Unanimous Posted April 12, 2012 at 08:46 PM Share Posted April 12, 2012 at 08:46 PM I know there is a lot of talk on this board about the fanny pack carry topic. My OPINION on this issue is that it is technically an easy win against the citizen for any prosecutor who wants to pursue it. My reasoning for this is based on a couple of points. Number one you are concealing the weapon which can be argued that it is unconstitutional because the 2'nd amendment only guarantees the people the right to bear arms as in wearing them. Secondly, the transportation laws were designed just for that... transporting the weapon to either the range, a hunt or a gunsmith, etc. This would NOT include transporting it along with you on your everyday routine to stores or to work or whatever. Where I am going with this is that under the second amendment we are in fact allowed to bear arms, or wear them openly. Under the thirteenth amendment there is also some interesting points. While this is listed under the "threat of consequences for forced labor" it seems highly applicable to enforcing the second amendment Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 – Conspiracy Against Rights:[19] Conspiracy to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person's rights or privileges secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 – Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law:[20] It is a crime for any person acting under color of law (federal, state or local officials who enforce statutes, ordinances, regulations, or customs) to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived the rights, privileges, or immunities of any person secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S. This includes willfully subjecting or causing to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race. My personal interpretation of this is that no state laws may be enacted denying anyone of the bill of rights and that would most certainly include any state including IL that bans open carry. And anyone enforcing them is guilty themselves of a crime. Am I wrong? Come at me liberals! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mstrat Posted April 12, 2012 at 08:51 PM Share Posted April 12, 2012 at 08:51 PM Come at me liberals! I'll strongly urge you not to paint this as a partisan issue. The right to bear arms is an issue for every American citizen. Please don't make it about party politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mstrat Posted April 12, 2012 at 08:52 PM Share Posted April 12, 2012 at 08:52 PM p.s. Welcome to the forum, and i'll probably add a reply of more substance later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFC Posted April 12, 2012 at 09:14 PM Share Posted April 12, 2012 at 09:14 PM Welp... give it a try and let us know what happens, 'Kay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikew Posted April 12, 2012 at 09:21 PM Share Posted April 12, 2012 at 09:21 PM I strongly urge you not to try to prove that you are rightby open carrying in defiance of the current law in Illinois. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Getzapped Posted April 12, 2012 at 09:42 PM Share Posted April 12, 2012 at 09:42 PM Do It!!!! I'll throw in five bucks to help bail ya out!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oneshot Posted April 12, 2012 at 09:43 PM Share Posted April 12, 2012 at 09:43 PM Better have a few thousand dollars to test it in court. At least. Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR1987 Posted April 12, 2012 at 09:50 PM Share Posted April 12, 2012 at 09:50 PM Welcome aboard. Legally speaking your personal interpretation is meaningless. IL laws is very clear on who may and who may not carry a firearm on their person within the IL borders. As the law is written you would be in violation. If the law were less clear your interpretation might hold more weight; but they are fairly clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colt-45 Posted April 12, 2012 at 09:52 PM Share Posted April 12, 2012 at 09:52 PM open carry in what act? on your land or in public? your land is ok but not in public you will get a UUW or AUUW in Illinois. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unanimous Posted April 12, 2012 at 09:56 PM Author Share Posted April 12, 2012 at 09:56 PM Welcome aboard. Legally speaking your personal interpretation is meaningless. IL laws is very clear on who may and who may not carry a firearm on their person within the IL borders. As the law is written you would be in violation. If the law were less clear your interpretation might hold more weight; but they are fairly clear.did you even read the attached portion of the thirteenth amendment I posted? My "personal interpretation" is the same conclusion anyone would arrive at Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unanimous Posted April 12, 2012 at 09:57 PM Author Share Posted April 12, 2012 at 09:57 PM Welp... give it a try and let us know what happens, 'Kay? Do It!!!! I'll throw in five bucks to help bail ya out!!!thanks for the mature input Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockman Posted April 12, 2012 at 10:38 PM Share Posted April 12, 2012 at 10:38 PM Welcome aboard. Legally speaking your personal interpretation is meaningless. IL laws is very clear on who may and who may not carry a firearm on their person within the IL borders. As the law is written you would be in violation. If the law were less clear your interpretation might hold more weight; but they are fairly clear.did you even read the attached portion of the thirteenth amendment I posted? My "personal interpretation" is the same conclusion anyone would arrive at In theory yes. Our mission is to put theory to practice in such a way as not to jeopardize life and liberty in the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilessiuc Posted April 12, 2012 at 10:50 PM Share Posted April 12, 2012 at 10:50 PM I am a prosecutor and I've read your post three times and my head hurts. While I agree with you that the 2nd amendment should be read to allow carry, at the present time Illinois courts and statutes do not allow for it. Throwing together some unrelated constitutional provisions and baiting liberals does not change that fact. Carry a loaded weapon and face a felony UUW charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lou Posted April 12, 2012 at 10:59 PM Share Posted April 12, 2012 at 10:59 PM Welcome to the forum. You will find a LOT of dedicated, educated and informed people here. IANAL but much of what we deal with as Second Amendment advocates is precedent. Precedent is currently against your personal interpretation but precedent is changed by challenging the existing interpretation in court. Not only will I be the first to wish your interpretation was correct but I will be the first to donate $25 to your defense fund. Get yourself arrested, challenge it in all the courts between Crook County and SCOTUS and when you win 4-5 years from now feel free to say "I told you so." Sadly, we live with existing precedent and not what we wish it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unanimous Posted April 12, 2012 at 11:06 PM Author Share Posted April 12, 2012 at 11:06 PM I am a prosecutor and I've read your post three times and my head hurts. While I agree with you that the 2nd amendment should be read to allow carry, at the present time Illinois courts and statutes do not allow for it. Throwing together some unrelated constitutional provisions and baiting liberals does not change that fact. Carry a loaded weapon and face a felony UUW charge. Ok FYI and everyone here the comment about liberals was a light hearted attempt at humor. Sorry for offending anyone "unrelated constitutional provisions" is simply your opinion. They seem very clear cut and definitive. You yourself say that 2A "should be read to allow carry" so are you saying that somehow a state statute can trump the bill of rights? Quite frankly my head hurts thinking you are actually a prosecutor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackTripper Posted April 12, 2012 at 11:07 PM Share Posted April 12, 2012 at 11:07 PM 10 characters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Getzapped Posted April 12, 2012 at 11:39 PM Share Posted April 12, 2012 at 11:39 PM That is a perfect picture!! It seems every so often someone comes in with the solution to our problems! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ishmo Posted April 12, 2012 at 11:40 PM Share Posted April 12, 2012 at 11:40 PM 10 characters lmao. Proof positive a picture is worth a thousand words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilessiuc Posted April 12, 2012 at 11:48 PM Share Posted April 12, 2012 at 11:48 PM I am a prosecutor and I've read your post three times and my head hurts. While I agree with you that the 2nd amendment should be read to allow carry, at the present time Illinois courts and statutes do not allow for it. Throwing together some unrelated constitutional provisions and baiting liberals does not change that fact. Carry a loaded weapon and face a felony UUW charge. Ok FYI and everyone here the comment about liberals was a light hearted attempt at humor. Sorry for offending anyone "unrelated constitutional provisions" is simply your opinion. They seem very clear cut and definitive. You yourself say that 2A "should be read to allow carry" so are you saying that somehow a state statute can trump the bill of rights? Quite frankly my head hurts thinking you are actually a prosecutor And who determines how the bill of rights is read, you? No judges do. And in case you haven't been following, Illinois judges have been consistently ruling against us lately. We will have ccw soon, through the IL legislature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFC Posted April 12, 2012 at 11:51 PM Share Posted April 12, 2012 at 11:51 PM My approach is a very simple one:There are people who won't listen to those who know.They have to learn things the hard way. Fine. Let them. Someone posts this about every 2-3 weeks. Could be an innocent comment or point of debate or it could be a troll.Either way, they have to learn the hard way. No problem... go for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzard Posted April 12, 2012 at 11:54 PM Share Posted April 12, 2012 at 11:54 PM Ok FYI and everyone here the comment about liberals was a light hearted attempt at humor. Sorry for offending anyone "unrelated constitutional provisions" is simply your opinion. They seem very clear cut and definitive. You yourself say that 2A "should be read to allow carry" so are you saying that somehow a state statute can trump the bill of rights? Quite frankly my head hurts thinking you are actually a prosecutor. So...after inviting pot shots from liberals....and apologizing for such.... you take a pot shot at prosecutors? I would wager there are many prosecutors in Illinois that would welcome RTC. Winnebago County State’s Attorney Joe Bruscato spoke favorably of RTC at the Winnebago County Town Hall Meeting in Rockford. But Anyway, . . . Greetings and welcome to the forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnie Knuckles Posted April 13, 2012 at 12:50 AM Share Posted April 13, 2012 at 12:50 AM My head hurts reading this. Sidenote: Welcome aboard the RTC train. Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unanimous Posted April 13, 2012 at 01:36 AM Author Share Posted April 13, 2012 at 01:36 AM wilessiuc I'm sorry if you think I was seriously suggesting someone would win this at the state level. We're both smart enough to know it has zero chance without going Federal but I believe it would have a fighting chance there - and I also believe you do because likely deep down you know I am right. I don't share your optimism on IL getting ccw although I do hope you are correct TFC you say someone posts this every couple weeks. Every couple weeks.... really? Every couple weeks someone posts the distinct verbage of the 13'th amendment that says anyone attempting to uphold state laws that violate the rights granted to us in constitution is guilty of a crime? Lastly I would like to say thanks to everyone who thought it necessary to post immature comments and pictures, all you did was completely validate what my attorney suggested to me which is that it is literally impossible to have a rational discussion on an internet message board because of immature clowns. I suggested he was wrong about the folks who post on Illinoiscarry but a good handful of people definitely proved him right with ease and flying colors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunslinger Posted April 13, 2012 at 01:55 AM Share Posted April 13, 2012 at 01:55 AM I know there is a lot of talk on this board about the fanny pack carry topic. My OPINION on this issue is that it is technically an easy win against the citizen for any prosecutor who wants to pursue it. My reasoning for this is based on a couple of points. Number one you are concealing the weapon which can be argued that it is unconstitutional because the 2'nd amendment only guarantees the people the right to bear arms as in wearing them. Secondly, the transportation laws were designed just for that... transporting the weapon to either the range, a hunt or a gunsmith, etc. This would NOT include transporting it along with you on your everyday routine to stores or to work or whatever. Where I am going with this is that under the second amendment we are in fact allowed to bear arms, or wear them openly. Under the thirteenth amendment there is also some interesting points. While this is listed under the "threat of consequences for forced labor" it seems highly applicable to enforcing the second amendment Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 – Conspiracy Against Rights:[19] Conspiracy to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person's rights or privileges secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 – Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law:[20] It is a crime for any person acting under color of law (federal, state or local officials who enforce statutes, ordinances, regulations, or customs) to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived the rights, privileges, or immunities of any person secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S. This includes willfully subjecting or causing to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race. My personal interpretation of this is that no state laws may be enacted denying anyone of the bill of rights and that would most certainly include any state including IL that bans open carry. And anyone enforcing them is guilty themselves of a crime. Am I wrong? Come at me liberals! Yes your 100% right. I don't think anyone on this form or anywhere else has EVER tried to argue that bear arms means we can carry. Well guys I guess the fight is over, we can carry now! What should we advocate for next? Medical marijuana? Illinoissmoke.com? I'm so glad you figured this out for us. Have u tried it yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unanimous Posted April 13, 2012 at 02:03 AM Author Share Posted April 13, 2012 at 02:03 AM Yes your 100% right. I don't think anyone on this form or anywhere else has EVER tried to argue that bear arms means we can carry. Well guys I guess the fight is over, we can carry now! What should we advocate for next? Medical marijuana? Illinoissmoke.com? I'm so glad you figured this out for us. Have u tried it yet? really?? A case has been heard at the supreme court suggesting anyone enforcing a state statute denying an IL resident the right to carry is themselves guilty of a crime? Epic genius is epic! I guess we CAN all move on then!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted April 13, 2012 at 02:16 AM Share Posted April 13, 2012 at 02:16 AM Unanimous, Welcome to IllinoisCarry. This is quite a thread to start off on. It's hard to tell if you're serious or ifthis is a lighthearted attempt at creating discussion and a debate . . . and then the "come at me" challenge..Not sure what to make of that and I see several others didn't either. No one really needs to prove you wrong. For years we've been trying to prove Illinois' interpretation of the law wrong, challenging the laws in court, and trying to elect legislators who agree with our interpretationof the Second Amendment. But our opinion, and yours, does not protect anyone from felony charges and convictions in this state. Two federal judges in different Illinois districts have just ruled the Second Amendment does not extend outside of our homes. We know they're wrong, I think they know they are wrong, but it still doesn't help us at this point. We need to either get this changed legislatively or in the courts. Again, welcome to IllinoisCarry,Molly B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Posted April 13, 2012 at 02:17 AM Share Posted April 13, 2012 at 02:17 AM This will not end well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Posted April 13, 2012 at 02:42 AM Share Posted April 13, 2012 at 02:42 AM This will not end well yes, after being alerted back channel, I had to log back on just to watch to what will no doubt prove to be the ensuing hilarity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pyre400 Posted April 13, 2012 at 03:03 AM Share Posted April 13, 2012 at 03:03 AM Welcome to the fight! As was said before, IC is a good place to get/share information.We have quite a diverse membership here, as you have seen and will continue to see - and we're all bound by one goal! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Harley Posted April 13, 2012 at 03:03 AM Share Posted April 13, 2012 at 03:03 AM "transporting the weapon to either the range, a hunt or a gunsmith, etc. This would NOT include transporting it along with you on your everyday routine to stores or to work or whatever." A: Show me in the statute where it says that was it's intent. (They may very well been what the authors intended, but that is not what they wrote, and we cannont be expected to be mind readers! ) B: People vs. Bruner provides case law that states you are wrong! The felony case charge was overturnd, because her purse was considered a " case" the misdamenor charge of bringing a weapon into a federal building stayed and she was charged with that. C: People vs Diggins, very CLEARLY states what is considered a " case " ( basically the websters deffinition of case) D: The only statutes that specifically describe a case are contained within the wildlife code. You can only be charged with wildlife code violations durring activities involved with the taking of wild game. They do not apply to criminal cases. Container "transport" ( carry ) is perfectly legal from the states standpoint, however there may or may not be local city ordinances against it. Prove me wrong! And BTW I am not a liberal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.