146 replies to this topic

[Molly B.]

Illinois State Police brochure: "Transport Your Firearm Legally in IL"

[chevsuz12]

Wow, that sums it up!

Wouldn't it be much simpler if the Illinois law for firearms simply read:

Please refer to the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution.  Apparently that means nothing in this state.

[Ocellairs]

It's always wise to have this with you. I have six copies. One for each vehicle (2). And one for each firearm case (2), and one for each range bag (2).

However, even if you give the copies to the LEO, that individual could and probably would not considered it as a "valid" source for him to considered.

Some LEO's are just that stupid.

[THE KING]

THANKS MOLLY

[NormalNinja]

OK, I understand that this explains that it's legal to carry an unloaded weapon in Illinois. But, what happens if you have to use said weapon. What are the legal ramifications of firing your weapon and shooting the bad guy.

[csemartin]

If I'm reading this right, what's to say you can't carry your gun in a fanny pack?  That is a "container" after all.

[lockman]

csemartin, on May 15 2009, 12:23 AM, said:

If I'm reading this right, what's to say you can't carry your gun in a fanny pack?  That is a "container" after all.

Absolutely nothing.

[NormalNinja]

But what happens if you have to use that gun? What happens to you legally?

[billzfx4]

NormalNinja, on May 17 2009, 09:18 AM, said:

But what happens if you have to use that gun? What happens to you legally?

Depending on what part of the state you are in, you will need a very good lawyer.
(A boat-load of money and lots of free time for court hearings wouldn't hurt either.)

[NormalNinja]

billzfx4, on May 17 2009, 11:25 AM, said:

NormalNinja, on May 17 2009, 09:18 AM, said:

But what happens if you have to use that gun? What happens to you legally?

Depending on what part of the state you are in, you will need a very good lawyer.
(A boat-load of money and lots of free time for court hearings wouldn't hurt either.)

Exactly what I thought! So you're going to jail if you actually have to defend yourself. So, this loophole (if that's what you want to call it) is not a real alternative to a concealed or open carry law.

[lockman]

NormalNinja, on May 17 2009, 11:32 AM, said:

billzfx4, on May 17 2009, 11:25 AM, said:

NormalNinja, on May 17 2009, 09:18 AM, said:

But what happens if you have to use that gun? What happens to you legally?

Depending on what part of the state you are in, you will need a very good lawyer.
(A boat-load of money and lots of free time for court hearings wouldn't hurt either.)

Exactly what I thought! So you're going to jail if you actually have to defend yourself. So, this loophole (if that's what you want to call it) is not a real alternative to a concealed or open carry law.

Not exactly. Under the Demar (forgive me if I butchered his name) law no local unit of government can charge you on a violation if the use in self defense. The state can still charge but you can expect close scrutiny any time there is the use of deadly force. If your use is justified you should be good but the state always will never give a straight forward answer so as to keep you in line.

I guess the question should be posed to an agency that has the legal right to get an official opinion from the state AG. Like:

If a FOID card holder is transporting a firearm in compliance with all applicable laws and is confronted with the possible use of deadly force or the commission of a forcible felony against them and the FOID card holder retrieves the firearm, loads it and defends himself/herself is that Foid holder committing UUW?

Is there a defense of life exception to possessing a loaded firearm in places other than those exemptions listed under UUW?

There are infinite possibilities of situations where the possession is legal but un-casing the firearm for actual defense of life is not an exception the statute recognizes. Chase rapist from your  home and capture him on the sidewalk in front of your home, UUW?

[EAGLE]

Just remember it is only illegal if you are caught. I carry a loaded firearm in my car all the time. If it comes down to having to use it I will. Then I will call the ACLU , IRA and the NRA for help. But living down south it is more likely that I can walk away plus I am disabled. I don't think that would make a difference but I will try everything. Including hollering about the infringements of my constitutional rights.

[SheepleNoMore]

Be familiar with the folloiwng if you are thinking about using your PDA (Personal Defense Assistant) .

THE LAW ON THE USE OF FORCE IN SELF DEFESE/STATE OF ILLINOIS

720 ILCS 5/7 1) (from Ch. 38, par. 7 1)
Sec. 7 1. Use of force in defense of person.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.
( In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7 4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93 832, eff. 7 28 04.)


(720 ILCS 5/7 2) (from Ch. 38, par. 7 2)
Sec. 7 2. Use of force in defense of dwelling.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:
(1) 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, or
(2) He reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.

( In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7 4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93 832, eff. 7 28 04.)

(720 ILCS 5/7 3) (from Ch. 38, par. 7 3)
Sec. 7 3. Use of force in defense of other property.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with either real property (other than a dwelling) or personal property, lawfully in his possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his immediate family or household or of a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
( In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7 4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93 832, eff. 7 28 04.)

(720 ILCS 5/7 4) (from Ch. 38, par. 7 4)
Sec. 7 4. Use of force by aggressor.
The justification described in the preceding Sections of this Article is not available to a person who:
(a) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
( Initially provokes the use of force against himself, with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant; or
© Otherwise initially provokes the use of force against himself, unless:
(1) Such force is so great that he reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and that he has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(2) In good faith, he withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)

[SJW1226]

lockman, on May 15 2009, 11:17 AM, said:

csemartin, on May 15 2009, 12:23 AM, said:

If I'm reading this right, what's to say you can't carry your gun in a fanny pack?  That is a "container" after all.

Absolutely nothing.

I'm thinking it would be a really interesting test to walk down the street with my UNLOADED handgun in it's factory supplied case/'container' (manufacturers logo and all) and see what happens - of course not in tyrant Daley's land due to his (soon to be found unconstitutional I'm thinking) handgun restrictions.  But anywhere else.....What law would I be in violation of? Give it up C®ook county.  You bans DO NOT WORK!!!!

[BushRat]

SJW1226, on May 23 2009, 11:09 PM, said:

lockman, on May 15 2009, 11:17 AM, said:

csemartin, on May 15 2009, 12:23 AM, said:

If I'm reading this right, what's to say you can't carry your gun in a fanny pack?  That is a "container" after all.

Absolutely nothing.

I'm thinking it would be a really interesting test to walk down the street with my UNLOADED handgun in it's factory supplied case/'container' (manufacturers logo and all) and see what happens

Easy test. Put notebook, some pens/penicls inside, and walk down the street. If you get stopped by police, you have no weapon, and the logo on container is just a logo. Good way to see if you get harrased or getting unwanted attention.

[2nd amendment forever]

[quote name='BushRat' post='161158' date='May 23 2009, 11:33 PM'][quote name='SJW1226' post='161157' date='May 23 2009, 11:09 PM'][quote name='lockman' post='159894' date='May 15 2009, 11:17 AM'][quote name='csemartin' post='159837' date='May 15 2009, 12:23 AM']If I'm reading this right, what's to say you can't carry your gun in a fanny pack?  That is a "container" after all.[/quote]

Absolutely nothing.
[/quote]


I'm thinking it would be a really interesting test to walk down the street with my UNLOADED handgun in it's factory supplied case/'container' (manufacturers logo and all) and see what happens [/quote]

Easy test. Put notebook, some pens/penicls inside, and walk down the street. If you get stopped by police, you have no weapon, and the logo on container is just a logo. Good way to see if you get harrased or getting unwanted attention.
[/quote]

Since I first read this thread I've been wondering about "transport" of weapons when one doesn't own a car....

What is one to do if all they have is public transportation to go somewhere, ie; shooting range, gun show etc....

My XDm's case is also just the right size for a laptop.....

[Tvandermyde]

SheepleNoMore, on May 19 2009, 08:49 PM, said:

Be familiar with the folloiwng if you are thinking about using your PDA (Personal Defense Assistant) .

THE LAW ON THE USE OF FORCE IN SELF DEFESE/STATE OF ILLINOIS

720 ILCS 5/7 1) (from Ch. 38, par. 7 1)
Sec. 7 1. Use of force in defense of person.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.
( In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7 4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93 832, eff. 7 28 04.)...

(720 ILCS 5/7 2) (from Ch. 38, par. 7 2)
Sec. 7 2. Use of force in defense of dwelling....

(720 ILCS 5/7 3) (from Ch. 38, par. 7 3)
Sec. 7 3. Use of force in defense of other property....

(720 ILCS 5/7 4) (from Ch. 38, par. 7 4)
Sec. 7 4. Use of force by aggressor....

this is why Illinios has not had to pass the "castle doctrine" we have no duty to retreat, to seek an exit before confronting an attacker.

also notice the civil immunity. That was the second part fo the Willmette package we did. One said it was a defense to a local ordinance to have used it in self defense. The other was you shoot a buglar they can't sue you. We we're ahead of the curve on that one.

If you had an unloaded cased firearm, retrieved it, and used it, they could charge you with UUW. But, like the DeMar incident, a lot of hell could come from the press. Also you have the defense of "necessity" that taken in whole, the action warranted a violation of the law.

The trasnportation issue is one where you can be arrested, charged and have your car impounded if you follow state law on transport, unloaded & enclosed in a case, in Chicago. They say it must be inacessible or broken down. That's why we have worked on the preemption issue for transportation. Take a look at the Amcus brief in Diggins. I thin that has a very good history of transporting a firearm and how UUW got to where it is today.

[Mouthpiece]

Let me run this one by you.  We have a paved bicycle trail that I ride on a weekly basis.  There's been muggings and I'm not sure that the perpetrator was armed, but muggings none the less.  I carry my gun in a fanny pack, with the magazine separately.  After reading some of this, it makes me feel I am carrying illegally even though the magazine is not in the gun.  Is it recommended that I continue to do this to protect myself or should I ride this bike trail and take my chances of being mugged without protection.  Is it legal to carry my stun gun?

[abolt243]

Mouthpiece, on May 25 2009, 09:12 AM, said:

Let me run this one by you. We have a paved bicycle trail that I ride on a weekly basis. There's been muggings and I'm not sure that the perpetrator was armed, but muggings none the less. I carry my gun in a fanny pack, with the magazine separately. After reading some of this, it makes me feel I am carrying illegally even though the magazine is not in the gun. Is it recommended that I continue to do this to protect myself or should I ride this bike trail and take my chances of being mugged without protection. Is it legal to carry my stun gun?

Please, go back to the very first post in this thread.  Open the link to the ISP brochure.  Note the paragraph entitled "Is it legal to have ammunition in the case with the firearm?".

Keep the gun encased, chamber clear, magazines NOT in the gun.  A revolver could be carried unloaded, in a case, with ammo in a speed loader.  The magazine or speed loader can be in the same case as the gun.

I'll pass on the stun gun.  Someone else will answer that one.
AB

[Silver Guardian]

Mouthpiece, on May 25 2009, 09:12 AM, said:

Is it legal to carry my stun gun?

As for carrying it, in the eyes of IL law a stun gun is the same as a firearm.

Quote

(720 ILCS 5/Art. 24 heading)
ARTICLE 24. DEADLY WEAPONS

    (720 ILCS 5/24‑1) (from Ch. 38, par. 24‑1)
    (Text of Section from P.A. 95‑809)
    Sec. 24‑1. Unlawful Use of Weapons.
    (a) A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowingly:
        
        (4) Carries or possesses in any vehicle or concealed  
     on or about his person except when on his land or in his own abode or fixed place of business any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm

As for using it, "Deadly Force" in IL includes a lot more than just what is actually deadly. Mace someone, that falls under deadly force. Choke hold, falls under deadly force. Taze someone, oh you better believe that falls under deadly force.

[Tvandermyde]

go to the section about unloaded enclosed in a case.

Devine threatened to arrest anyone for fanny pack carry. But the Diggins case in front of the court should clear this up.

unloaded enclosed in a case is just that. Dupage arrested a guy for it and lost then had to pay damages and attorney's fees. That's just what happened, not a legal opinion.

[Mouthpiece]

thanks guys,yall answered my questionreally quick.Todd,I appreciate all you do and for going a up and above your call of duty.Also thank you for your service to our country.May you and all of our veterans have an awsome MEMORIAL DAY.MayGod bless you all.

[tomgen]

Hi,

I read the pamphlet.  It does say ammo can be in the same case with the firearm, but it does not make mention if the ammo can be in the mag of a semi-auto pistol.  Legal arguments don't always make sense to me, so I believe an anti-gun zealot prosecutor could make the case that a mag is part of the gun, so if it is loaded, the gun is loaded.  I tried to find out by calling the County attorney's office, but they refuse to give legal advice.  I called the State Police number listed in the pamphlet and left that question in voice mail, so far I have not had an answer.  Does anyone know how we can find out, short of getting arrested?

Thanks

[RXtion]

tomgen, on Jul 18 2009, 05:11 PM, said:

It does say ammo can be in the same case with the firearm, but it does not make mention if the ammo can be in the mag of a semi-auto pistol.

Sure it does.

Quote

How Can I Legally Transport or Possess Ammunition?
Illinois law requires residents possessing ammunition have a valid FOID card. The location of ammunition being transported, including ammunition being transported in loaded magazines, is not regulated if the firearm is possessed or transported lawfully.

To me that says as long as your pistol is being transported legally(unloaded and in an enclosed case) it doesn't matter where the loaded magazines are, even if they are right next to the unloaded pistol in said case. I recently took Utah and Florida CCW classes, the instructor is a lawyer. He made many comments about Illinois firearms transportation laws. He even said they were the best firearms transportation laws out of most states in the country. I believe he even said that loaded mags could be in the same case as the unloaded pistol. His name is Paul Horvick, with shootingsafely.com. His contact info is on that site. Shoot him an email and ask him what he has to say.

[papa]

tomgen ,

  Go back and read the second question concerning transport of ammo. It says it is UNREGULATED as long as the gun is transported legally .  

[Tvandermyde]

Guys all I can say it what I do when I drive around.

I keep a SA 1911 in a holster, unloaded. The holster has a mag pouch for 2 mags on the front of it where I keep two loaded mags. The gun and mags are in a zippered soft case. I keep the clip on holster in case I where to need to exit the vehicle and it gives me the two mags with it to boot.

There are 8 mag pouches on the outside of the case, all with loaded mags. It stays on the front passenger seat next to me, except when I have to hit the brakes hard cause some idiot in front of me doesn't know how to drive.

I have been pulled ovr for speeding in my travels and never a problem. I don't keep a copy of 24-1 with me, but have a laptop and will reciet it chapter and verse to an offiver then tell him to go look it up if he does not understand it.

[Ol'Coach]

No LTC,  no preemption, an amazingly confusing code, but we still have it better than most states.

The problem is with some of those who enforce the law and choose to give their own interpretation, regardless of what the ISP brochure states! That interpretation can force you or me into a long, expensive court fight to prove we are right.

[M.P.Eckert]

Has anyone actually contacted the state police or any local law enforcement to get it in writing on whether carrying an unloaded firearm in a backpack is legal or not?

From the pamphlet:

"How do I Transport A Firearm
Through An Illinois Community With An
Ordinance That prohibit Firearms Or
handguns?
Illinois’ Unlawful Use of Weapons law does not
preempt local ordinances from banning firearms.
Persons carrying or transporting firearms through
such communities could be subject to local firearm
ordinances. It is recommended that you contact local
authorities regarding their firearm ordinances."

Is there a list of communities that have ordinances that ban concealed carry? Without preemption, the ISP pamphlet is pretty useless, as are Illinois statutes regarding transportation of a firearm.

I would love to carry my XD with me when I'm hiking or biking in county forest preserves or state parks.  I would need something in writing to back me up though.

Does anyone have anything in writing from the case in DuPage where DuPage lost?

[Tvandermyde]

no can do the county land and state parkes comes under 21-6 I beileve. Its illegal to have a gun on public sponsored property

[lockman]

Tvandermyde, on Jul 23 2009, 03:09 PM, said:

no can do the county land and state parkes comes under 21-6 I beileve. Its illegal to have a gun on public sponsored property

There must be an exemption to this that allows cased transport. Roads, sidewalks, bridges, trails and paths are used to get from one place to another and most all of them are land supported by tax dollars. This one must be  repealed.

Where has this ever been used? I know of one conviction but it was a handgun brought through court security. I know of no other.