Jump to content


Photo

Open Carry in Illinois


This topic has been archived.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

#1 kurt555gs

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,437 posts
  • Joined: 09-October 09

Posted 12 February 2012 - 11:45 AM

The "Bear" in "keep and bear arms" in my thinking means to openly carry a firearm. 43 states allow this without any license at all. Many states that require a license to carry concealed require nothing to carry in the open. Shouldn't a FOID card by itself be sufficient? I wonder why the UUW and AG UUW status haven't been challenged on this basis alone?

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk
Kurt on G+

#2 KingWalleye

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 578 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 11

Posted 12 February 2012 - 12:09 PM

The UUW and AGUUW statues ban all types of carry outside your home or fixed place of business. Open or concealed doesn't matter.

We need someone to aggressively attack the FOID card and free us from this "licensed right".

#3 NakPPI

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 11

Posted 12 February 2012 - 12:55 PM

This issue is addressed in our court pleadings, the NRA briefs discuss this issue quite a bit.

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.

#4 Don Gwinn

    President, SCRA

  • Moderator
  • 2,666 posts
  • Joined: 18-June 04

Posted 12 February 2012 - 01:37 PM

NakPPI is right; neither of the two current cases exclude open carry. And personally, I'm all for it even though I prefer to carry concealed when I can. Ohio showed us that using open carry can lead to concealed in short order as politicians realize that the script has flipped.


________________________________________________________________________________

Illinois Gun Owners' Lobbying Day

March 5, 2014

Be there or everyone will see that you have four equal sides and four 90-degree angles!

________________________________________________________________________________


#5 kurt555gs

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,437 posts
  • Joined: 09-October 09

Posted 12 February 2012 - 02:46 PM

In states where I have a choice I prefer open carry to concealed. This question isn't about my preference though its about a straight forward legal argument about bearing arms.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk
Kurt on G+

#6 NakPPI

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 11

Posted 12 February 2012 - 02:59 PM

Kurt, read this

The law is that a state can prohibit open carry or concealed carry, but not both. Open carry is considered the "default" historically because concealed weapons were considered "dangerous" in the 1800s, however case law is pretty clear that if a State prohibits open carry, they have to allow concealed carry.
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.

#7 kurt555gs

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,437 posts
  • Joined: 09-October 09

Posted 12 February 2012 - 03:14 PM

:-) Except Illinois.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk
Kurt on G+

#8 Don Gwinn

    President, SCRA

  • Moderator
  • 2,666 posts
  • Joined: 18-June 04

Posted 12 February 2012 - 03:18 PM

Right. And traditionally, the catch there was to, as in Ohio and Wisconsin, technically allow open carry while counting on shame and embarrassment to keep people from actually doing it. When it was rare enough, anyone who did it was assumed to be a weirdo with an itchy trigger finger, and in places like Wisconsin they could be hassled or arrested for nebulous other crimes like "inciting panic" for going armed. That worked for a long time.

BUT when people started to open carry as a political statement in those states--see Ohio, where they actually held "open carry marches," like IGOLD but with everyone openly carrying a pistol, the worm turned. At that point, the open carry statutes became an advantage, because once they realized that they had the power to do so, the open carry events allowed gun owners to present legislators with a choice: either you can keep prohibiting concealed carry, in which case you can look forward to years of explaining to the hysterical ones that, yes, it's legal for that man to have a gun on his hip at Starbucks and no, you don't have the votes to make it illegal--or you can simply legalize concealed carry, after which most of the open carriers will *probably* choose to cover up and your constituents will mostly forget the issue ever existed.


________________________________________________________________________________

Illinois Gun Owners' Lobbying Day

March 5, 2014

Be there or everyone will see that you have four equal sides and four 90-degree angles!

________________________________________________________________________________


#9 kurt555gs

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,437 posts
  • Joined: 09-October 09

Posted 12 February 2012 - 03:48 PM

Well said, Don.

If Illinois had open carry the same thing would happen here.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

Edited by kurt555gs, 12 February 2012 - 03:53 PM.

Kurt on G+

#10 JackTripper

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,001 posts
  • Joined: 17-July 10

Posted 12 February 2012 - 04:53 PM

Now, someone explain California
:)

Sent from my Touchpad using Tapatalk
Come and knock on my door. I'll be waiting for you.

#11 NakPPI

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 11

Posted 12 February 2012 - 05:12 PM

Now, someone explain California
:)

Sent from my Touchpad using Tapatalk



Impossible. :)

California allowed the open carry of unloaded weapons with accessible ammunition. That law changed last year. They also have a may issue permit system. California also allows for loaded weapons to be carried outside the home in certain limited circumstances, such as in service of the militia.

Illinois of course has none of these exceptions, making it a clean case to build a record of on appeal.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

Edited by NakPPI, 12 February 2012 - 05:13 PM.

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.

#12 JackTripper

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,001 posts
  • Joined: 17-July 10

Posted 12 February 2012 - 05:14 PM


Now, someone explain California
:)

Sent from my Touchpad using Tapatalk



Impossible. :)

California allowed the open carry of unloaded weapons with accessible ammunition. That law changed last year. They also have a may issue permit system. California also allows for loaded weapons to be carried outside the home in certain limited circumstances, such as in service of the militia.

Illinois of course has none of these exceptions, making it a clean case to build a record of on appeal.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

I think open carried for handguns is banned, now. Still legal for non scary rifles.

Sent from my Touchpad using Tapatalk
Come and knock on my door. I'll be waiting for you.

#13 sirflyguy

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: 28-September 09

Posted 12 February 2012 - 05:16 PM

Kurt, read this

The law is that a state can prohibit open carry or concealed carry, but not both. Open carry is considered the "default" historically because concealed weapons were considered "dangerous" in the 1800s, however case law is pretty clear that if a State prohibits open carry, they have to allow concealed carry.

I just read the whole Mary Shepard again. It really is put together brilliantly. Also, it is very educational.

Certified NRA Pistol Instructor
NRA-Certified Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA-Certified Personal Protection In the Home Instructor

NRA-Certified Personal Protection Outside the Home Instructor 

NRA-Certified Range Safety Officer

IL FCCA Approved Instructor


#14 Don Gwinn

    President, SCRA

  • Moderator
  • 2,666 posts
  • Joined: 18-June 04

Posted 12 February 2012 - 05:40 PM

Just off the top of my head, I believe California outlawed their unloaded open carry method this year, right? They were in the beginning stages of the same kind of movement--they were beginning to see "open carry" events all across the state. The difference (IF I'm recalling this year's events correctly, which I may not be) is that apparently, in California, there were enough votes to stop open carry.

I don't see the same thing happening in Illinois (as Ohio and Wisconsin, for instance) simply because the only way Illinois would get open carry without concealed carry would be in the courts. The legislature isn't going to go for such a deal; either we have the votes for RTC or we don't. Now, if the courts decide to overturn IL carry laws and replace them with something that just allows open carry and not concealed (and it's actually just possible that they'll do so) or if the courts tell the legislature that it can prohibit one or the other, but not both (which is more likely) THEN I can see the legislature trying that gamble. But if that happens, they won't have the option of doing what California did (or at least tried to do?) by shutting down open carry. With open carry securely in place and unassailable, I stand by my prediction: IF gun owners are unapologetic enough to take advantage of open carry, it's an effective tool to expand RTC until we can all choose the method we prefer.

By the way, I don't want to come off as the guy who doesn't like open carry. I'm OK with it. I've done it in Missouri, Tennessee, Virginia and North Carolina and never got so much as a dirty look. I just think I'd choose to conceal on a daily basis in central Illinois if it became necessary to make that decision.


________________________________________________________________________________

Illinois Gun Owners' Lobbying Day

March 5, 2014

Be there or everyone will see that you have four equal sides and four 90-degree angles!

________________________________________________________________________________


#15 Uncle Harley

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,944 posts
  • Joined: 08-March 11

Posted 12 February 2012 - 06:20 PM

I would prefer Open carry, at least as an option, that way you stick it over your wait, drop a shirt over it, and if you bend over to pick something up wrong and someone happens to see it, you are not a fellon.
"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

#16 JackTripper

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,001 posts
  • Joined: 17-July 10

Posted 12 February 2012 - 06:38 PM

I would prefer Open carry, at least as an option, that way you stick it over your wait, drop a shirt over it, and if you bend over to pick something up wrong and someone happens to see it, you are not a fellon.

HB148 covers this, explicitly.
Come and knock on my door. I'll be waiting for you.

#17 NakPPI

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 11

Posted 12 February 2012 - 07:38 PM


I would prefer Open carry, at least as an option, that way you stick it over your wait, drop a shirt over it, and if you bend over to pick something up wrong and someone happens to see it, you are not a fellon.

HB148 covers this, explicitly.


Yup. Concealed or mostly concealed is what hb 148 says. I wouldn't worry about being hassled by law enforcement, I would be more worried about an old lady at the grocery store screaming "He's got a gun!" and then having to explain that to uninformed sheep.

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.

#18 FarmHand357

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 389 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 11

Posted 12 February 2012 - 10:51 PM

Concealed carry also allows for the documented "halo effect," in which the bad guys don't know who's carrying, therefore have to assume that everyone is. Even if only 5% of the population carries, the other 95% benefit from this effect. Not so with open carry when the bad guys can easily tell who can defend themselves and who can't.

Having both choices available to you is best, but I'd prefer to draw less attention to myself in public.

Edited by FarmHand357, 12 February 2012 - 10:53 PM.

Punish the crime, not the freedom

#19 The 45 King

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 89 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 11

Posted 13 February 2012 - 03:18 AM

I wish we could have some sort of carry period. This is ridiculous.

#20 lockman

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,151 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 13 February 2012 - 07:30 AM

Concealed carry also allows for the documented "halo effect," in which the bad guys don't know who's carrying, therefore have to assume that everyone is. Even if only 5% of the population carries, the other 95% benefit from this effect. Not so with open carry when the bad guys can easily tell who can defend themselves and who can't.

Having both choices available to you is best, but I'd prefer to draw less attention to myself in public.


The whole idea is to restore the ability to open carry without the social stigma attached. If openly carrying a gun is "bad", then concealing your "bad" behavior is even worse.

I refuse to play along with the current social rules that attach this stigma. I guess I am just anti-social.
"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA, CCRKBA & SAF

#21 samy12386

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 488 posts
  • Joined: 12-November 10

Posted 13 February 2012 - 09:42 AM

Well whenever we do get OC we should have a meet right in down town Chicago. Would the preemption part of the bill allow me to strap my AK on my back?
SEMPER FI

#22 kurt555gs

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,437 posts
  • Joined: 09-October 09

Posted 13 February 2012 - 01:50 PM

I was never suggesting using open carry as a tool for civil disobedience or committing any crime. I was just suggesting we need unlicensed open carry in addition to licensed concealed carry because open carry means "bear arms" and It think it is clearly a constitutional right by default and worth fighting for.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk
Kurt on G+

#23 samy12386

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 488 posts
  • Joined: 12-November 10

Posted 13 February 2012 - 02:23 PM

I was never suggesting using open carry as a tool for civil disobedience or committing any crime. I was just suggesting we need unlicensed open carry in addition to licensed concealed carry because open carry means "bear arms" and It think it is clearly a constitutional right by default and worth fighting for.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk


I agree completely. Give the option I would open carry without a permit over CC with permission anyday. Gun rights advocates that talk down open carry are IMO a form of an anti
SEMPER FI

#24 mikew

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,544 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 04

Posted 13 February 2012 - 04:17 PM

Gun rights advocates that talk down open carry are IMO a form of an anti

What about gun rights advocates that try to get concealed carry legislation passed?

#25 kurt555gs

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,437 posts
  • Joined: 09-October 09

Posted 13 February 2012 - 06:30 PM

Gun rights advocates that talk down open carry are IMO a form of an anti

What about gun rights advocates that try to get concealed carry legislation passed?


I don't think unlicensed open carry has to be mutually exclusive with passing concealed carry legislation. I think both are needed, but open carry has been getting a back seat even though its legal path is clearer by far.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk
Kurt on G+

#26 mikew

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,544 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 04

Posted 13 February 2012 - 06:51 PM

It's going to be easier to pass concealed carry here. That does not mean the the people working for it are against open carry.

#27 kurt555gs

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,437 posts
  • Joined: 09-October 09

Posted 13 February 2012 - 07:08 PM

Unlicensed open carry is a simple and clear constitutional issue. It's solution is obviously through the courts and not legislation. I think it can only have one legal outcome which is the RIGHT to BEAR ARMS. I do not see how a parallel effort for OC could have any adverse effect on concealed carry legislation. I am disappointed that OC rights have been not only forgotten by the big players, but from my point of view, deliberately ignored.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk
Kurt on G+

#28 dmefford

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Joined: 16-August 11

Posted 13 February 2012 - 08:15 PM

I'm not agreeing with or defending that position ... I just want to give you some philosophical questions to think about.

Should the citizenry recognize unjust or illegitimate laws? To find your own answer, consider this example ad absurdum:
Would you or should you obey a law that disallows you from speaking outside of your home?

If you would and should, then you are a legal positivist. You believe that any law, regardless of all else, is legally defensible as long as it was enacted through the proper legal channels of your society.

Proponents of natural law, on the other hand, might say that no matter how many votes a piece of legislation received, no matter how many courts upheld its legality... it is not a defensible or legitimate law if it usurps your fundamental rights (right to life, right to property, right to express yourself, etc) without due process.

Many great philosophers throughout the history of mankind have, in no uncertain terms, argued that self defense is a natural (or God-given, if you believe that) human right. A law forbidding you from defending yourself is no law at all, according to some.



Oh yeah........ You have it figured out! Beautifully put!

Regards, Drd
Visit my Blog: "Shall Not Be Infringed"

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
--Thomas Jefferson to I. Tiffany, 1819

#29 dmefford

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Joined: 16-August 11

Posted 13 February 2012 - 08:20 PM


I was never suggesting using open carry as a tool for civil disobedience or committing any crime. I was just suggesting we need unlicensed open carry in addition to licensed concealed carry because open carry means "bear arms" and It think it is clearly a constitutional right by default and worth fighting for.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk


I agree completely. Give the option I would open carry without a permit over CC with permission anyday. Gun rights advocates that talk down open carry are IMO a form of an anti


I have to agree here. There needs to be a NO PERMISSION option, period, exclamation point!!! Who has to ask permission to exercise a fundamental right... Just slaves........

Regards, Drd
Visit my Blog: "Shall Not Be Infringed"

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
--Thomas Jefferson to I. Tiffany, 1819

#30 dmefford

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Joined: 16-August 11

Posted 13 February 2012 - 08:30 PM

Gun rights advocates that talk down open carry are IMO a form of an anti

What about gun rights advocates that try to get concealed carry legislation passed?


I wouldn't call them antis... more like oooh, this won't sound good..... AND I realize that we will have to incrementally try to regain our rights, but ultimately if it all goes to pot we will be at the same point our Founders were in....

Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." ― Samuel Adams ...

We will at some point have a choice to make... Probably now isn't it... But what is freedom worth to you? Our Founders pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor for Liberty. For now we need to do everything we can to do this through the courts and legislation. If not then we will need to re-watch "V" for Vendetta...

Regards, Drd

Edited by dmefford, 13 February 2012 - 08:31 PM.

Visit my Blog: "Shall Not Be Infringed"

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
--Thomas Jefferson to I. Tiffany, 1819