6 Seconds From Safety?

[45superman]

Hi,

This is my first post here, and I hope I'm not too much of an ignoramus asking this question. I saw a reference here to an idea mentioned on gunssavelife.com that seems to be asserting that in Illinois, it's legal to carry an unloaded firearm in a container (such as a fanny pack). The gist of the idea seemed to be that you could also carry a loaded magazine (presumably in said fanny pack, but that's one of the things I'm curious about). Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Thanks in advance.

[SmershAgent]

I'd suggest having a look at this link for an overview:

 

http://www.concealcarry.org/carrylegal.htm

 

While I'm sure people have tried carrying this way by now, I'm not familiar of any court interpretations. I think a lot would depend on the disposition of the constable who "caught" you carrying this way, the circumstances, your level of cooperation, etc. I'd personally say it's 50/50 between nothing happening or the state trying to throw the book at you.

 

As was mentioned in another post, a reasonable, shall-issue law would solve this problem definitively.

[45superman]

I'd suggest having a look at this link for an overview:

 

http://www.concealcarry.org/carrylegal.htm

 

While I'm sure people have tried carrying this way by now, I'm not familiar of any court interpretations. I think a lot would depend on the disposition of the constable who "caught" you carrying this way, the circumstances, your level of cooperation, etc. I'd personally say it's 50/50 between nothing happening or the state trying to throw the book at you.

 

As was mentioned in another post, a reasonable, shall-issue law would solve this problem definitively.

Thanks, Smersh. I agree, of course, that a shall issue concealed carry law is what we must push for--I just was wondering about an alternative for the meantime. Thanks again.

[Blaster]

Welcome to the forum. Feel free to post any questions you may have anytime.

 

On the 6 seconds from safety issue. Just like you would do with anything you read on the internet, do the research for yourself.

[45superman]

Thanks Blaster,

both for the welcome and the advice (and good advice it is, too). One reason I was kind of drawn to the fanny pack idea is that I'm confined to a wheelchair, and wear a fanny pack everywhere I go (hip pockets aren't easy to deal with, and I have to have my hands free for moving, so I can't easily carry stuff in my arms). I also kind of figured that unless I really act like an idiot (which I like to think I've pretty much outgrown), the police are unlikely to ask to look in a paraplegic's fanny pack. Finally, I am less capable of unarmed self defense than most, so would definitely be more comfortable armed. Thanks again.

[junglebob]

You may want to go to concealcarry.org/pritchetttrail.htm and read about the Roderick Pritchett trial. He was stopped in the Peoples Republic of Chicago. He had a handgun in a case with a loaded magazine next to it. The case was in his car when he was stopped in south side of Chicago. He was arrested for unlawful use of weapons, found not guilty last may. I went to altavista.com search engine and put Roderick Pritchett in search. Read the article on priceofliberty.org from the first search page and go to Illinoisleader.com and search for legal shootout brewing in Chicago, read the guest column, and also the letter I'm too old to run.

I guess one mistake Roderick Pritchett made in the Peoples Republic was to tell the police that he had a gun in a case in the car and allowing them to search the car. I understand just their knowing your have a FOID card gives them probable cause to search. Pritchett had been stopped in Will county previous to this and told the police that he had a cased gun, they ran a check on the serial number and let him go.

I wish that Pritchett would bring a false arrest suit against the police in Cook County, maybe sue them for $1 million or so. If he won a sizeable suit maybe it would make the police there think twice about arresting someone who is transporting legally a firearm in there car or on their person. I'd be willing to donate to a fund to bring a lawsuit in his case.

[45superman]

JungleBob,

Thanks, I'll check that out. I agree, I also would like to see Pritchett put a real hurt on the Cook County police budget. That ought to make them think twice about harrassing people.

[Gary]

Even if prosecutors follow our thinking on fanny packs it is still possible to run afoul of the law due to carrying in "restricted places" or other similar traps that are ready to nab you. I am not a lawyer and I do not give advice and nothing I say should be contrued to be advice or complete in explanation in any way.

 

SAFE NEIGHBORHOODS

 

The debate and passage of the “Safe Neighborhoods Act” has brought a great deal of controversy. It was actually more the debate rather than the passage of the “Act” because it brought the statutes governing weapons under scrutiny. This has caused consternation among many prosecutors and police officers. (Not all prosecutors and certainly not all police officers) The main point of contention is Article 24 of the Illinois Compiled Statutes, which reads in part:

(720 ILCS 5/)

ARTICLE 24. DEADLY WEAPONS

(720 ILCS 5/24-1)

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,

Except that this subsection (a) (4) does not apply to or affect transportation of weapons that meet one of the following

Conditions:

(i) Are broken down in a non-functioning state; or

(ii) Are not immediately accessible; or

 

(iii) 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;

 

Those who do not like the idea of the law allowing a citizen of Illinois with a valid FOID card to carry or transport an unloaded gun in a case or container similar to a “fanny pack” or “day planner” also try to ignore that this possibility was discussed during the passage of the law and has been upheld in two appellate cases. In fact, during the appeals process in the “People v. Bruner” case the legislative discussion is part of the courts findings. So far, no arrest that I am aware of has held up. But arrests and threats of arrest are still being made. Recently one Sheriff is reported to have said, “We don’t interpret it that way around here”. Wait a minute! When did a Sheriff get the job of interpreting the law? I thought his job was to “enforce” the law. It is the courts job to “interpret”.

 

Shortly after the passage of the “Safe Neighborhoods Act”, the States Attorney of DuPage County said that he would prosecute anybody arrested for carrying a firearm in this manner. And he tried!

 

On July 24, 2001, John Horstman was riding his bicycle in DuPage County when he was stopped by police officers because he “looked” like a man that may have committed a crime some time earlier. With that as probable cause, they searched him and found full ammunition clips on his belt; and with further search they found an unloaded pistol fully encased in a pistol case that was designed to appear to be a day planner. They arrested, strip-searched and held him over night until, at the bond hearing, he was charged with Aggravated Unlawful Use of Weapons and was released on a bond of $250,000. He posted $25,000 in cash. (Note: A man with no criminal record, with an encased, unloaded pistol, and a valid FOID card gets released on a bond of ONE QUARTER OF A MILLION DOLLARS?) How much would the bond have been if he had committed a crime?)

 

On August 7 all charges were dismissed and Mr. Horstman’s bond money was returned. In Illinois it is customary and legal for the county to withhold 10% of the posted amount of the bond even if the defendant is found “not-guilty”. In Mr. Horstman’s case ALL money was returned. The states attorney made this statement to the press:

“Upon a thorough review of the police reports and the physical evidence, State’s Attorney Birkett and his staff determined that Mr. Horstman should not be charged with an offense and there is no evidence upon which to proceed with further prosecution.

The weapon was unloaded and enclosed in a gun case, which was also enclosed in a backpack, and Mr. Horstman possessed a valid F.O.I.D. card. This method of transporting a firearm is exempted from criminal prosecution.”

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On August 4, 2001, Vana Haggerty was arrested. She was a vendor at the Marion County Fair and during the arrest the police officer found an unloaded firearm in a fanny pack along with her FOID card. She was charged by the States Attorney, Jim Creason, with UUW under Article 24 above. During the arraignment he even added another charge of “Unauthorized Possession or Storage of Weapons on Publicly Funded Property”. Wow! What a stretch! If this were to be validated as a charge, it is arguable that every boy scout, every fisherman, every hunter that goes to a camp, a lake, or a dove hunt on state or county property; would be subject to arrest and conviction. Unlike Article 24 above, there are no exceptions for hunters, police officers, or anyone. Can you imagine having to get permission from the Sheriff every time you wanted to go hunting? See Statute Below:

 

(720 ILCS 5/)

 

ARTICLE 21. DAMAGE AND TRESPASS TO PROPERTY

 

 

(720 ILCS 5/21-6)

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.

( The chief security officer must grant any reasonable request for permission under paragraph (a).

(Source: P.A. 89-685, eff. 6-1-97.)

 

 

Ms Haggerty’s trial started on January 10, 2002; and at the start of the trial the States Attorney DISMISSED the fanny pack charge. Fortunately the jury found her NOT GUILTY on the unauthorized possession charge.

 

So that’s the end of it, right? No! How does your States Attorney feel about it? What is your Sheriff’s attitude? Does he enforce or interpret?