall be subject to seizure and impoundment pursuant to this section. (b ) Whenever a police officer has probable cause to believe that a vehicle is subject to seizure and impoundment pursuant to this section, the police officer shall provide for the towing of the vehicle to a facility controlled by the city or its agents. Before or at the time the vehicle is towed, the police officer shall notify any person identifying himself as the owner of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation, of the fact of the seizure and of the vehicle owner's right to request a vehicle impoundment hearing to be conducted under Section 2-14-132 of this Code. (c ) The provisions of Section 2-14-132 shall apply whenever a motor vehicle is seized and impounded pursuant to this section.(Added Coun. J. 7-2-10, p. 96234, § 4; Amend Coun. J. 11-16-11, p. 14596, Art. I, § 1; Amend Coun. J. 7-17-13, p. 57262, § 1) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted August 29, 2017 at 11:53 PM Share Posted August 29, 2017 at 11:53 PM A lieutenant for a suburban police department basically said the same thing. His words were, "Not a word about lasers and there's a lot of words!" How about maximum magazine capacity while I have your attention? Thanks for your lightening quick responses!! If you accept the fact that the legislature defines the meaning of the law it makes, and that "legislative intent" matters, then debate on SB114 of the 98th General Assembly provides some clarification. This was the first trailer bill passed on the FCCA. During House debate, in response to questioning by Representative Sullivan intended to define legislative intent, Representative Phelps responded: Absolutely, Representative. Any unit or local government cannot regulate how you carry a concealed firearm, where you can carry it, what type of ammunition you can carry, how much you carry, the type of sights you use, the size of the magazine. The total and complete regulation of the carrying of a firearm is the sole exclusive jurisdiction of this Body. Regardless of what the aldermen in the City of Chicago think or want, we... we did not give decision makers on this issue, we are. The state only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKplumber Posted August 30, 2017 at 01:58 AM Share Posted August 30, 2017 at 01:58 AM A lieutenant for a suburban police department basically said the same thing. His words were, "Not a word about lasers and there's a lot of words!"How about maximum magazine capacity while I have your attention?Thanks for your lightening quick responses!! If you accept the fact that the legislature defines the meaning of the law it makes, and that "legislative intent" matters, then debate on SB114 of the 98th General Assembly provides some clarification. This was the first trailer bill passed on the FCCA.During House debate, in response to questioning by Representative Sullivan intended to define legislative intent, Representative Phelps responded: Absolutely, Representative. Any unit or local government cannot regulate how you carry a concealed firearm, where you can carry it, what type of ammunition you can carry, how much you carry, the type of sights you use, the size of the magazine. The total and complete regulation of the carrying of a firearm is the sole exclusive jurisdiction of this Body. Regardless of what the aldermen in the City of Chicago think or want, we... we did not give decision makers on this issue, we are. The state only.[/quote There ya go everyone. End of discussion. If this doesn't answer the question once and for all then it will never be answered.Thank you very much mauserme! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M3brad Posted August 30, 2017 at 01:03 PM Author Share Posted August 30, 2017 at 01:03 PM I doubt that Rep Phelps would have my back on this one and I'd sure hate to be the first guy to test the law in Chicago. It's sure not worth having my gun taken, car impounded and heavy fines to carry a laser equipped firearm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Posted August 30, 2017 at 02:23 PM Share Posted August 30, 2017 at 02:23 PM I doubt that Rep Phelps would have my back on this one and I'd sure hate to be the first guy to test the law in Chicago. It's sure not worth having my gun taken, car impounded and heavy fines to carry a laser equipped firearm.I'd rather live and have a gun taken, car impounded, and pay fines. A laser doesn't change the function of a gun. For many it probably helps especially if you have only split second time to react. IMO IANAL but I can't imagine a jury would make a decision based on a red light in the event that you had to use your gun in self defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted August 30, 2017 at 02:39 PM Share Posted August 30, 2017 at 02:39 PM I doubt that Rep Phelps would have my back on this one and I'd sure hate to be the first guy to test the law in Chicago. It's sure not worth having my gun taken, car impounded and heavy fines to carry a laser equipped firearm. From your opening post I thought you were looking for information. I see now that your decision had already been made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M3brad Posted August 30, 2017 at 04:20 PM Author Share Posted August 30, 2017 at 04:20 PM From your opening post I thought you were looking for information. I see now that your decision had already been made. mauserme, why the attitude? I think it was pretty clear I was looking for information and yes, from the information I gathered from this post, I have made my decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BShawn Posted August 30, 2017 at 04:24 PM Share Posted August 30, 2017 at 04:24 PM FWIW I live and carry in Chittycago every day, and my EDC has a laser! Granted it's not a severe as before when we couldn't carry at all, my question is still the same: "Who are you more afraid of, criminals or cops?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raw Power Posted August 30, 2017 at 05:14 PM Share Posted August 30, 2017 at 05:14 PM A lieutenant for a suburban police department basically said the same thing. His words were, "Not a word about lasers and there's a lot of words!" How about maximum magazine capacity while I have your attention? Thanks for your lightening quick responses!! If you accept the fact that the legislature defines the meaning of the law it makes, and that "legislative intent" matters, then debate on SB114 of the 98th General Assembly provides some clarification. This was the first trailer bill passed on the FCCA. During House debate, in response to questioning by Representative Sullivan intended to define legislative intent, Representative Phelps responded: Absolutely, Representative. Any unit or local government cannot regulate how you carry a concealed firearm, where you can carry it, what type of ammunition you can carry, how much you carry, the type of sights you use, the size of the magazine. The total and complete regulation of the carrying of a firearm is the sole exclusive jurisdiction of this Body. Regardless of what the aldermen in the City of Chicago think or want, we... we did not give decision makers on this issue, we are. The state only. I hadn't seen that before... Pretty clear-cut. I'd seen the legislative intent behind FOID transport on CTA, but not this. Thanks for posting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richp Posted August 30, 2017 at 05:59 PM Share Posted August 30, 2017 at 05:59 PM Hi, The real problem lurks below the surface, in multiple stages. A street cop and his/her sergeant who are not fully up to speed on this. Someone in the line of authority regarding charging decisions who thinks the court needs to have a say, supervised by a States Attorney who is virulently anti-gun. Add in the bad luck to get a Cook County judge who may be immune to following the actual law, as sometimes -- sadly -- is the case. Detention. Bail. Hiring an attorney. Preliminary hearings. Trial. If convicted, appeal. If exonerated, lengthy frustrating attempts to get your gun and vehicle back. And who knows what I've missed? Well maybe time, money, stress, loss of freedom? This is the likely reality that keeps anyone from being willing to be a test case. And it also motivates folks who have laser sights to be extra cautious, I'll bet. FWIW. Rich Phillips Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InterestedBystander Posted August 30, 2017 at 06:08 PM Share Posted August 30, 2017 at 06:08 PM just as fyi, transcript above and the question Rep Phelps was responding to starts on page 18 at: http://ilga.gov/House/transcripts/Htrans98/09800080.pdf Sullivan: "So, recently, the City of Chicago passed an ordinance mandating that any restaurant ban the carrying of a concealed firearm or face the loss of their liquor license. Now, according to what we passed, is there anything in this Bill that changes that preemption, the intent of our General Assembly?" Phelps: "Representative Sullivan, the city cannot, let me say that again, the city cannot add additional places that a person could not carry a concealed firearm, nor place any additional mandate or requirements on licenses. They could not ban carrying in a restaurant, they could not mandate that all private property post signs, and what the City of Chicago did was backdoor attempt of banning conceal carry. The law we passed does not allow them to do that or any other Home Rule ordinance." Sullivan: "So to be clear, when the City of Chicago ordinance ischallenged in court, and when the court looks to the legislative intent that we're talking about today, it is our intent that the carry law be prohibited the sort of regulation that the city is attempting to force upon businesses by threatening their licenses they get from the city as a means of forcing those to ban conceal carry." Phelps: "Absolutely, Representative. Any unit or local government cannot regulate how you carry a concealed firearm, where you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borgranta Posted August 30, 2017 at 10:43 PM Share Posted August 30, 2017 at 10:43 PM If someone is going to use a laser one that is built into the gun including but not limited to a guide rod laser would be the most legally defensible since Chicago would need to regulate the entire handgun in direct violation of state law in order to regulate an integrated laser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spec5 Posted August 31, 2017 at 12:26 AM Share Posted August 31, 2017 at 12:26 AM I doubt that Rep Phelps would have my back on this one and I'd sure hate to be the first guy to test the law in Chicago. It's sure not worth having my gun taken, car impounded and heavy fines to carry a laser equipped firearm. From your opening post I thought you were looking for information. I see now that your decision had already been made.Some people don't want an answer to the question they asked. The OP doesn't know who Brandon Phelps is and the length he went to get us concealed carry in Illinois. Brandon Phelps had our backs for years and for years to come. You took the time Mauser to post the same thing you had posted numerous times before and didn't want to say to the OP that it has been covered over and over and over again. You took the time to answer in a very forthright way and respectful way. Thanks again for posting it again. I doubt that Rep Phelps would have my back on this one and I'd sure hate to be the first guy to test the law in Chicago. It's sure not worth having my gun taken, car impounded and heavy fines to carry a laser equipped firearm. From your opening post I thought you were looking for information. I see now that your decision had already been made.Some people don't want an answer to the question they asked. The OP doesn't know who Brandon Phelps is and the length he went to get us concealed carry in Illinois. Brandon Phelps had our backs for years and for years to come. You took the time Mauser to post the same thing you had posted numerous times before and didn't want to say to the OP that it has been covered over and over and over again. You took the time to answer in a very forthright way and respectfull way. I saw the same thing that you did from his reply that no matter what you said he had his mind made up. Thanks again for posting it again and helping us all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoRonin70 Posted August 31, 2017 at 06:06 AM Share Posted August 31, 2017 at 06:06 AM I use a guide-rod laser sight in my EDC, and I will happily be the test case. I carry a laminated card with the relevant preemption statute on one side, and the legislative intent language on the other, to present along with my CCL and other documents to law enforcement if needed: "Strictly preempts authority of local governments as to the regulation, licensing, possession, registration and transportation of handguns and handgun ammunition. Invalidates home rule communities' current restrictions such as Chicago's high capacity handgun magazine ban, handgun registration, and its prohibition on handgun laser sights and accessories." It's right along side the cards of my current attorneys and when I can find a new Second Amendment attorney to have on retainer, I'll be nestling that right next to it as well. Let them try to take my retired journalist and legal researcher, disabled veteran, domestic-violence-victim- and LGBTQIA-self-defense-instructing butt to court for a supposed violation. You better believe that I will be both their bad publicity and legal nightmare. I have lots of time these days, and my righteous curmudgeon quotient is astronomical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRJ Posted August 31, 2017 at 10:26 AM Share Posted August 31, 2017 at 10:26 AM CPS Teacher Charged With Dealing Ammo, Gun Accessories In Federal Sting http://dnain.fo/2gpZJZe Somebody got charged for providing a lazer sight to a felon... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubbacs Posted August 31, 2017 at 11:43 AM Share Posted August 31, 2017 at 11:43 AM CPS Teacher Charged With Dealing Ammo, Gun Accessories In Federal Sting http://dnain.fo/2gpZJZeSomebody got charged for providing a lazer sight to a felon... Read the posted articleConfused as othersSelling or buying a "Extended" magazine is against the law?Magazines aren't regulated are they?Ammo.....yesHandguns.....yesBut magazines and laser sights?It said the FBI did the sting and it's the justice department that's charging him, no?Illegally passing along a "Extended" magazine seems to be wrong, but I'm not up on Federal laws!I think its just inaccurate reporting. The laser and mag are discussed in the 18 page charge document but only charges seem to be gun and ammo.As posted in the original thread, peeps are stating there are no charges concerning the lazer sight you talk about!I haven't taken the time to read the entire 18 pages posted on that same link you provided yet tho'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoRonin70 Posted August 31, 2017 at 02:24 PM Share Posted August 31, 2017 at 02:24 PM http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/000/613/Shoopdawhooplong.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M3brad Posted August 31, 2017 at 05:48 PM Author Share Posted August 31, 2017 at 05:48 PM ChicagoRonin70 - first of all, thank you for your service to our country and your passion for defending your rights! I came here hoping I would get a definitive, black & white answer on the subject, but I see there isn't one at this point. To the two "mind readers" on this thread, I was truly hoping I'd get the green light to purchase a laser-equipped handgun for my new concealed carry weapon. So, my mind was not yet made up. To say this exact subject has been discussed numerous times is not accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glock23 Posted August 31, 2017 at 05:54 PM Share Posted August 31, 2017 at 05:54 PM It is accurate, actually, but no worries. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoadyRunner Posted September 1, 2017 at 12:33 PM Share Posted September 1, 2017 at 12:33 PM My main carry gun has a built in laser. Ergo, it's not an 'accessory'. And I often carry it in Chicago.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plinkermostly Posted September 2, 2017 at 02:23 PM Share Posted September 2, 2017 at 02:23 PM I hate going in to 'the city.' I didn't used to -- grew up going there to see movies and museums. My Bro. was in town staying in a Loop hotel so we took the train in to see him. I decided not to carry -- which is one of the major reasons I hate going downtown. I figured I could FOID carry on the train -- and then I have to carrry a camera case alll day. And when we went to lunch every dang store and resturant (Monroe, Wabash, State area) got the stupid sign in the window. Then there is the Laser issue 'cause my LCP came with one. I know I could have -- but what a pain. They won. So I just carried my OTF and a switchblade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M3brad Posted September 22, 2017 at 06:45 PM Author Share Posted September 22, 2017 at 06:45 PM I thought I'd update you all on what I found out from a high-ranking Chicago police official. I did search the subject and if this has been discussed before, I apologize. Apparently, this is relatively new news . . . - aggravated assault: The act of pointing a laser equipped firearm in the vicinity, but not at or on another individual - aggravated battery: The act of pointing a laser equipped firearm at or on an another individual. Law enforcement, according to my source, considers the laser an extension of yourself and that's where the "assault" and "battery" come in. He also said that an OEM or aftermarket laser is allowed in Chicago, but also stated if you're going to use the laser, it better be justified, therefore you better be firing the weapon. His words, not mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Posted September 22, 2017 at 07:08 PM Share Posted September 22, 2017 at 07:08 PM I thought I'd update you all on what I found out from a high-ranking Chicago police official. I did search the subject and if this has been discussed before, I apologize. Apparently, this is relatively new news . . . - aggravated assault: The act of pointing a laser equipped firearm in the vicinity, but not at or on another individual- aggravated battery: The act of pointing a laser equipped firearm at or on an another individual. Law enforcement, according to my source, considers the laser an extension of yourself and that's where the "assault" and "battery" come in. He also said that an OEM or aftermarket laser is allowed in Chicago, but also stated if you're going to use the laser, it better be justified, therefore you better be firing the weapon. His words, not mine.Assuming that you were asking the original question as if in the event of using the gun in self defense. The assault/battery charges are of no concern if you were in a self defense situation. If you do have a laser and it is pointed at someone, it should be just a split second later before the first round is released. Again this is a self defense situation. I'd be extremely cautious taking any advice from a "high ranking" Chicago cop. Not badmouthing the PoPo but we have seen many times that they aren't as up to date on specific laws as some here. In their eyes it is the attitude of arrest now and let the court figure it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InterestedBystander Posted September 22, 2017 at 07:16 PM Share Posted September 22, 2017 at 07:16 PM He also said that an OEM or aftermarket laser is allowed in Chicago, but also stated if you're going to use the laser, it better be justified, therefore you better be firing the weapon. His words, not mine.He says it is allowed, but, while perhaps not having been used to charge anyone, the laws are still on the books...see post #7. Is there an updated CPD memorandum/directive? http://directives.chicagopolice.org/directives/data/a7a57bf0-14450db7-d5814-450e-8defaa3488664866.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.