You thought Maxpedition was bad a** gear

[Yas]

5.11 gear Some innovative designs in versatility Cliff notes: Backpack resembles a bike courier bag thats very popular in big city's.

 

Backpack carry case

 

 

I guess this qualifies as a manufactured and specifically designed case for firearms. Under current and proposed legislation here.

 

2:42 minute video. I know we're not sbr here in illinois. But the author suggests a foldable Kel-tech rifle would sure as heck fit into the back pack compartment. Nice additional features for adding hydration or plating.

 

God bless the designers of velcro and nylon materials!

[templar223]

5.11 is good stuff.

 

I looked at their fanny pack and it kick a**!

 

Ingenious I thought when I saw it!

 

John

[TyGuy]

1) That would go nicely with my 5.11 pants and shirts.

 

2) I already have enough $$$ sunk into Maxpedition gear, that I am happy with, so I won't be getting this anytime soon.

 

3) The container need only be specifically designed for firearms if what you are doing falls under the wildlife code.

[BobbyT]

I want one that has the drop out mags like Lara Croft for tactical reloads while dual wielding!

 

Anybody remember that?

[TyGuy]

Kinda like the reloading things from Equilibrium?

[1957Human]

***

3) The container need only be specifically designed for firearms if what you are doing falls under the wildlife code.

 

 

Not to be petty, and clearly Yas knows how to speak for himself, but he did qualify his statement with "nder current and proposed legislation here." And under proposed HB5849, a transported gun must be "enclosed in a firearm case, carrying box, shipping box, or other portable container designed for the safe transportation of firearms." His point is well-taken.

[SheepleNoMore]

Neither 5.11 or Maxpedition have all of the features I would like in a bag. The 5.11 backpack carry case and their fanny pack look good and have plenty of features I can see others wanting.

 

I choose the Maxpedition Jumbo over the 5.11 select carry backpack. The perfect bag for my current use would combine features from both of them.

 

For a fanny pack, I choose GunGear.com's cordura concealed weapon fanny pack. I really like the soft leather holster wrapped in velcro that is custom made to fit each model/style of hand gun.

[TyGuy]

***

3) The container need only be specifically designed for firearms if what you are doing falls under the wildlife code.

 

 

Not to be petty, and clearly Yas knows how to speak for himself, but he did qualify his statement with "nder current and proposed legislation here." And under proposed HB5849, a transported gun must be "enclosed in a firearm case, carrying box, shipping box, or other portable container designed for the safe transportation of firearms." His point is well-taken.

 

I think I see what you are saying. The proposed legislation requires that the container be designed to carry a firearm? I guess this is a response to the Diggins case. I would say that the maxpedition versapack is designed to carry a firearm as the rear pocket is advertised as a CCW pocket and has optional holster and mag holders. I think for whatever style of carrying you want there is a container to fit it. I like the bulldog CCW cell phone holster from Cabelas for the KelTec P3AT, Ruger LCP, or the Taurus (model # forgotten).

[Yas]

***

3) The container need only be specifically designed for firearms if what you are doing falls under the wildlife code.

 

 

Not to be petty, and clearly Yas knows how to speak for himself, but he did qualify his statement with "nder current and proposed legislation here." And under proposed HB5849, a transported gun must be "enclosed in a firearm case, carrying box, shipping box, or other portable container designed for the safe transportation of firearms." His point is well-taken.

 

I think I see what you are saying. The proposed legislation requires that the container be designed to carry a firearm? I guess this is a response to the Diggins case. I would say that the maxpedition versapack is designed to carry a firearm as the rear pocket is advertised as a CCW pocket and has optional holster and mag holders. I think for whatever style of carrying you want there is a container to fit it. I like the bulldog CCW cell phone holster from Cabelas for the KelTec P3AT, Ruger LCP, or the Taurus (model # forgotten).

 

It was the way I was attempting to phrase it. I'm not encouraging fanny pack carry, but am pointing out some nifty features on the pack and I'd stretch my neck out predicting it would stand the test of being Ruled as designed specifically as a Case and designed for transporting a firearm after a lengthy court battle and a few appeals. The video is pretty obvious in displaying its firearms related uses. It's as plain as day that 5.11 isn't selling this as a book bag.

[Molly B.]

 

Not to be petty, and clearly Yas knows how to speak for himself, but he did qualify his statement with "nder current and proposed legislation here." And under proposed HB5849, a transported gun must be "enclosed in a firearm case, carrying box, shipping box, or other portable container designed for the safe transportation of firearms." His point is well-taken.

And the HUGE problem we have with this is the use of the word "safe". In committee it was said that a soft sided case would not qualify as "safe". The example of a soft sided gun case from Bass Pro was used, according to a I think is was a sponsor of the bill, and did not qualify as "safe".

[SheepleNoMore]

Then, as we know, they need to define safe. Trigger covered equals safe by my definition. If they want to specify hard sided container as the only safe container, then that will out law the fabric gun bags that long gun owners transport their guns in. Why is a soft side case safe for a long gun and not safe for a hand gun?

 

Sometimes I just get exasperated with their convoluted thinking. It's not logic, it is just wrong headed and contrived deceptions.

[Molly B.]

Then, as we know, they need to define safe. Trigger covered equals safe by my definition. If they want to specify hard sided container as the only safe container, then that will out law the fabric gun bags that long gun owners transport their guns in. Why is a soft side case safe for a long gun and not safe for a hand gun?

 

Sometimes I just get exasperated with their convoluted thinking. It's not logic, it is just wrong headed and contrived deceptions.

I believe they mean it to say no soft sided cases to transport - long gun or handgun. And no, there is no logic to it.

[Yas]

Then, as we know, they need to define safe. Trigger covered equals safe by my definition. If they want to specify hard sided container as the only safe container, then that will out law the fabric gun bags that long gun owners transport their guns in. Why is a soft side case safe for a long gun and not safe for a hand gun?

 

Sometimes I just get exasperated with their convoluted thinking. It's not logic, it is just wrong headed and contrived deceptions.

I believe they mean it to say no soft sided cases to transport - long gun or handgun. And no, there is no logic to it.

Wow I didn't realize soft sided cases were getting attacked. A whole bunch of hunters are going to be in for a surprise come hunting season if it goes that way. Better start building more prisons in the state if that happens.

[Don Gwinn]

My understanding is that Vandermyde heard one of the legislators in the committee last Wednesday answer a question about that, and she stated that if you walked into Gander Mountain and bought a padded nylon case like the ones we all use every day, that would be an illegal method under the bill being considered there. I believe 5849 is its twin.

[Yas]

Plastic cases are becoming more popular as a shipping box from manufacturers but I had a Springfield armory 1911 that came in a factory cardboard box. Lots of shotguns and rifles come straight from manufacturers in cardboard.

 

So if a gun shop sells you a Remington 700 with its factory cardboard box and you exit the building with it you and the shop would be in violation of the proposed transport law?

 

Think of all the collectors that want the original factory cardboard box's when buying older firearms.

 

Gee how will new guns get shipped to FFL's ? A hard case from factory? Or if its still in cardboard, the Semi has to stop at the border?

 

 

Somebody jump in here and give some examples on who's still shipping in just a cardboard box only.

[05FLHT]

Somebody jump in here and give some examples on who's still shipping in just a cardboard box only.

 

Les Baer is one, for 1911's at least.

 

This idea of restricting transporting even further is beyond ridiculous. What the heck are they trying to accomplish. The people, not the case or the firearm, are the problem and they do not respect the law as it is written now. I know I am preaching to the choir on this one so please excuse the rant. A ruling in McDonald cannot come fast enough!

[Tvandermyde]

My understanding is that Vandermyde heard one of the legislators in the committee last Wednesday answer a question about that, and she stated that if you walked into Gander Mountain and bought a padded nylon case like the ones we all use every day, that would be an illegal method under the bill being considered there. I believe 5849 is its twin.

 

 

At the committee hearing a lawyer for the Crook County States Attorney, was asked by rep Sullivan if he went to Bass Pro and bought a zippered gun case a nylon case, since they are a gun shop, would that qualify under the bill? The person answered no nylon cases have never been legal under the law. I'm doing this from memory.

 

They don't even get what the law says and make it up as they go along. They think that we should be arrested and then let us defend ourselves in court.

 

I'm workingon getting the audio from all the committee hearings so e can post them up. you'll get to hear it for your self. Then CPD jumped in and said they want the case locked. Not in the law, but thats how they view it.

 

I may get arrested in Chicago or Cook County since my office is in the County, but I will shove the statute and the Diggins case under their nose and plan on suing for wrongfull arrest and civil rights violations.

[1957Human]

Not to be petty, and clearly Yas knows how to speak for himself, but he did qualify his statement with "nder current and proposed legislation here." And under proposed HB5849, a transported gun must be "enclosed in a firearm case, carrying box, shipping box, or other portable container designed for the safe transportation of firearms." His point is well-taken.

And the HUGE problem we have with this is the use of the word "safe". In committee it was said that a soft sided case would not qualify as "safe". The example of a soft sided gun case from Bass Pro was used, according to a I think is was a sponsor of the bill, and did not qualify as "safe".

 

 

My best guess as the effect of the language is that one using a homemade or nonstandard case will have more difficulty in proving himself or herself to be within this statutory exception to a charge of UUW than one with a store-bought case.

 

Statements made in committee hearings are, as a practical matter, pointless as far as matters of statutory interpretation by the courts. Only those statements made on the floor are usually considered by the courts because it's the intent of the General Assembly, as a whole, that matters. (The statement "our duty is to determine the intention of the legislature" (not the sponsor) is boilerplate found in every case involving statutory interpretation.) Of course, when a sponsor says something on the floor, and the house then passes the bill, a court will presume those voting for the bill understood it to mean what the sponsor said it meant. Anyway, you'll find that committee hearing transcripts, what very few are even available, are almost never cited in a court opinion for that very reason.

 

Further, underlying this provision is a criminal charge, and under the rule of leniency a vague statute (and "safe" is most certainly vague) is resolved in favor of the defendant.

 

Finally, the language of the provision doesn't require that a specific case be found by the court to, de facto, allow for the safe transportation of a weapon. Rather, the question would be whether the manufacturer intended the case to be used for safe transportation, and the State would have a difficult time convincing a judge that a soft-sided gun case specifically made for the transportation of a weapon wasn't intended by the manufacturer to do so safely. But would a trial court find that a gun rug was designed for the transportation of a weapon, let alone the "safe" transportation? Maybe. Maybe not. (Probably depends on the county as much as anything.) Thus, if this bill is enacted in its current form, I wouldn't carry a weapon in a zippered gun rug, but I wouldn't hesitate to carry in a soft-sided case designed for transportation by the manufacturer, as "safe" would be implicit in the fact the manufacturer designed it for transportation.

[TyGuy]

What a waste of time and effort. Obviously criminals don't transport unloaded and enclosed in a case already. Those that do, myself and others, do so legally, and we are not the enemy.

 

Cest la vie. Have a great weekend everyone. I'm looking forward to some open carrying up in Wisconsin this weekend. However, I am not looking forward to painting a room in my house this weekend.

[junglebob]

The word should get out to the "Duck hunter types" who only worry about their hunting rights being infringed and tell them about the implications for them when transporting if this passes. Next they'll be requiring combination locks on gun cases.

[Don Gwinn]

Human, I see what you're saying. Let's say, hypothetically, that the bill makes it to the floor and one of the opponents of the bill asks the same question of the sponsor. This time the sponsor gives the same answer as the lawyer from the Cook County SA (remember, they drafted the bill; we're lucky if the sponsor has read it.) Now that answer is part of the floor debate. If the bill passes, the courts would presumably view that as evidence that the legislature intended that result, wouldn't they? How much that matters when the bill doesn't actually state so, I don't pretend to know. I just know they have bad intentions.

[Tvandermyde]

Human -- the problem isn't that it won't make it into the record to be considered by the Justices. The fact is that the plain language of the statute said what it siad and they ruled the way they did in Diggins. A case is a case is a case.

 

My problem is prsecutors and cops who make up their own rules as they go aloing and then we have to defend ourselves against felony charges. THAT is the problem I had with what they said. It did give us good argeuments to make that they won't follow the law no matter what we write and that they do just make it up as they go along. It's helping win the battle.

[1957Human]

Human, I see what you're saying. Let's say, hypothetically, that the bill makes it to the floor and one of the opponents of the bill asks the same question of the sponsor. This time the sponsor gives the same answer as the lawyer from the Cook County SA (remember, they drafted the bill; we're lucky if the sponsor has read it.) Now that answer is part of the floor debate. If the bill passes, the courts would presumably view that as evidence that the legislature intended that result, wouldn't they? How much that matters when the bill doesn't actually state so, I don't pretend to know. I just know they have bad intentions.

 

 

The first principle of statutory interpretation is the plain-meaning rule. If a statute can be read in a plain, dictionary-based way, that's what the court will do. If that can be done, it will not take the next step of even looking at the legislative history. (And only if a statute is ambiguous to the court, and not to possible defendants (who never seem to know what statutes mean), will it be found ambiguous.) With that in mind, should a court have to interpret a statute that just doesn't make plain sense, it will look to legislative debates to see what the General Assembly had in mind, but only in a general kind of way, because, in doing so, judges know that legislators say things from the floor all the time that the court would never impute to the whole of the General Assembly, knowing that reps often are just "talking their book." Thus, should the sponsor say something like "it will ban those cheap soft-sider cases like you buy at Wal Mart," the court would not then say, "well, clearly the General Assembly didn't want to allow soft-sided cases from Wal Mart." Rather, what the court will be looking for are general statements of legislative intent, such as, "this bill will tighten the case requirement after the Diggins decision." Then it will use that general intent to attempt to impart a plain meaning to an otherwise ambiguous statute. And, remember, any vagueness to a criminal statute is resolved in favor of the defendant. Thus, court don't look for statements that would make a statute more restrictive than a reasonable plain meaning would allow.

 

For the sake of all concerned, though, it clearly would be best if the word "safe" were deleted from the phrase "portable container designed for the safe transportation," since safe is already implicit in "portable container designed for transportation of a weapon" and add no clear legal requirement. I suppose what these banners are really wanting to do is negate the use of homemade cases or even guns cases not specifically designed for transportation, but cannot or don't know how to say that specifically in a statute, so they've latched upon a way of making it more legally risky to use such a device.

[TyGuy]

Probably the safest portable container I can think of is my crossbreed supertuck deluxe IWB holster. It keeps me the safest.

[bsafe]

Somebody jump in here and give some examples on who's still shipping in just a cardboard box only.

 

Les Baer is one, for 1911's at least.

 

This idea of restricting transporting even further is beyond ridiculous. What the heck are they trying to accomplish. The people, not the case or the firearm, are the problem and they do not respect the law as it is written now. I know I am preaching to the choir on this one so please excuse the rant. A ruling in McDonald cannot come fast enough!

 

My last Wilson arrived enclosed in a zipped soft carry bag shipped in a regular cardboard shipping box. There was, however, the zip tie on the trigger/hammer.