Jump to content


Photo

Possible movement of Moore v Madigan?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
38 replies to this topic

#31 Uncle Harley

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,729 posts
  • Joined: 08-March 11

Posted 24 January 2012 - 10:14 PM


How do the differences in these two laws affect me for the purposes of the Unlawful Use of
Weapons law?
It is recommended that persons transport their firearms only unloaded and in a case in order to be fully
compliant with all statutes. A firearm transported in a container other than a case while engaged in activities
covered by the Wildlife Code could subject an individual to a charge of Class B Misdemeanor under the Wildlife
Code but would not be considered Unlawful Use of Weapons if the container were a "firearm carrying box,
shipping box, or other container" as provided in the Criminal Code.


source: www.isp.state.il.us/docs/ptfire.pdf



Notice the reference to two different "codes". Oh, and according to Diggens, a console is a 'case' as provided in the Criminal Code.



was this directed at me? ( if so see my post just previous to this one.) ir are you just re-enforcing what I stated?
"A river cuts through a rock not because of its power but its persistence." - Jim Watkins


Comment on this thread for a chance to win a Glock and a pizza http://illinoiscarry...showtopic=51095

#32 Tvandermyde

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,710 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 09

Posted 24 January 2012 - 10:15 PM

uncle i would agree with you, and if a DNR cop tried to write me for it, i would tell him we are going to have a realllly big arguement in Court.
While a 9 mm or .40 caliber bullet may or may not expand, it is an undeniable fact that a .45 caliber bullet will never shrink.

#33 abolt243

    Tim Bowyer

  • Moderator
  • 11,268 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 24 January 2012 - 10:17 PM



How do the differences in these two laws affect me for the purposes of the Unlawful Use of
Weapons law?
It is recommended that persons transport their firearms only unloaded and in a case in order to be fully
compliant with all statutes. A firearm transported in a container other than a case while engaged in activities
covered by the Wildlife Code could subject an individual to a charge of Class B Misdemeanor under the Wildlife
Code but would not be considered Unlawful Use of Weapons if the container were a "firearm carrying box,
shipping box, or other container" as provided in the Criminal Code.


source: www.isp.state.il.us/docs/ptfire.pdf



Notice the reference to two different "codes". Oh, and according to Diggens, a console is a 'case' as provided in the Criminal Code.



was this directed at me? ( if so see my post just previous to this one.) ir are you just re-enforcing what I stated?


Just a comment, not directed at anyone in particular. I know that you and I agree on this, this was reinforcement of your post.
Are you a member of the ISRA?? If not, why not?? Join over 18,000 other Illinois gun owners in the fight for your rights!!!

The Roman Empire fell due to a large, corrupt government, overspending, an overextended military, insecure borders, and the illegal immigration of Goths, barbarians (anyone who was not educated), and religious fanatics. Sound familiar?


"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel Adams

Luke 11:21 - "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed." NASB


#34 Uncle Harley

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,729 posts
  • Joined: 08-March 11

Posted 24 January 2012 - 10:19 PM

Todd- Thank you

Abolt- Thank you as well.
"A river cuts through a rock not because of its power but its persistence." - Jim Watkins


Comment on this thread for a chance to win a Glock and a pizza http://illinoiscarry...showtopic=51095

#35 es503IL

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 329 posts
  • Joined: 26-March 11

Posted 25 January 2012 - 12:24 PM

1/19/2012
Judge granted motions to clarify and motion to cite supplemental authority.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk


Just out of curiousity, wheres that information coming from? The last thing that I saw posted on the docket was from 01Dec2011.

#36 NakPPI

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,248 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 11

Posted 25 January 2012 - 12:45 PM

This information is posted on Pacer as a text order on 1/19/12. I'm not sure what else to say?

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk
Stung by the result of McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010), the City quickly enacted an ordinance that was too clever by half. Recognizing that a complete gun ban would no longer survive Supreme Court review, the City required all gun owners to obtain training that included one hour of live‐range instruction, and then banned all live ranges within City limits. This was not so much a nod to the importance of live‐range training as it was a thumbing of the municipal nose at the Supreme Court.

#37 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Moderator
  • 8,957 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 25 January 2012 - 01:18 PM


1/19/2012
Judge granted motions to clarify and motion to cite supplemental authority.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk


Just out of curiousity, wheres that information coming from? The last thing that I saw posted on the docket was from 01Dec2011.

You can register for a PACER account here. It doesn't cost anything if you limit your usage.
.
.
Link to ILGA House Audio/Video..........Link to ILGA Senate Audio/Video ..........Link to Livestream Blueroom Events Page

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - C.S. Lewis

#38 es503IL

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 329 posts
  • Joined: 26-March 11

Posted 25 January 2012 - 02:47 PM

Huh, I would have figured that if anything happened with the case (procedural or otherwise), it would be posted to the docket. Thanks.

#39 XJCraver

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 387 posts
  • Joined: 02-April 11

Posted 27 January 2012 - 07:53 AM

Thank you, Todd and AB, for the clarifications. I still see it as a gray area of the law, that could very well be exploited, but will concede the argument for now. Thanks again.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk