120 replies to this topic

[1957Human]

Saturdaynightspecial, on Oct 9 2009, 02:57 PM, said:

Wildlife code applies to wildlife or hunting or both locations ONLY.

Todd would know...

Ask Kevin Kohl. He wasn't hunting but still was found guilty under section 2.33(hh) of the Wildlife Code.

[burningspear]

Not immediately accessible

[Federal Farmer]

Intra- and Inter-state travelers passing through certain jurisdictions in IL would probably still be bound by the tighter restrictions unless they were transporting in accordance with FOPA.  I think that means encased, unloaded, in the trunk.  That would be a misdemeanor but could result in confiscation and legal hassles.

[Tvandermyde]

1957Human, on Oct 9 2009, 12:21 PM, said:

Tvandermyde, on Oct 9 2009, 08:04 AM, said:

The Wildlife Code now has a problem of the doctrine of "lesser included" This is where the same conduct, gets you two different penalties. If unloaded and enclosed in a case, is legal. But unloaded and enclosed in a case gets you a ticket or what ever under the Wildlife Code, you are entitled to the lesser penalty. In this case, pun intended, no penalty.

***
I don't get why people are so hung up on the Wildlife Code and the case stuff there. ALL the UUW cases are just that [--] UUW not Wildlife Code charges.

Todd, I was thinking the same thing. After all, the same section of the Wildlife Code that prohibits possession of an uncased gun (aka, the "illegal-methods provision": section 2.33) also makes it "unlawful to kill or cripple any species protected by this Act for which there is a daily bag limit without making a reasonable effort to retrieve such species and include such in the daily bag limit." (See section 2.33(hh).) Yet, no one would argue that you need to include a squirrel you ran over on your way into work in your "bag limit," because implicit in a section 2.33 offense is that you need doing something related to hunting.

So I went looking for cases that repeat that principle. What I found, though, is not reassuring.

In 1978 one Kevin Kahl was found by a Nokomis police officer sleeping in his auto in a ditch with a loaded .357 in his open console. (The only thing he had been hunting was trouble.) He was subsequently charged under both the UUW provision of the Criminal Code and the Wildlife Code and found guilty of both. The appellate court tossed out the Wildlife Code violation as a lesser-include offense of UUW. People v. Kahl, 63 Ill. App. 3d 703 (1978). This is the opinion that established the principle that the uncased gun provision of the Wildlife Code is a lesser-included offense under UUW.

Two points are important here: (1) here's an example of a guy who was not, nor had he been, hunting, yet he was charged under the Wildlife Code for an "illegal methods" (uncased weapon) offense, and (2) perhaps there aren't currently uncased gun charges being filed under the Wildlife Code because they've been viewed, since 1978, as a lesser-included offense under the UUW statute. Even after Diggins, a naked gun in a console is still considered "uncased" under the Wildlife Code. That being the only offense that can be charged, how long before a gun-unfriendly State's Attorney bring an "illegal methods" charge, regardless of whether one is hunting, under the Wildlife Code as a test case? You can bet there are a few who are even now thinking this way.

Nevertheless, another principle of the law would come into play if that happens. Where two statutes cover the same topic, the one more specific to the alleged activity controls. In this case, if one is engaged in hunting-related activities (even if going or coming from a hunt), he should follow the Wildlife Code in its definition of "case." If he's not, then the UUW definition of case should control the outcome. But, as you said, it's just a ticket and not a two-year vacation in beautiful Joliet.

The lesser included would now apply in the reverse, as the wildlife code would be the one booted since it is the one with the penalty. I would wager that it was creative cops trying to pile on to make something stick. As for whay they have been charged a few times and the smart guys just ignored it.

My source at the State Police said it was going out as a shift bulletin to make them aware of the ruling.

If nothing else for the guys that want to poo poo this as no big thing, it's another psycological victory for us against the antis who are still pissing and moaning about Obama leaving them in the cold.

in their midwestern battle ground state, they continue to loose ground.

[Don Gwinn]

Again, I'm not saying the Wildlife Code should be applied to non-hunting situations, I'm just pointing out that it can be and has been and caution becomes us.
Even those of us who haven't been e-stalked by crazy elderly state troopers.

[Ocellairs]

Tvandermyde, on Oct 9 2009, 08:04 AM, said:

There was a case, where a woman had a gun in a purse and won at the appelate level. I think it was Bruner in Macon county. there was also another one down south around Williamson County i believe where she had it ina purse or fanny pack at the county fairgrounds.


** My hard drive crashed last week with all my court files and documents on it. I'm trying to salvage it but I may be short a lot of historical info I had for a while, until I rebuild it.

2. The Wildlife Code now has a problem of the doctrine of "lesser included" This is where the same conduct, gets you two different penalties. If unloaded and enclosed in a case, is legal. But unloaded and enclosed in a case gets you a ticket or what ever under the Wildlife Code, you are entitled to the lesser penalty. In this case, pun intended, no penalty.

As a side note, if you get pulled over after leaving the field by a CPO, you are transporting a gun. If they come up to you inthe field, you are allowed to have a loaded unclased gun while hunting, or let say it's just after sundown, you unload the gun, sling it over your shoulder, and start to walk out. You're still legal.

I don't get why people are so hung up on the Wildlife Code and the case stuff there. ALL the UUW cases are just that UUW not Wildlife Code charges.

....sounds like a case for a Carbonite commerical about this time is in order.

[Tvandermyde]

yea they stick out on the radio these days when I'm driving.

my IT guys are going to open it up and see what they can do they think they can get it. It sounds like a missed shift on a vega when you plug it in ans start it up. I got about 65% on my laptop hard drive. It's just the stuff sicne June that I lost.

but there are a lot of news articles I save as well as PDFs of court cases and such. I seem to have one of the larger archieves about gun issues, bills, news stories and such.

[1957Human]

Tvandermyde, on Oct 9 2009, 05:55 PM, said:

The lesser included would now apply in the reverse, as the wildlife code would be the one booted since it is the one with the penalty. I would wager that it was creative cops trying to pile on to make something stick. As for whay they have been charged a few times and the smart guys just ignored it.

You need two offenses for there to a lesser. And under Diggins there will no longer be a Criminal Code offense. Yay.

[asfried1]

I just read the opinion itself, and it is interesting in a lot of ways.  Definitely worth reading.  Particularly the story line (from both sides) that leads up to the arrest.  My personal take home points:  a)  never ever answer questions from the police without an attorney!  and   don't store your driver's license with your illegally stowed firearms!

Re the traffic stop - I have been declining to answer questions from police since a pal got a DUI in Pensacola, Florida, 16 years ago.  Turns out the practice of the Escamba County deputies was to ask all Naval Aviators if they had been drinking.  The reason for this is that they felt that most of us could pass the field sobriety test and appear sober even if our blood alcohol levels were above the limits (who knows if this was actually the case).  My friend said "yes" and the rest is history.    I guess he might have gotten dinged anyhow, but that event killed his career in the Navy and he will always have to wonder if he would have been fine if he had just kept his mouth shut.  What I do now is tell the officer how much I respect police, mention that I am a veteran, and then (sheepishly) tell him that my brother the attorney would kill me if I answered police questions without him present.  I always get a ticket, but I never have to answer questions.  And I have never ever ever had my car searched.

[Gbbear]

Don Gwinn, on Oct 9 2009, 08:02 AM, said:

After this ruling, I think they'd have a hard time pushing a case based on an unloaded firearm enclosed in a zippered compartment of a purse, yes.

I carry in a purse (mine's a tactical man-purse, but I don't kid myself) with a zippered compartment, actually.  But mine has the factory holster and mag loops installed in the compartment so that it's clear that it was specifically designed to house a firearm.  I agree with Todd about thin ice, but I had a retired ISP trooper hinting darkly about my "tinfoil hat craziness" and how he knows all about me and where I live awhile back, so I figure a questionable traffic stop or even arrest is not completely outside the realm of possibility for me.  I comply with the Wildlife Code out of an abundance of caution.

While I'm admitting to manliness deficiency, I must note that my boxy little turbocharged Eurocar's console is not large enough to hold any of my pistols.

For what it's worth, I asked a Conservation officer friend of mine, with rank, about carrying unloaded in a fanny pack.  He says it's perfectly legal.  But this is only one officer's opinion.  We'll never know about fanny packing until it too goes to court for a ruling.

And Don, you look mean enough that if you were wearing a pink tutu, I wouldn't say a thing.  

I have a Maxpedition Jumbo Versipak ready for conceal carry.

[lockman]

Gbbear, on Oct 9 2009, 06:51 PM, said:

Don Gwinn, on Oct 9 2009, 08:02 AM, said:

After this ruling, I think they'd have a hard time pushing a case based on an unloaded firearm enclosed in a zippered compartment of a purse, yes.

I carry in a purse (mine's a tactical man-purse, but I don't kid myself) with a zippered compartment, actually.  But mine has the factory holster and mag loops installed in the compartment so that it's clear that it was specifically designed to house a firearm.  I agree with Todd about thin ice, but I had a retired ISP trooper hinting darkly about my "tinfoil hat craziness" and how he knows all about me and where I live awhile back, so I figure a questionable traffic stop or even arrest is not completely outside the realm of possibility for me.  I comply with the Wildlife Code out of an abundance of caution.

While I'm admitting to manliness deficiency, I must note that my boxy little turbocharged Eurocar's console is not large enough to hold any of my pistols.

For what it's worth, I asked a Conservation officer friend of mine, with rank, about carrying unloaded in a fanny pack.  He says it's perfectly legal.  But this is only one officer's opinion.  We'll never know about fanny packing until it too goes to court for a ruling.

And Don, you look mean enough that if you were wearing a pink tutu, I wouldn't say a thing.  

In essence it has gone to trial. The Illinois Supreme Court just decided a case, shipping box, container etc. is what the common use dictates. A fanny pack than completely encloses the firearm is a case just as a nylon zippered gun case is. A case is a case no matter if you are on foot or in a car, attached to your car or your person makes no difference.

[junglebob]

Tvandermyde, on Oct 9 2009, 08:04 AM, said:

There was a case, where a woman had a gun in a purse and won at the appelate level. I think it was Bruner in Macon county. there was also another one down south around Williamson County i believe where she had it ina purse or fanny pack at the county fairgrounds.


** My hard drive crashed last week with all my court files and documents on it. I'm trying to salvage it but I may be short a lot of historical info I had for a while, until I rebuild it.

2. The Wildlife Code now has a problem of the doctrine of "lesser included" This is where the same conduct, gets you two different penalties. If unloaded and enclosed in a case, is legal. But unloaded and enclosed in a case gets you a ticket or what ever under the Wildlife Code, you are entitled to the lesser penalty. In this case, pun intended, no penalty.

As a side note, if you get pulled over after leaving the field by a CPO, you are transporting a gun. If they come up to you inthe field, you are allowed to have a loaded unclased gun while hunting, or let say it's just after sundown, you unload the gun, sling it over your shoulder, and start to walk out. You're still legal.

I don't get why people are so hung up on the Wildlife Code and the case stuff there. ALL the UUW cases are just that UUW not Wildlife Code charges.

Todd, The incident at the fairgrounds was a woman by the name of Haggerty I believe,(first name Vana I believe) it was near Salem.  It was at the Marion County fair, the city of Marion is in Williamson County BTW. She had a booth at a gun show at the fairgrounds I believe, selling among other things paper weights that looked like brass knuckles.  That is what brought a cop to her booth, he asked those are brass knuckles aren't they?  She said they are paper weights.

Budman5,  I wear a black Uncle Mikes fanny pack most of the time, I never wear madras shorts, or velcro athletic shoes.  I know a black fanny pack screams gun.  I guess Southern Illiinois cops dont pay attention. or know the transport laws.

Ms. Haggerty had a .380 in a fanny pack is what I read, she won the case.

[GarandFan]

Have you folks seen this, yet?  It's quite nice, particularly the comments by the Sangamon county sheriff.  I recall Sangamon county is one in which the Pro 2A Resolution did not pass.  

We need this sheriff to become more involved!

Again, no explicit mention that they have to be unloaded (we know they do, but the public does not).  Seems like an important oversight.



http://www.sj-r.com/...in-car-consoles

Court OKs storing guns in car consoles
By STAFF AND WIRE REPORTS
THE STATE JOURNAL-REGISTER
Posted Oct 08, 2009 @ 11:29 AM
Last update Oct 09, 2009 @ 06:04 AM

An Illinois Supreme Court decision that gun owners can carry weapons in consoles and other storage boxes built into their cars won’t make much difference to law enforcement officers, Sangamon County Sheriff Neil Williamson said Thursday.

Illinois law lets people carry guns in their cars if they are unloaded and enclosed in a case or other container. The question was whether a compartment for items like CDs and sunglasses meets the legal definition of a “case” for carrying guns.

In issuing its ruling Thursday, the Supreme Court overturned a 2003 appellate court decision that said a glove compartment is not a “case” under the law.

Williamson said the change doesn’t concern him.

“All the officers and deputies are trained all the time to constantly be thinking of the possibility of a gun in the car,” he said.

“And it’s not the honest citizen I’m worried about, it’s the crooks,” Williamson added. “They’re going to have the gun anyway -- they’re not going to care if there’s a law on the books or not. We could have a jillion laws on books outlawing guns. They’re going to carry them anyway.”

The ruling was prompted by a Peoria case in which a man had been sentenced to 2 1/2 years in prison for carrying two pistols in his car’s storage compartment.

The defendant, Michael Diggins, reportedly told police he was planning to drive to Florida and he carried his guns – a .45-caliber automatic pistol and a .357 Magnum revolver – in the console when traveling because the highway was “dangerous.”

Diggins’ guns were unloaded and he had a valid Illinois firearms owner identification card.

The Supreme Court said Diggins could be tried again for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon because witnesses contradicted each other about whether the center console of his Chevrolet Suburban was ajar or locked.

The Illinois State Rifle Association filed a “friend of the court” brief supporting Diggins.

[bob]

lockman, on Oct 9 2009, 07:03 PM, said:

In essence it has gone to trial. The Illinois Supreme Court just decided a case, shipping box, container etc. is what the common use dictates. A fanny pack than completely encloses the firearm is a case just as a nylon zippered gun case is. A case is a case no matter if you are on foot or in a car, attached to your car or your person makes no difference.

Well, they have decided what a case is. Its pretty unequivocal now that for the purposes of the UUW acts, a fanny pack is a case.

An enterprising SA might decide to argue the transporting side of it. I think they would lose on that issue as well.

Quote

transport
verb (used with object) 1. to carry, move, or convey from one place to another

Seems fairly clear by the Internet dictionary definition. But that does not mean a court might decide it doesn't mean what it means.

You have to remember that the state has an unlimited budget for legal fees, and you don't.

[Sigma]

Can't wait to hear Daley's response as he can't clearly see he is fighting a loosing battle.

[lumpy76]

I'm still a little confused.  Can I transport an unloaded pistol in my center council with a loaded mag in an overhead compartment?  Since they are separated but within easy reach.  Thanks.

[abolt243]

lumpy76, on Oct 10 2009, 10:33 AM, said:

I'm still a little confused. Can I transport an unloaded pistol in my center council with a loaded mag in an overhead compartment? Since they are separated but within easy reach. Thanks.

Yes, you can also transport the pistol in your center console with a loaded mag in the same console, as long as it's not in the gun. See the ISP brochure.

AB

Disclaimer:  You are still subject to local ordinances that may prohibit you from owning such firearms. (i.e. Chicago's ban) I leave the local stuff up to you.

Edited by abolt243, 10 October 2009 - 10:06 AM.
Added disclaimer

[bob]

lumpy76, on Oct 10 2009, 10:33 AM, said:

I'm still a little confused.  Can I transport an unloaded pistol in my center council with a loaded mag in an overhead compartment?  Since they are separated but within easy reach.  Thanks.

To avoid the UUW act the gun has to be in a case and unloaded, and you have to have a FOID card. The law does not require the ammo be seperate.

Such a situation does not appear to meet the wildlife code requirements for a gun case.

Nothing says you cannot put the gun in a "gun" case unloaded in your console. That would appear to satisfy both the UUW act and the WC.

HOWEVER, this does not apply to non-residents since they cannot get FOID cards.

[abolt243]

bob, on Oct 10 2009, 11:08 AM, said:

HOWEVER, this does not apply to non-residents since they cannot get FOID cards.

I'm thinking that non-residents are just exempted from the FOID part because they are not eligible for FOID cards.  Non-residents are exempted from the waiting periods when buying long guns.  They can buy ammo without FOIDs because they are not required to have FOIDs.  

In the same brochure linked below, on the second page, the ISP RECOMMENDS that NR have the firearm unloaded, enclosed and not easily accessible.  I find nowhere in the statutes that says specifically that NR are held to a higher standard, as long as they are legally able to own a firearm in their home state.  Once again, the ISP is trying to make up the rules as they see fit, rather than simply state the law as it is written.

Perhaps Todd has some thoughts on this.

AB

[Sigma]

Illinois, Cook County, Chicago they all make me sick. But boy these last 3 victories gives hope.
And we had them all in the course of what 2 months?

[Tvandermyde]

Abolt you are correct. The ISP can't get part of it through their head that non-residents are exempt from the FOID card, hence they only need to be unloaded enclosed in a case. Some have made the arguement bordering on the frivolous, that unloaded and enclosed ina case only applies to Illinois residents with FOID cards. that is an absurd reading of the statute. That would be like saying that it would be ok for a felon to have a firearm broken down on the front seat. All three of the situations are implied to have a FOID card for Illnois residents. I guess at the time, it made sense the way it was written, but the group of us had been dealing with it for 7 months as in hindsight might have been a bit to close to it to see how this could get twisted.

But being the only non-lawyer in the room, everybody agreed to it and it made sense that in order to qualify for the exemption, a resident would have to have a FOID card. FOID card was suppose to modify all three protions, with the point beiung that non-residents don't get them, so all they had to do was do any of the three.

I would also point to the 24-2 exemptions:

"(i) Nothing in this Article shall prohibit, apply to, or affect the transportation, carrying, or possession, of any pistol or revolver, stun gun, taser, or other firearm consigned to a common carrier operating under license of the State of Illinois or the federal government, where such transportation, carrying, or possession is incident to the lawful transportation in which such common carrier is engaged; and nothing in this Article shall prohibit, apply to, or affect the transportation, carrying, or possession of any pistol, revolver, stun gun, taser, or other firearm, not the subject of and regulated by subsection 24‑1(a)(7) or subsection 24‑2© of this Article, which is unloaded and enclosed in a case, firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container, by the possessor of a valid Firearm Owners Identification Card."

How would a non-resident legally transport a firearm through the state?

It sets up an equal protection challange tot he law if they want to enforce it that way.

One more thing to fix that I'll add to the list.

[kurt555gs]

Hi folks, I am new here. I have been following the Diggins case and have some theories about how, by clearing up the ambiguity of a case would affect fanny pack carry. I tried to post the following as a comment at gunssavelife.com but it looks like they aren't posting comments:

Your organization had previously explored the use of a “fanny pack” case to carry an unloaded pistol as being legal in Illinois. A number of local States Attorneys cited ambiguity in the definition of a “case” in order to scare people from using a fanny pack to carry a pistol with them. In reading the Supreme Court decision in people vs Diggins, there is no longer ANY ambiguity is the definition of a “case”. IANAL, but between yesterday’s decision and the law signed by Governor Quin last month, I as a layman can not find anything in the plain reading of the law that would prohibit anyone with a valid FOID card from carrying an unloaded weapon along with ammo in a fanny pack “case”. I hope your organization will investigate how the recent law, and people vs Diggins applys to fanny pack carry in Illinois.

I would love anyone's opinion on my theory.

Cheers

[1957Human]

Tvandermyde, on Oct 10 2009, 11:52 AM, said:

One more thing to fix that I'll add to the list.

Will you have a reminder on that list for the legislators that a major factor a gun owner must consider is that once that case is opened, at least while being transported, the gun owner has just committed a felony? Thus, the requirement that a weapon be stowed in a case serves its purpose regardless of the nature of the case.

Because of this, I'd guess Mr. Diggins will once again be convicted of aggravated UUW.

[lockman]

1957Human, on Oct 10 2009, 04:37 PM, said:

Tvandermyde, on Oct 10 2009, 11:52 AM, said:

One more thing to fix that I'll add to the list.

Will you have a reminder on that list for the legislators that a major factor a gun owner must consider is that once that case is opened, at least while being transported, the gun owner has just committed a felony? Thus, the requirement that a weapon be stowed in a case serves its purpose regardless of the nature of the case.

Because of this, I'd guess Mr. Diggins will once again be convicted of aggravated UUW.

My center console is either wide open or latched closed. Even if I release the latch it will relatch if I do not lift it open. If I release the latch and lift slightly and ever so gently let it down it will be unlatched but would appear closed.

If the case goes to trial it may hinge on the gun not being visible or completlty enclosed. Like the zipper not fully closed not being an offense as long as the firearm is not visible.

[Bud]

I was going to start a new thread but I realized this one has been somewhat fragmented.

I am traveling and can't keep up that much with the speed of the thread but here is a couple of responses.

I retired from LE in 1987 so some of my of my info is dated, but my son is in LE and several of his friends that he grew up with are also so I am able to keep up during social occassions. I remeber a number of arrests for the carrying under the wildlife code and I just checked with several people I know and it is still being done. I am not saying this is reight, I am just saying it does happen.

Here's is what I was trying to stress. My experience is both as a street cop and as an administrator. Cops are motivated, particularily young cops, by peer status and number 1 in that area is making the hard arrests. A shootout is #1 followed by major drug bust, in progress robbery, burglary or rape and closely followed by a gun arrest. Car chases are always cool but domestics (unless something funny happens) car accidents and DUIs are not so much

An Illinois cop (particually a young one) will gain peer points every time he can tell a story about making a gun arrest. I have seen (in my time almost three decades removed) many gun arrests that included a violatioon of the wildlife code. If that is all that the really aggressive cop can charge you with, please have no doubt, they will do it. They don't really care what happens in court because the arrest is what counts in peer status and the overtime for court will be paid whether he loses or wins.

Yes, I have a problem with young cops (those under five years experience regardless of their chronological age) and here's a good example of two young hot dogs screwing up big time:

Young Cops Over Reacting
(notice that the cops are in a resteraunt, run to their separate squads in response to something and then are racing down residential streets at way to much speed. This just happened in Davenport IA.)

I would guess that cops on the smaller departments (not necessarily rural) would have an easier time charging someone with a wildlife code because the on scene superviusion is also yoiung or maybe not even present.

If a Chief walks in the next morning and finds out one his young studs locked up someone for a wildlife violation then the chances of him/her non-suiting the arrest are slim and probaly very far between.

Someone mentioned a possible concealed permit of $100 for a five year license if that ever becomes possible in Illinois.

Don't count on it. I have to qualify every year and it costs me $75 to qualify with one type of gun (semiauto for me) or $100 for both an auto and a revolver. That is every single year. You can bet the legislators in Illinois will tag a very large fee to get a concealed permit license from the applicants and there will be plenty of patronage in whatever office they form to administer the program and plenty of graft associated with the program.

After all, this is Illinois. Just in my lifetime, we have had two Governors get out of jail, one go in jail  and one waiting his turn to go.

I am off again in the morning for Ohio and then over to Iowa, back on Tuesday and then headed for Virginia on Wednesday to help one of my kids.

[abolt243]

BudMan5, on Oct 10 2009, 05:35 PM, said:

Someone mentioned a possible concealed permit of $100 for a five year license if that ever becomes possible in Illinois.

Don't count on it. I have to qualify every year and it costs me $75 to qualify with one type of gun (semiauto for me) or $100 for both an auto and a revolver. That is every single year. You can bet the legislators in Illinois will tag a very large fee to get a concealed permit license from the applicants and there will be plenty of patronage in whatever office they form to administer the program and plenty of graft associated with the program.

A huge fee will restrict the availability of the license and prohibit it from the folks that need it most.  I'm guessing a huge fee will not be acceptable and might even earn a lawsuit as "unreasonable restriction" per the Heller and McDonald decisions.  

As to the "peer status" of the officers that you speak of.  Perhaps if they paid more attention to the laws they are paid to enforce and less time "telling stories about gun arrests", they would actually know the law.  All too many times, we hear of an officer quoting some off the wall interpretation of the requirements for firearm transportation rather than the accurate law.  Seems there is a certain amount of ego that goes with the badge.  Unfortunately, there also seems to be a certain number of officers that get a double helping of that ego.

[Gbbear]

1957Human, on Oct 10 2009, 04:37 PM, said:

Tvandermyde, on Oct 10 2009, 11:52 AM, said:

One more thing to fix that I'll add to the list.

Will you have a reminder on that list for the legislators that a major factor a gun owner must consider is that once that case is opened, at least while being transported, the gun owner has just committed a felony? Thus, the requirement that a weapon be stowed in a case serves its purpose regardless of the nature of the case.

Because of this, I'd guess Mr. Diggins will once again be convicted of aggravated UUW.

So until we have a conceal carry law, what's the purpose of carrying in a fanny pack if we will be subject to arrest once we open the case?

I'm confused!  

[illinisnare]

PJ Star Article on Diggins

State's Attorney Kevin Lyons disagrees with the ruling.

"I do not think it makes for a safer world to circulate more guns in more places and certainly not at the side and reach of every driver stopped by a police officer. A police officer's job is dangerous and hard enough without making them uneasy that every driver they stop can have a gun at their fingertips," he said.

      

I forget which Diggins thread has the article that quotes the Sangamon Cty Sherriff as saying they approach situations as if anyone could have a gun....

I love how Kevin's 'sour grapes' argument has no basis in fact or law - just panty wringing emotion.  

[Saturdaynightspecial]

Car manufactures are already designing cases for guns.  Some consoles will have gun compartments (wildlife code legal). Good to have in any State.

[lockman]

Gbbear, on Oct 10 2009, 08:15 PM, said:

1957Human, on Oct 10 2009, 04:37 PM, said:

Tvandermyde, on Oct 10 2009, 11:52 AM, said:

One more thing to fix that I'll add to the list.

Will you have a reminder on that list for the legislators that a major factor a gun owner must consider is that once that case is opened, at least while being transported, the gun owner has just committed a felony? Thus, the requirement that a weapon be stowed in a case serves its purpose regardless of the nature of the case.

Because of this, I'd guess Mr. Diggins will once again be convicted of aggravated UUW.

So until we have a conceal carry law, what's the purpose of carrying in a fanny pack if we will be subject to arrest once we open the case?

I'm confused!  

If you have a firearm legally and use it in defense of your life the chance of prosecution for UUW is remote assuming the use of deadly force was justified. You will probably be arrested but that is a mere inconvenience compared to your untimely death.

Currently there are protections from prosecution from local and county ordinances for firearms violations arising out of a lawful use for self defense. The state still has the power to prosecute under state law.

The dynamic of everything we are discussing here will change after McDonald vs. Chicago, so I eagerly await the decision.