Jump to content

Concealed Carry and laser-equipped handguns - Cook county & Chicago


M3brad

Recommended Posts

 

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.

 

 

As I have mentioned in other threads, I have popped on my guide-rod laser in several incidents where I was threatened with imminent physical danger by potential attackers, including a few with visible or "implied" firearms, and the laser itself acted as an instantaneous deterrent to further hostilities. Literally, they saw the laser and turned around and ran away before I would have been able to get a shot off that would not have hit them in their fleeing @sses.

 

A laser sight, therefore, is simply another option in the escalation of force continuum that, in my considerable experience, is even more likely than the presence of a firearm to avert harm from a criminal attacker, because that red dot means the rounds I let out are not going to miss.

 

Talking to criminals as a journalist, I have asked about this subject and got some very interesting responses. It seems that criminals who encounter someone with a laser sight on a firearm are of the opinion that such a person is "serious" about their firearms and is probably a well-practiced, extremely effective shooter, so the moment they see someone with a laser or a "tactical" firearm, the instinct is to run away rather than shoot it out with someone who is an "expert" or dedicated to making sure whoever they shoot stays shot.

 

Also, most criminals apparently don't recognize the green laser as much of a threat as a red laser, because you always see the red lasers in films and television shows. The average dumb criminal literally doesn't recognize it as the danger it is, because of cultural frame of reference due to media exposure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

I don't recall ever seeing that specific wording in any statute. Could you please let us know where you found it? Thanks! :flowers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

I don't recall ever seeing that specific wording in any statute. Could you please let us know where you found it? Thanks! :flowers:

 

 

It's actually from a summary of the HB183, back when the concealed carry law was being drafted and passed. I and other people posted this exact same thing a few years back.

 

Here is one of the original discussions of the bill.

 

This link shows another of those discussions, that I posted this same excerpt in.

 

Here is a direct link to a PDF of the summary of bill, discussing the legislative intent of the bill.

 

There are more such documents, such as the debate transcript where Rep. Brandon Phelps discusses specifically that the CCL legislation preempts sights, magazines, accessories, and everything connected to handguns. It's on page 18 and 19 where he specifically discusses Chicago's bans being invalid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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

 

I don't know about internal memoranda, but it makes sense that they would keep the ordinance on their books.

 

The preemption we're discussing applies only to people licensed under the FCCA. The Chicago ordinance still applies to non-licensees including those with only a FOID card, those in possession of a firearm illegally, as well as people from out of state (with some possible exceptions).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

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

 

I don't know about internal memoranda, but it makes sense that they would keep the ordinance on their books.

 

The preemption we're discussing applies only to people licensed under the FCCA. The Chicago ordinance still applies to non-licensees including those with only a FOID card, those in possession of a firearm illegally, as well as people from out of state (with some possible exceptions).

 

 

No, preemption applies to all FOID holders as well not just to concealed carry licencees. The FOID act also has preemption language.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My hometown Chicago is a law-breaking Sanctuary City with the backing of my Mayor.

 

My home County of Cook wants 'save me' from sugar sweetened beverages so it taxes my diet decaf cola to the insane max.

 

Neither entitity strikes me as a bastion of interpretation of 'the laws'. We are all therefore left puzzled and confused by design until legal precedent is set in the courts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While far from an expert on this, I literally just had all of this drilled into my head Sunday during a CCL class. The instructor was very clear about preemption. There were many questions asked about magazine capacities in Chicago and some suburbs and he was adamant about preemption. He literally spoke about preemption and how it literally applied to everything. The one thing he was also adamant about were NO laser sights in Chicago. He said and had on a big TV "No laser sights in Chicago". He repeated everything about three times and preemption trumped about every local ordinance. He did not explain why it did not include Chicago's no lasers ordinance. I was too tired because in all irony I had gotten 4 hours of sleep because we had range day late on Saturday. After I cleaned my pistol that I used to qualify which does have a Crimson Trace laser on it I changed batteries. (I had electrical tape over the laser during qualifying) Long story short I ended up soldering for about an hour because of a broken contact putting in fresh batteries. Stupid but true, I couldn't make that one up if I wanted to. In bed after fixing my Crimson Trace at 2 AM, up at 6AM and in class at 8AM after a long drive. I should have asked why preemption did not include lasers in Chicago but that will not be my carry gun, it's too big for summer concealment. It is for the house. I agree with ChicagoRonin70 that if you put a red dot on someone, they should know you are not messing around. Criminals know that the bullet goes where the dot is from TV. They would have to be pretty stupid to not leave immediately. I don't need it but think about it, it's a great deterrent.

Because the legislature makes law and defines its meaning, your instructor is incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That argument literally came down to that I was supposed to talk with the person who broke into my house and ask them what their intentions were. I thought that by forcibly kicking down my door in the middle of the night their intentions were pretty clear, they meant me and my family harm. It only got extremely idiotic from there. It literally was someone kicks in your front door and you are supposed to say "Hi, may I help you?" Sometimes you have to shut up even though you know the other person is wrong.

 

In my mind, this isn't even a topic for CCL. You don't need a CCL to have a gun in your home for self-defense. I think the best answer is...nobody here wants to shoot or kill anyone if they can avoid it. But, the law is also quite clear that you're within your rights to shoot a person who enters your abode uninvited in a "rambunctious" manner (or other such language). That's existing Illinois law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My hometown Chicago is a law-breaking Sanctuary City with the backing of my Mayor.

 

My home County of Cook wants 'save me' from sugar sweetened beverages so it taxes my diet decaf cola to the insane max.

 

Neither entitity strikes me as a bastion of interpretation of 'the laws'. We are all therefore left puzzled and confused by design until legal precedent is set in the courts.

 

 

Can we have an: Amen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please see (720 ILCS 5/7-2) (a)(1) at http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?ActID=1876&ChapterID=53&SeqStart=8200000&SeqEnd=9700000 :

 

 

...The entry is made or attempted in a violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner, and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or offer of personal violence to, him or another then in the dwelling...

 

 

Please consult a qualified attorney (which I am not) for clarity on these issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, most criminals apparently don't recognize the green laser as much of a threat as a red laser, because you always see the red lasers in films and television shows. The average dumb criminal literally doesn't recognize it as the danger it is, because of cultural frame of reference due to media exposure.

 

 

That may be true BUT it is easier for me to see the green laser than the red one, esp. in daylight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. I was shocked by the amount of selling of products and services in this CCL class.

 

realizing it was a sell for CCL insurance.

Our FCCL instructor mentioned there was such a thing as CCL insurance and that if we intended to carry we should consider it for obvious reasons. I would not call it a sell by any extent especially since he didn't try to push us toward any single CCL insurance provider.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Also, most criminals apparently don't recognize the green laser as much of a threat as a red laser, because you always see the red lasers in films and television shows. The average dumb criminal literally doesn't recognize it as the danger it is, because of cultural frame of reference due to media exposure.

 

 

That may be true BUT it is easier for me to see the green laser than the red one, esp. in daylight.

 

 

True, but that is somewhat made up for the flashing laser that I have in my guide-rod laser sight. That makes it much more visible compared to a constant on red beam.

 

The ideal compromise would be blue, which is brighter than red, has great battery life, and is less sensitive to temperature than green. I do hope that LaserMax will come out with at some point. I would buy the H ell out of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad this topic is back on track, I'm actually sick of writing about my CCL class, that's in the past. I find that in bright daylight a constant red on beam is pretty hard to see and I always associated a green beam with the military or law enforcement. I personally think that in a darker environment that a constant red beam is best for putting fear into your common criminal. While this has been written in a much more elegant manner, a criminal is going to have TV and movies as a reference. About 75% of the time give or take the "bad" guy is lit up with a bunch of red lasers. Most criminals don't realize it actually doesn't matter what color the laser is, if it's on you, you are an acquired target. At that point they should stop and flee. That prevents them getting shot and a law abiding citizen the hassles associated with and trauma of having to shoot them.

 

Personally I like the idea of a blue laser but going out on a limb I would like to see someone come up with a purple laser. Purple is just a mix of red and blue. I think it would look pretty cool but if you want to put fear into someone, solid red is etched into most peoples heads as the one that is shinning on the "bad" guy right before he gets shot on TV. While not made for pistols the Crimson Trace LiNQ Green Laser Sight and Tactical Light is $600. One of the main reasons I like LaserMax over others is the price point. They are just more reasonably priced with a better warranty. My point is you have a $1000 1911, are you willing to spend $480 on a CTC laser sight? $200 for a LaserMax laser guide rod for a Glock is a steal in comparison and does the job that it's intended to do.

 

I have a purple laser pointer, and it is very difficult to see during the daytime. The "true blue" beam laser is what so far looks like the optimal compromise, as you can see here:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

um, generally you cannot see the laser unless you look down at yourself and see the dot on yourself. you do not see the "beam" coming from the gun like they show on tv and movies. they use smoke to show the beam, and normally there is nothing in the air that will reflect enough of the beam to show it to the observer. lasers are useless for "scaring" people as they simply do not work that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You will see a person pointing a firearm at you and you will see the diode emitting a color. That's in daylight. In a darker environment you will likely notice a dot on you. It is true that do use smoke and fog to exaggerate the beam on TV and movies. Basically if you are close enough you are going to see the guns laser diode in all but very bright conditions. If in doubt sweep that laser across their face, they'll see it. You wouldn't be pointing a firearm at them if they weren't a perceived threat so I doubt if they ran off they would run to the police or a lawyer. Even if they did you avoided having to shoot them, threat neutralized without firing a shot.

 

I've posted about several incidents where this has been exactly the case, over the past few years. One particularly memorable one, where the perpetrator was actually in the process of robbing some anti-firearm ingrates I had crossed paths with mere minutes before, actually defecated on himself out of fear when he saw the laser dot from my EDC on his body, and then ran off leaving an unpleasant reminder in his wake. It is a fine teaching moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ronin - your video of the 3 colors was good. Before I got my green one, I saw a blue at a local gunshow. I tried all 3 colors from the same units from the same manufacturer. Pointing the units at a painted wall at the show about 100 feet away, the green was still the most visible of the three. I found the red and the blue to have similar sized dots at that distance but the brightness (or lack thereof) surprised me. The red appeared to be slightly brighter than the blue but less than the green. The paint on the wall was an "off white" color so I don't know if that had something to do with it.

Please explain what you mean about the "temperature sensitivity" of the green lasers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ronin - your video of the 3 colors was good. Before I got my green one, I saw a blue at a local gunshow. I tried all 3 colors from the same units from the same manufacturer. Pointing the units at a painted wall at the show about 100 feet away, the green was still the most visible of the three. I found the red and the blue to have similar sized dots at that distance but the brightness (or lack thereof) surprised me. The red appeared to be slightly brighter than the blue but less than the green. The paint on the wall was an "off white" color so I don't know if that had something to do with it.

Please explain what you mean about the "temperature sensitivity" of the green lasers.

The true blue, not the violet blue ones, are almost as visible as green lasers. You may have been using one of those, which could explain the deficiency.

 

As for the temperature sensitivity, because of the difference in the diode and additional working parts, green lasers tend to be dimmer or fail at temperatures below 30-35°F and above 105-110°F. They are also more sensitive to fluctuations in barometric pressure changes.

 

On the other hand, both red and true blue lasers are much more robust, and are unaffected by much greater extremes of climate and environment. Thus, more reliable and energy efficient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...