146 replies to this topic

[M.P.Eckert]

http://concealcarry....oisvbrunner.htm


Feel free to read the whole thing but the summary is at the bottom in bold:

"We include the portions of the legislative debate not because we believe they
are determinative, but simply to demonstrate the legislature was considering
the assorted applications of the exemption. The best indication of
legislative intent is the language of the exemption as adopted. Even allowing
for the strict construction of the exemption provided in section 24-2(i), the
legislature intended the exemption to apply not only to transporting a gun,
as in the situation {*44} of purchasing a gun and transporting it home or
transporting a hunting rifle to the location of the hunt, but to also apply
to the carrying and possession of a gun while simply walking down the street. "

But again since this firearms act does not have preemption, any city or municipality can ban carrying a gun in case while walking down the street if they want. I'd have to do some more research to see if any have.  The ISP's site that has all the local ordinances regarding firearms is completely out of date.  Most towns repealed their gun bans and the ISP state still has them posted on their Municipal Ordinances Relating To Firearms site, as required by state law.  I've already sent an email to the ISP asking for a clearer definition on what "unloaded" means and what a "case" means.  I'll send them another email asking why the Municipal Ordinances Relating To Firearms page has yet to be updated.  I would assume this to allow laws that do not exist any more to be enforced.  If I don't get any responses in the next few days I'll write letters and make phone calls, unless this has already been done.  I'm new to this forum and plan to be fairly active to get open/concealed carry preempted in Illinois.

http://www.isp.state.../ordinances.cfm

[junglebob]

M.P. You can go to the Illinois State Police website and they'll tell you how to transport - unloaded, and encased, ammunition may be in same case.   I think you know what unloaded is, don't make it more complicated than necessary.   The complicated part is local ordinances, you may be transporting legally in a home rule community today and tomorrow they may change their ordinance.   For what its worth I know of no city south of I64 that has a different transportation requirement than the states.

I doubt you'll get any letter telling you a backpack is a case from any law enforcement agency, though if it went to court you'd probably win.

[abolt243]

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

ILCS 720/5/21-6(a)

(720 ILCS 5/21‑6) (from Ch. 38, par. 21‑6)[/size]
Sec. 21‑6. Unauthorized Possession or Storage of Weapons.
(a) Whoever possesses or stores any weapon enumerated in Section 33A‑1 in any building or on land supported in whole or in part with public funds or in any building on such land without prior written permission from the chief security officer for such land or building commits a Class A misdemeanor.
b. The chief security officer must grant any reasonable request for permission under paragraph (a).
(Source: P.A. 89‑685, eff. 6‑1‑97.)[size=2]

This serves to show just how convoluted and complicated our laws are here in Illinois, especially pertaining to firearms. And the antis think we need more laws to make it even more illegal to use a gun in a crime! What we need is to enforce and convict on the laws that we have rather than bargaining away all the charges for a lesser sentence.

[/rant]

AB

[Ol'Coach]

I've told this story before, but...

...two years ago I called ISP Dist 10 HQ in Pesotum re: transporting/possession in a fanny pack in IL.  The lady I talked to informed me that I would be legal, but ultimately it would depend upon the interpretation of the officer making the stop.  I stated, "So, I would be legal but I might have to spend a lot or time and money to prove it."  She agreed.

Not satisfied with that, I drove the 15 mi to ISP Dist. 10 HQ, Pesotum, with my empty fanny pack purchased from Blackhawk and which is designed specifically to carry a handgun and two mags. (It's green, not black!)  

I asked to speak to someone re: possessing/transporting in IL.  Two Lt's and I discussed at length using the fp in Illinois, under the interpretation, "...unloaded, enclosed in a case, possession of a valid FOID card."

Ultimately, the informed me that if I were to be stopped and the fp/handgun were immediately accessible, I would be arrested.

Next step, I called the office of the IL AG.  Spoke with a young man there, title of Ass't Attorney General. After our discussion, I asked him to put in writing what he had told me.  He obliged, and attached is a copy of his letter.  

Not particularly the next to last paragraph, and the very last sentence of the letter.

I next wrote directly to AG Madigan, asking if she were aware that at least one of her ass't was giving incorrect information

Got no reply!


I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt, that he had me confused with a non-Illinois-resident, traveling through.

But I won't, as he managed to send the letter to my home in Illinois!

[M.P.Eckert]

So what the ISP and AG is saying is that the exemption clause doesn't apply or they just choose to ignore it? That's wonderful.

[M.P.Eckert]

junglebob, on Jul 23 2009, 07:03 PM, said:

M.P. You can go to the Illinois State Police website and they'll tell you how to transport - unloaded, and encased, ammunition may be in same case.   I think you know what unloaded is, don't make it more complicated than necessary.   The complicated part is local ordinances, you may be transporting legally in a home rule community today and tomorrow they may change their ordinance.   For what its worth I know of no city south of I64 that has a different transportation requirement than the states.

I doubt you'll get any letter telling you a backpack is a case from any law enforcement agency, though if it went to court you'd probably win.

I do know what unloaded is but it's not defined in the law as to what it is.  When I took the Utah CCW class from what I remember, carrying openly unloaded without a permit allowed for 2 actions away from firing the gun.  That meant in a semi-auto, the magazine can have rounds in it and be in the gun, but a round could not be chambered.  With a permit it allowed for 1 action away from being fired, which meant a round could be chambered.   My point is that it was clearly defined in Utah state law as to what unloaded meant.

[Tvandermyde]

lockman/MP

There has been concern by gun owners and CCRA that if a literal reading of 21-6 were taken, you would need permission to take your gun down any public road. it has not been applied that way and don't think it would. That would render an absurd result to the law and a practical application of it. Illinois does not have a poin to point transportation law. so the idea just doesn't fit. But a crazy judge can do whatever. That is why we are awaiting the Diggins case from the Illinois supreme court. It should help clarify this stuff.

If someone wants to have an unloaded enclosed in a case firearm on a county forest preserve/park they need to get permission to do so under 21-6. The Horstman case was won when charges were dropped under 24-1 UUW. But he was never charged under 21-6. We will work on clarifying that, but that will devolve into a fight much like 182 as you try to fix common sense things and the antis claim it's about carryig guns in public buildings.


Coach -- nver seen a letter like that before. Can you drop me a hard copy in the mail or email me a good PDF. I'll get to the AG's office and shake a few trees. If she doesn't get it, we'll find a way to get her attention.

one more on the honey do list of things to fix in Illinois law.

[junglebob]

M.P.Eckert, on Jul 24 2009, 01:08 PM, said:

junglebob, on Jul 23 2009, 07:03 PM, said:

M.P. You can go to the Illinois State Police website and they'll tell you how to transport - unloaded, and encased, ammunition may be in same case.   I think you know what unloaded is, don't make it more complicated than necessary.   The complicated part is local ordinances, you may be transporting legally in a home rule community today and tomorrow they may change their ordinance.   For what its worth I know of no city south of I64 that has a different transportation requirement than the states.

I doubt you'll get any letter telling you a backpack is a case from any law enforcement agency, though if it went to court you'd probably win.

I do know what unloaded is but it's not defined in the law as to what it is.  When I took the Utah CCW class from what I remember, carrying openly unloaded without a permit allowed for 2 actions away from firing the gun.  That meant in a semi-auto, the magazine can have rounds in it and be in the gun, but a round could not be chambered.  With a permit it allowed for 1 action away from being fired, which meant a round could be chambered.   My point is that it was clearly defined in Utah state law as to what unloaded meant.

I realize some states consider a gun loaded if it is in the passenger compartment of a vehicle and ammunition is also in the passenger compartment.   I also suppose most folks would say a gun with a magazine in it and none in the chamber was not loaded.    Illinois doesnt like to clearly define things when it comes to firearms.

[Ol'Coach]

Quote

Coach -- nver seen a letter like that before. Can you drop me a hard copy in the mail or email me a good PDF. I'll get to the AG's office and shake a few trees. If she doesn't get it, we'll find a way to get her attention.

Todd...will do.

[Tvandermyde]

Bob --

in illinois, cops will consider a gun loaded IF their are rounds in the cylinder or if a round is in the chamber of a semi--auto or a loaded mag is in the pistol.

same thing for rifles and shotguns.

leave a round in the mag, it's loaded, have a loaded mag in an AR with nothing in the chamber, its loaded.

While not in the statutes, it goes to more of a comon sense approach. Is the gun empty? yes or know.

I don't know how to attack this, legislativly without opening a can of worms and potentially giving the other side ideas and or a means to move the ball against us. If you thought the BS on 182 was bad imagine what trying to define loaded would be like.

Most of us understand loaded, it may not be cocked and locked, but if I handed you a 1911 with a loaded mag in it but not one on the pipe, would you consider the gun loaded?  I would. Just not condition 1.

We got a lot of stuff to work on in the next couple of years. I'm trying not to complicate some of it with issues that will only consume time with little return.

I am actaully amazed that how many states don't have something as simple as unloaded and enclosed in a case.

That being said, we did have a bad state police memo under Gainer that said a loaded magazine was the same as a loaded firearm -- even without the gun. I used that to give them an enema during the safe neighborhoods debate early on. There is a reason the statute is silent on mags. It's kinda like Wisconsin. If it ain't specifically against the law, open carry, it ain't illegal.

[junglebob]

Todd, I'm sure you are right and it probably wouldn't be worth the effort trying to get the designation of loaded to be having a round in the chamber.   It could very well open a can of worms for us as you said.

I don't think it would be worth it to try and get a backpack, or a fannypack designated as a case either, could open another can of worms.

[moparcardave]

When is a weapon loaded?  One standard is nationwide that I think could be argueable in court. "Lock and load" the command given in the miliary. The  action locked back, mag inserted and loaded when you chamber a round.


Maybe I am making it to easy however a round can't be fired unless it is loaded. Thus a round has to be chambered to fire.

[Tvandermyde]

Bob --

diggins will settle that if my read on the arguements is right. The only place we have a problem right now is Crook County.

[Sigma]

All this time I thought it had to be in my trunk. Had no idea I could carry in my passenger seat in the case. Unloaded of course.

[junglebob]

Sigma, on Aug 27 2009, 12:22 AM, said:

All this time I thought it had to be in my trunk. Had no idea I could carry in my passenger seat in the case. Unloaded of course.

Just check for local ordinances that stipulate a different type of transport.  Get the info from your city (city attorney or city clerks office should have it) not the ISP website.  Last time I looked Carbondale ordinances were a few years out of date.

[Howard Roark]

  


Confusing!  What happened to this simple language and why can't the Gub'ment of Illinoiz adhere to it:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

(this is the version distributed to and ratified by the states.  If I'm not mistaken, it is also the version quoted by SCOTUS in Heller).

http://en.wikipedia....es_Constitution

How about in Illinois, I just follow this?  (wink, wink)

[Howard Roark]

I am so very late to this discussion, but I've read a small bit including this reversal of the Diggins conviction by the IL Court of Appeals:

http://www.state.il....rch/3070016.pdf

By the way, I believe Michael Diggins.

Since the 2nd is not yet incorporated through the 14th, this is the complex mish-mash legal situations we get.  Even Heller was full of muck allowing the States to infringe willy-nilly.  In 7th grade mandatory US Constitution class, the 'facts' they taught us... that the Bill of Rights were actually the rights of all American citizens, were so far off the mark. Middle/High school civics is indoctrination, not truth.   It's a pity, and a disappointment.  Nonetheless, I'm enjoying my recent reading about what the Founders intended in the Bill of Rights  At least the first amendment is less infringed than the second.

[Ol'Coach]

Howard Roark, on Aug 27 2009, 11:59 PM, said:

I am so very late to this discussion, but I've read a small bit including this reversal of the Diggins conviction by the IL Court of Appeals:

http://www.state.il....rch/3070016.pdf

By the way, I believe Michael Diggins.

Since the 2nd is not yet incorporated through the 14th, this is the complex mish-mash legal situations we get.  Even Heller was full of muck allowing the States to infringe willy-nilly.  In 7th grade mandatory US Constitution class, the 'facts' they taught us... that the Bill of Rights were actually the rights of all American citizens, were so far off the mark. Middle/High school civics is indoctrination, not truth.   It's a pity, and a disappointment.  Nonetheless, I'm enjoying my recent reading about what the Founders intended in the Bill of Rights  At least the first amendment is less infringed than the second.

So far.  He's got a couple o' years to work on it!

Come to think of it, the attempt is being made:

Link

[Sigma]

Ok I understand how to transport but Im unclear where. Of course its ok to transport to range and wit 182 to hotel , friends house with permission.
But what about to the grocery store, or to Lane Bryant to buy my wife a dress. I know I run the risk of it getting stolen out of my trunk but If my wife is trapped in the store I can run to my car come back and save the day.
Or are you only allowed to transport from a place where you can legally posses to a place where you can legally possess? Which would exclude grocery store, shopping mall etc.

[junglebob]

Sigma, on Sep 25 2009, 12:16 PM, said:

Ok I understand how to transport but Im unclear where. Of course its ok to transport to range and wit 182 to hotel , friends house with permission.
But what about to the grocery store, or to Lane Bryant to buy my wife a dress. I know I run the risk of it getting stolen out of my trunk but If my wife is trapped in the store I can run to my car come back and save the day.
Or are you only allowed to transport from a place where you can legally posses to a place where you can legally possess? Which would exclude grocery store, shopping mall etc.

Why don't you think you can legally possess an unloaded cased firearm at a grocery store or a mall?   There is nothing in Illinois law that says where you may transport to and from.   How would you get a firearm home that you bought at Walmart or say a store at a mall that sold firearms?   There may not be too many stores connected with a mall that sell firearms but there was one at the mall locally that did til it closed.   Remember that HB182 is covering loaded firearms, I don't think there was any question it was legal to transport to a range.   Ask yourself if it was only legal for you to transport between the places you mention why did DuPage County Illinois settle with John Horstman for $50,000 less than 2 years after he was arrested for transporting a 9mm handgun, unloaded in a backpack in a park?   I submit the reason is they didn't have a leg to stand on under state law.

[Sigma]

junglebob, on Sep 25 2009, 12:42 PM, said:

Sigma, on Sep 25 2009, 12:16 PM, said:

Ok I understand how to transport but Im unclear where. Of course its ok to transport to range and wit 182 to hotel , friends house with permission.
But what about to the grocery store, or to Lane Bryant to buy my wife a dress. I know I run the risk of it getting stolen out of my trunk but If my wife is trapped in the store I can run to my car come back and save the day.
Or are you only allowed to transport from a place where you can legally posses to a place where you can legally possess? Which would exclude grocery store, shopping mall etc.

Why don't you think you can legally possess an unloaded cased firearm at a grocery store or a mall?   There is nothing in Illinois law that says where you may transport to and from.   How would you get a firearm home that you bought at Walmart or say a store at a mall that sold firearms?   There may not be too many stores connected with a mall that sell firearms but there was one at the mall locally that did til it closed.   Remember that HB182 is covering loaded firearms, I don't think there was any question it was legal to transport to a range.   Ask yourself if it was only legal for you to transport between the places you mention why did DuPage County Illinois settle with John Horstman for $50,000 less than 2 years after he was arrested for transporting a 9mm handgun, unloaded in a backpack in a park?   I submit the reason is they didn't have a leg to stand on under state law.

Wow thanks for your reply. I'm new to this and living in Chicago for most my life I have been brain washed.
I thought you could only carry to range or legal place t carry because I read on the NRA website

Transporting Firearms During Travel

A provision of federal law serves as a defense to state or local laws which would prohibit the passage of persons with firearms in interstate travel.

Notwithstanding any state or local law, a person shall be entitled to transport a firearm from any place where he may lawfully possess and transport such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and transport such firearm if the firearm is unloaded and in the trunk. In vehicles without a trunk, the unloaded firearm shall be in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console

So I am cunfused when it comes to the state level. Currently I only carry in my trunk when going to a family member or to range.
I would love to put my case in a backpack and do my grocery shopping. I would also like to trow the backpack in my back seat.
But I am confused. Go easy on me I bought my first handgun less than 6 months ago.

[Sigma]

Tvandermyde, on May 25 2009, 11:40 AM, said:

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.

So has the Diggins case cleared this up?

[Ol'Coach]

Sigma, on Oct 10 2009, 09:51 AM, said:

Tvandermyde, on May 25 2009, 11:40 AM, said:

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.

So has the Diggins case cleared this up?

Presumably; however, you know what happens when you dip a bucket of water out of an IL creek and let it set for awhile...the "silt" settles to the bottom and it looks like really clear water, until you stir it a bit!!

[moparcardave]

I guess I am old school As the the Army was to to lock and load your weapon.  Lock the action back is... lock the side?bolt back.   Load your weapon is... insert mag and release the slid/bolt.   Actually I guess with our laws being as they are in Illinois it would be better to leave your action locked open to that it can be seen as unloaded.  It also give you a few more milliseconds to slam home a loaded mag and release the slide.

[Sigma]

junglebob, on Jul 23 2009, 07:03 PM, said:

M.P. You can go to the Illinois State Police website and they'll tell you how to transport - unloaded, and encased, ammunition may be in same case.   I think you know what unloaded is, don't make it more complicated than necessary.   The complicated part is local ordinances, you may be transporting legally in a home rule community today and tomorrow they may change their ordinance.   For what its worth I know of no city south of I64 that has a different transportation requirement than the states.

I doubt you'll get any letter telling you a backpack is a case from any law enforcement agency, though if it went to court you'd probably win.

I bet you he would win now

[Tvandermyde]

Illinois has not had a point to point rule or law about transporting  a firearm.
We fought it and it ain't gonna happen.

you can trasport a unloaded cased firearm just about anywhere. Not in a school, not in a prision or court house, but unloaded and cased like I have said many a times there is a unloaded cased 45 withh 7 loaded mags on the front seat when I travel.

[lockman]

Tvandermyde, on Oct 16 2009, 11:00 AM, said:

Illinois has not had a point to point rule or law about transporting  a firearm.
We fought it and it ain't gonna happen.

you can trasport a unloaded cased firearm just about anywhere. Not in a school, not in a prision or court house, but unloaded and cased like I have said many a times there is a unloaded cased 45 withh 7 loaded mags on the front seat when I travel.

Todd, The FOID Act exempts non-residents that have a similar license or permit from the FOID card requirement, does that mean their home license or permit would be recognized for the FOID exemption for transportation under section 24-1 (a)(4) (iii),

Quote

are unloaded and enclosed in a case,  Firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container by a person who has been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card;

?

I know a few non-residents that would like a definitive answer on that question.

[Tvandermyde]

lockman --

it has been my position that since non-residents are expemt from FOID to use, or possess a firearm, they can have an unloaded, cased firearm. The FOID card requirement only applies to Illinois residents.

[Ol'Coach]

Tvandermyde, on Oct 16 2009, 03:14 PM, said:

lockman --

it has been my position that since non-residents are expemt from FOID to use, or possess a firearm, they can have an unloaded, cased firearm. The FOID card requirement only applies to Illinois residents.

Location?

[lockman]

Ol'Coach, on Oct 16 2009, 04:39 PM, said:

Tvandermyde, on Oct 16 2009, 03:14 PM, said:

lockman --

it has been my position that since non-residents are expemt from FOID to use, or possess a firearm, they can have an unloaded, cased firearm. The FOID card requirement only applies to Illinois residents.

Location?

I under stand the reasoning behind that position but I would not want to be the one to test it. You know without a previous court precedent any local prosecutor will look at 24-1 (a)(4)(iii) and based solely on that statute will authorize charges. Other statutes outside the criminal code that are contradictory are arguments for the arrestees attorney to make in court.

It certainly sets Illinois up for an equal protection action under the 14th amendment.

Any out of state residents want to be a test case for this?