83 replies to this topic

[Unanimous]

I know there is a lot of talk on this board about the fanny pack carry topic.  My OPINION on this issue is that it is technically an easy win against the citizen for any prosecutor who wants to pursue it.  My reasoning for this is based on a couple of points.  Number one you are concealing the weapon which can be argued that it is unconstitutional because the 2'nd amendment only guarantees the people the right to bear arms as in wearing them.  Secondly, the transportation laws were designed just for that... transporting the weapon to either the range, a hunt or a gunsmith, etc.  This would NOT include transporting it along with you on your everyday routine to stores or to work or whatever.

Where I am going with this is that under the second amendment we are in fact allowed to bear arms, or wear them openly.  

Under the thirteenth amendment there is also some interesting points.  While this is listed under the "threat of consequences for forced labor" it seems highly applicable to enforcing the second amendment

    Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 – Conspiracy Against Rights:[19]

Conspiracy to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person's rights or privileges secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States

    Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 – Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law:[20]

It is a crime for any person acting under color of law (federal, state or local officials who enforce statutes, ordinances, regulations, or customs) to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived the rights, privileges, or immunities of any person secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.  

This includes willfully subjecting or causing to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.

My personal interpretation of this is that no state laws may be enacted denying anyone of the bill of rights and that would most certainly include any state including IL that bans open carry.  And anyone enforcing them is guilty themselves of a crime.

Am I wrong?

Come at me liberals!  

Edited by Unanimous, 12 April 2012 - 02:48 PM.

[mstrat]

Unanimous, on 12 April 2012 - 02:46 PM, said:

Come at me liberals!  

I'll strongly urge you not to paint this as a partisan issue.  The right to bear arms is an issue for every American citizen. Please don't make it about party politics.

[mstrat]

p.s. Welcome to the forum, and i'll probably add a reply of more substance later.

[TFC]

Welp... give it a try and let us know what happens, 'Kay?  

[mikew]

I strongly urge you not to try to prove that you are right
by open carrying in defiance of the current law in Illinois.

[Getzapped]

Do It!!!!   I'll throw in five bucks to help bail ya out!!!

[oneshot]

Better have a few thousand dollars to test it in court.  At least.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[JR1987]

Welcome aboard.

Legally speaking your personal interpretation is meaningless. IL laws is very clear on who may and who may not carry a firearm on their person within the IL borders.

As the law is written you would be in violation. If the law were less clear your interpretation might hold more weight; but they are fairly clear.

[colt-45]

open carry in what act? on your land or in public? your land is ok but not in public you will get a UUW or AUUW in Illinois.

[Unanimous]

JR1987, on 12 April 2012 - 03:50 PM, said:

Welcome aboard.

Legally speaking your personal interpretation is meaningless. IL laws is very clear on who may and who may not carry a firearm on their person within the IL borders.

As the law is written you would be in violation. If the law were less clear your interpretation might hold more weight; but they are fairly clear.

did you even read the attached portion of the thirteenth amendment I posted?  My "personal interpretation" is the same conclusion anyone would arrive at

[Unanimous]

TFC, on 12 April 2012 - 03:14 PM, said:

Welp... give it a try and let us know what happens, 'Kay?  

Getzapped, on 12 April 2012 - 03:42 PM, said:

Do It!!!!   I'll throw in five bucks to help bail ya out!!!

thanks for the mature input

[lockman]

Unanimous, on 12 April 2012 - 03:56 PM, said:

JR1987, on 12 April 2012 - 03:50 PM, said:

Welcome aboard.

Legally speaking your personal interpretation is meaningless. IL laws is very clear on who may and who may not carry a firearm on their person within the IL borders.

As the law is written you would be in violation. If the law were less clear your interpretation might hold more weight; but they are fairly clear.

did you even read the attached portion of the thirteenth amendment I posted? My "personal interpretation" is the same conclusion anyone would arrive at

In theory yes. Our mission is to put theory to practice in such a way as not to jeopardize life and liberty in the process.

[wilessiuc]

I am a prosecutor and I've read your post three times and my head hurts. While I agree with you that the 2nd amendment should be read to allow carry, at the present time Illinois courts and statutes do not allow for it. Throwing together some unrelated constitutional provisions and baiting liberals does not change that fact. Carry a loaded weapon and face a felony UUW charge.

[Lou]

Welcome to the forum.  You will find a LOT of dedicated, educated and informed people here.

IANAL but much of what we deal with as Second Amendment advocates is precedent.  
Precedent is currently against your personal interpretation but precedent is changed by challenging the existing interpretation  in court.

Not only will I be the first to  wish your interpretation was correct but I will be the first to donate $25 to your defense fund.  Get yourself arrested, challenge it in all the courts between Crook County and SCOTUS and when you win 4-5 years from now feel free to say "I told you so."

Sadly, we live with existing precedent and not what we wish it was.

[Unanimous]

wilessiuc, on 12 April 2012 - 04:50 PM, said:

I am a prosecutor and I've read your post three times and my head hurts. While I agree with you that the 2nd amendment should be read to allow carry, at the present time Illinois courts and statutes do not allow for it. Throwing together some unrelated constitutional provisions and baiting liberals does not change that fact. Carry a loaded weapon and face a felony UUW charge.

Ok FYI and everyone here the comment about liberals was a light hearted attempt at humor.  Sorry for offending anyone

"unrelated constitutional provisions" is simply your opinion.  They seem very clear cut and definitive.

You yourself say that 2A "should be read to allow carry" so are you saying that somehow a state statute can trump the bill of rights?

Quite frankly my head hurts thinking you are actually a prosecutor

[JackTripper]

10 characters

Attached Images

• 

[Getzapped]

That is a perfect picture!!

It seems every so often someone comes in with the solution to our problems!

Edited by Getzapped, 12 April 2012 - 05:39 PM.

[ishmo]

JackTripper, on 12 April 2012 - 05:07 PM, said:

10 characters

lmao. Proof positive a picture is worth a thousand words.

[wilessiuc]

Unanimous, on 12 April 2012 - 05:06 PM, said:

wilessiuc, on 12 April 2012 - 04:50 PM, said:

I am a prosecutor and I've read your post three times and my head hurts. While I agree with you that the 2nd amendment should be read to allow carry, at the present time Illinois courts and statutes do not allow for it. Throwing together some unrelated constitutional provisions and baiting liberals does not change that fact. Carry a loaded weapon and face a felony UUW charge.

Ok FYI and everyone here the comment about liberals was a light hearted attempt at humor.  Sorry for offending anyone

"unrelated constitutional provisions" is simply your opinion.  They seem very clear cut and definitive.

You yourself say that 2A "should be read to allow carry" so are you saying that somehow a state statute can trump the bill of rights?

Quite frankly my head hurts thinking you are actually a prosecutor

And who determines how the bill of rights is read, you? No judges do. And in case you haven't been following, Illinois judges have been consistently ruling against us lately. We will have ccw soon, through the IL legislature.

[TFC]

My approach is a very simple one:
There are people who won't listen to those who know.
They have to learn things the hard way. Fine. Let them.

Someone posts this about every 2-3 weeks. Could be an innocent comment or point of debate or it could be a troll.
Either way, they have to learn the hard way. No problem... go for it.

[Buzzard]

Unanimous, on 12 April 2012 - 05:06 PM, said:

Ok FYI and everyone here the comment about liberals was a light hearted attempt at humor. Sorry for offending anyone

"unrelated constitutional provisions" is simply your opinion. They seem very clear cut and definitive.

You yourself say that 2A "should be read to allow carry" so are you saying that somehow a state statute can trump the bill of rights?

Quite frankly my head hurts thinking you are actually a prosecutor.

So...after inviting pot shots from liberals....and apologizing for such.... you take a pot shot at prosecutors?

I would wager there are many prosecutors in Illinois that would welcome RTC. Winnebago County State’s Attorney Joe Bruscato spoke favorably of RTC at the Winnebago County Town Hall Meeting in Rockford.

But Anyway, . . . Greetings and welcome to the forum.

[Jonnie Knuckles]

My head hurts reading this.

Sidenote: Welcome aboard the RTC train.

Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk 2

[Unanimous]

wilessiuc I'm sorry if you think I was seriously suggesting someone would win this at the state level.  We're both smart enough to know it has zero chance without going Federal but I believe it would have a fighting chance there - and I also believe you do because likely deep down you know I am right.  I don't share your optimism on IL getting ccw although I do hope you are correct

TFC you say someone posts this every couple weeks.
  
Every couple weeks.... really?

Every couple weeks someone posts the distinct verbage of the 13'th amendment that says anyone attempting to uphold state laws that violate the rights granted to us in constitution is guilty of a crime?  

Lastly I would like to say thanks to everyone who thought it necessary to post immature comments and pictures, all you did was completely validate what my attorney suggested to me which is that it is literally impossible to have a rational discussion on an internet message board because of immature clowns.  I suggested he was wrong about the folks who post on Illinoiscarry but a good handful of people definitely proved him right with ease and flying colors.

[Gunslinger]

Unanimous, on 12 April 2012 - 02:46 PM, said:

I know there is a lot of talk on this board about the fanny pack carry topic.  My OPINION on this issue is that it is technically an easy win against the citizen for any prosecutor who wants to pursue it.  My reasoning for this is based on a couple of points.  Number one you are concealing the weapon which can be argued that it is unconstitutional because the 2'nd amendment only guarantees the people the right to bear arms as in wearing them.  Secondly, the transportation laws were designed just for that... transporting the weapon to either the range, a hunt or a gunsmith, etc.  This would NOT include transporting it along with you on your everyday routine to stores or to work or whatever.

Where I am going with this is that under the second amendment we are in fact allowed to bear arms, or wear them openly.  

Under the thirteenth amendment there is also some interesting points.  While this is listed under the "threat of consequences for forced labor" it seems highly applicable to enforcing the second amendment

    Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 – Conspiracy Against Rights:[19]

Conspiracy to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person's rights or privileges secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States

    Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 – Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law:[20]

It is a crime for any person acting under color of law (federal, state or local officials who enforce statutes, ordinances, regulations, or customs) to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived the rights, privileges, or immunities of any person secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.  

This includes willfully subjecting or causing to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.

My personal interpretation of this is that no state laws may be enacted denying anyone of the bill of rights and that would most certainly include any state including IL that bans open carry.  And anyone enforcing them is guilty themselves of a crime.

Am I wrong?

Come at me liberals!  

Yes your 100% right. I don't think anyone on this form or anywhere else has EVER tried to argue that bear arms means we can carry. Well guys I guess the fight is over, we can carry now! What should we advocate for next? Medical marijuana? Illinoissmoke.com?

I'm so glad you figured this out for us. Have u tried it yet?

[Unanimous]

Gunslinger, on 12 April 2012 - 07:55 PM, said:

Yes your 100% right. I don't think anyone on this form or anywhere else has EVER tried to argue that bear arms means we can carry. Well guys I guess the fight is over, we can carry now! What should we advocate for next? Medical marijuana? Illinoissmoke.com?

I'm so glad you figured this out for us. Have u tried it yet?

really??  A case has been heard at the supreme court suggesting anyone enforcing a state statute denying an IL resident the right to carry is themselves guilty of a crime?  

Epic genius is epic!  

I guess we CAN all move on then!!!

[Molly B.]

Unanimous,

Welcome to IllinoisCarry. This is quite a thread to start off on.  It's hard to tell if you're serious or if
this is a lighthearted attempt at creating discussion and a debate . . . and then the "come at me" challenge..
Not sure what to make of that and I see several others didn't either.  

No one really needs to prove you wrong.  For years we've been trying to prove Illinois' interpretation of
the law wrong, challenging the laws in court, and trying to elect legislators who agree with our interpretation
of the Second Amendment.

But our opinion, and yours, does not protect anyone from felony charges and convictions in this state. Two
federal judges in different Illinois districts have just ruled the Second Amendment does not extend outside
of our homes.  We know they're wrong, I think they know they are wrong, but it still doesn't help us at this
point.  We need to either get this changed legislatively or in the courts.

Again, welcome to IllinoisCarry,
Molly B.

[Jeffrey]

This will not end well

[Bud]

Jeffrey, on 12 April 2012 - 08:17 PM, said:

This will not end well

yes, after being alerted back channel, I had to log back on just to watch to what will no doubt prove to be the ensuing hilarity.

[pyre400]

Welcome to the fight!

As was said before, IC is a good place to get/share information.
We have quite a diverse membership here, as you have seen and will continue to see - and we're all bound by one goal!

[Uncle Harley]

"transporting the weapon to either the range, a hunt or a gunsmith, etc. This would NOT include transporting it along with you on your everyday routine to stores or to work or whatever."


A:  Show me in the statute where it says  that was it's intent. (They may very well been what the authors intended, but that is not what they wrote, and we cannont be expected to be mind readers! )

B:  People vs. Bruner  provides case law that states you are wrong!  The felony case charge was overturnd, because her purse was considered a " case"  the misdamenor charge of bringing a weapon into a federal building stayed and she was charged with that.  

C: People vs Diggins,  very CLEARLY states what is considered a " case "   ( basically the websters deffinition of case)

D:  The only statutes that  specifically describe a case are contained within the wildlife code.  You can only be charged with wildlife code violations  durring  activities involved with the taking of wild game.  They do not apply to criminal cases.  


Container "transport"   ( carry )   is perfectly legal from the states standpoint, however there may or may not be local city ordinances against it.


Prove me wrong!   And BTW  I am not a liberal