71 replies to this topic

[papa]

citrix_guy, on 16 April 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:

papa, on 16 April 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:

One of the reasons we need the right to record " voice and video " under one party consent law. That and a few 1983 suits and they would stop doing these things.

And to have a few of these suits assumes you have to be willing to get arrested like this guy. go through that hassle and lose the weapon.

Seems to me there are plenty of people being arrested already.. but without a recording , it is very hard to prove anything. Even after we win RTC ( right to carry ) I am sure some portions of the state ( Chicago ) will still try to harass legal carriers.

[pyre400]

lockman, on 16 April 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:

If the guns were unloaded an in his case and he could legally carry or possess them in his home state, then UUW or Agg UUW does not apply because the traveler is treated as if they possess a FOID due to being exempt under the FOID act from the need to acquire one.

Quote

My buddy (a cop in an suburb) said he could charge you... it may not stick, but you are going to jail in cuffs, going to get a lawyer and probably never going to see the weapon again.

Your cop buddy is a play ground bully pushing around the smaller kids. The very charge they leveled has the cased/unloaded exemption spelled out.

I know quite a few cops who have stated as much. They are good people, and not who I would consider playground bullies. One of which I'm related to - but their occupational driven perspectives are such that: There is no penalty for being wrong if you arrest first, while there will most definitely be a penalty for being wrong while failing to arrest.

Laws were intended to be in common English, but are so bad that very few, in the common population, can understand them (this includes the police). So, of course, given the path of least resistance, "arrest now, let the SA sort em out" becomes the conditioned behavior of most LEOs.

If the police could be held personally liable for a wrongful arrest, then maybe there would be less of this nonsense. The officer would be more motivated to use their discretion to protect someone's freedom rather than to take it away. It would also be a motivation for politicians to write better laws, as laws that cannot be enforced without imposing significant risk on the enforcers would tend to go unenforced... (say that 3 times fast )

Without skin the in the game, there's nothing to stop government form trampling all over the governed.

[Gunslinger]

citrix_guy, on 16 April 2012 - 12:51 PM, said:

lockman, on 16 April 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:

If the guns were unloaded an in his case and he could legally carry or possess them in his home state, then UUW or Agg UUW does not apply because the traveler is treated as if they possess a FOID due to being exempt under the FOID act from the need to acquire one.

Quote

My buddy (a cop in an suburb) said he could charge you... it may not stick, but you are going to jail in cuffs, going to get a lawyer and probably never going to see the weapon again.

Your cop buddy is a play ground bully pushing around the smaller kids. The very charge they leveled has the cased/unloaded exemption spelled out. A recent IL Supreme Court decision took any doubt about the non resident /FOID issue from being used to negate the exemption. Arresting for UUW when the possessor is otherwise legal and are in compliance with cased and unloaded falls under the category of persecution not prosecution.

Since this issue has been already answered by the statutes and the courts legal rendering of them, this should be addressed by the victim as a 42 USC 1983 civil action. Any violation occurring here was that of a Greyhound rule, not a violation of law.

Also note: Based on Greyhounds own rules, this prohibition only applies to checked bags. He could have carried it on in his briefcase, fanny pack or day planner and not even broken their petty rules.

he was explaining to me how it happens... Dont jump down his throat. THIS IS REALITY. the cops get the pats on the back for felony arrest. They also are protected from NOT KNOWING EVERY LEGAL EXEMPTION...  A cop can plea that he didn't know about the "console rule" or that you "didnt have to have a FOID" and he is protected as he acted reasonably and cant be expected to know every exception to every law.

In Chicago it is pretty easy, they are rewarded for these types of stops. "getting guns off the street". It matters not if it actually goes anywhere, the victim here pays lawyers, loses freedom, etc. And the Cops and City/State attorneys never are held personally liable for mistakes.

Even if this guy is released this afternoon because a judge throws it all out (I doubt it) he will never see the guns again, and never get back his time, bus tickets, etc.

This is why it is important to have documents on you when traveling in areas like Chicago. I never go to Chicago but I do have the diggens case as well as heller and McDonald along with Illinois law concerning weapons in a PDF file on my iPhone.

[citrix_guy]

Gunslinger, on 16 April 2012 - 01:02 PM, said:

This is why it is important to have documents on you when traveling in areas like Chicago. I never go to Chicago but I do have the diggens case as well as heller and McDonald along with Illinois law concerning weapons in a PDF file on my iPhone.

Yeah.. doesn't matter. or may matter only to 1 out of 10 cops.
I dont go into the city. I wont even go down for Sales calls anymore. I will do a gotomeeting or webex. If we get invited to Dinner (which happens about once a month) I go down maybe 1 out of 4 times. I hate the city.

Edited by citrix_guy, 16 April 2012 - 01:15 PM.

[RandyP]

Greyhound also has a zero tolerance policy regarding items that can be carried on your person inside the bus.

"On Board RestrictionsFor everyone's safety and comfort, Greyhound asks that customers please follow certain restrictions while on board. Federal law does not permit smoking on Greyhound buses. We have a zero tolerance for alcohol, drugs, weapons and unruly behavior."

This data again comes from their company website.

Please understand that I am not taking Greyhound's, the Police's or the guy arrested's side on this nor am I privy to any more information than was given in that news article posted here. I have NO idea why exactly he is in the slammer. Like that Martin case in Florida it might be beneficial to wait until all the facts are made public before jumping to any conclusions?

As many folks post, it behooves us all to become self-educated on the local laws and carrier rules before we bring a firearm along for the ride, be that plane, train, bus or car.

Edited by RandyP, 16 April 2012 - 01:39 PM.

[lockman]

Knowingly depriving someone of their property and liberty and then using ignorance as an excuse is immoral.

Two police officers in Wisconsin filed for bankruptcy after 1983 actions were brought against them after arresting a man for open carrying (on his own property). In 1983 actions the police officers can be held individually liable for damages.

[lockman]

RandyP, on 16 April 2012 - 01:39 PM, said:

Greyhound also has a zero tolerance policy regarding items that can be carried on your person inside the bus.

"On Board RestrictionsFor everyone's safety and comfort, Greyhound asks that customers please follow certain restrictions while on board. Federal law does not permit smoking on Greyhound buses. We have a zero tolerance for alcohol, drugs, weapons and unruly behavior."

This data again comes from their company website.

Please understand that I am not taking Greyhound's, the Police's or the guy arrested's side on this nor am I privy to any more information than was given in that news article posted here. I have NO idea why exactly he is in the slammer. Like that Martin case in Florida it might be beneficial to wait until all the facts are made public before jumping to any conclusions?

As many folks post, it behooves us all to become self-educated on the local laws and carrier rules before we bring a firearm along for the ride, be that plane, train, bus or car.

Great I can't even bring my heart medication on the bus! When you have general policies like the one stated above I would consider it UNLAWFUL DRUGS, UNLAWFUL WEAPONS or UNLAWFUL BEHAVIOR otherwise I really can't bring so much as an aspirin on board. Amtrak regulates firearms in checked baggage, but there is no Amtrak regulation about carry on your person other than the state laws governing such carriage.

[Jeffrey]

Didn't a guy in Chicago, within the last year or two, be found innocent for carrying a gun and shooting a drug addict that was harrassing him and his two daughters?  How about the guy that was protecting his bar a few weeks ago, who wasn't even legal to own a gun?  Can anyone please support me with a copy of the laws of Chicago.  More importantly can anyone actually understand them?  Why does that city get to make them up as they go?

[citrix_guy]

Jeffrey, on 16 April 2012 - 02:31 PM, said:

Didn't a guy in Chicago, within the last year or two, be found innocent for carrying a gun and shooting a drug addict that was harrassing him and his two daughters?  How about the guy that was protecting his bar a few weeks ago, who wasn't even legal to own a gun?  Can anyone please support me with a copy of the laws of Chicago.  More importantly can anyone actually understand them?  Why does that city get to make them up as they go?

I remember the first one. But I the details dont jump to the front of my mind.

But that one recently where the ex-felon shot the guy breaking into his bar and they initially arrested him on AUUW. Well that went away quietly... why? Because the the public yelled about it and they declined to take him to court and dropped the charges. That is how it works in Chicago. THEY get to decide who goes to court and jail and often it is based on Who you know or how outraged the population will be. thats it. There is no chicago law that says you cant be charged w/ UUW or AUUW in certain circumstance. They guy had ran afoul of the law, but the decided not to pursue it.

[Mr. Fife]

He should have used megabus.com

No searches (except international travel) and trips as low as $1 if you book far enough in advance.

[05FLHT]

lockman, on 16 April 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:

If the guns were unloaded an in his case and he could legally carry or possess them in his home state, then UUW or Agg UUW does not apply because the traveler is treated as if they possess a FOID due to being exempt under the FOID act from the need to acquire one.

Even if the firearms were loaded,  Ag UUW has the same exemption as UUW, being that the firearm must not be immediately accessible. If the firearms were stowed under the bus, the only thing I can reason is a constructive possession due to the individual having to possess the case/container prior to checking it in with Greyhound.  More details are needed.

Edited by 05FLHT, 16 April 2012 - 03:30 PM.

[Patriots & Tyrants]

If LEO's are telling you loaded mag=loaded gun I would beg to differ on their legal knowledge...right from the ISP website

Quote

Illinois law requires that residents possessing ammunition must have a valid FOID card.  To transport an
unloaded, uncased firearm with ammunition immediately accessible is a Class 4 Felony.
The location of ammunition being transported, including ammunition being transported in loaded magazines, is not regulated as long as the firearm is unloaded and encased, and the resident possessing the firearm holds a
valid FOID card.

Unless there is something I am missing I can have as many loaded mags as I want as long as the gun is in a case. That is why I asked specifically if Chicago had anything that conflicted with state law.

[pyre400]

Patriots & Tyrants, on 16 April 2012 - 03:44 PM, said:

Unless there is something I am missing I can have as many loaded mags as I want as long as the gun is in a case. That is why I asked specifically if Chicago had anything that conflicted with state law.

Yes, I believe they have their own transport ordinance that requires the firearm to be in a non-functioning state (i.e. taken down, or bolt removed, etc)

[Patriots & Tyrants]

pyre400, on 16 April 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:

Patriots & Tyrants, on 16 April 2012 - 03:44 PM, said:

Unless there is something I am missing I can have as many loaded mags as I want as long as the gun is in a case. That is why I asked specifically if Chicago had anything that conflicted with state law.

Yes, I believe they have their own transport ordinance that requires the firearm to be in a non-functioning state (i.e. taken down, or bolt removed, etc)

That is gun taken down, but isint specific to the magazine loaded. I am going to dig around the interweb and see if I can find any POSSIBLE different between state law and city law that they can hang this guy with.

[pyre400]

Patriots & Tyrants, on 16 April 2012 - 03:55 PM, said:

That is gun taken down, but isint specific to the magazine loaded. I am going to dig around the interweb and see if I can find any POSSIBLE different between state law and city law that they can hang this guy with.

Yea, unfortunately I dont know about ammo transport in Chicago. I would guess that FF or one of the other Chicago based members may know.

[kurt555gs]

pyre400, on 16 April 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:

Patriots & Tyrants, on 16 April 2012 - 03:44 PM, said:

Unless there is something I am missing I can have as many loaded mags as I want as long as the gun is in a case. That is why I asked specifically if Chicago had anything that conflicted with state law.

Yes, I believe they have their own transport ordinance that requires the firearm to be in a non-functioning state (i.e. taken down, or bolt removed, etc)

According to the newspaper, he was charged with state AG UUW, not a local ordinance violation.

[lockman]

Maybe this guy ought to give Todd a call?

[JackTripper]

lockman, on 16 April 2012 - 06:25 PM, said:

Maybe this guy ought to give Todd a call?

Somehow I think he will have enough trouble making bail. I don't think a Nevada resident would think to call the local NRA lobbyist.

[Uncle Harley]

JackTripper, on 16 April 2012 - 07:07 PM, said:

lockman, on 16 April 2012 - 06:25 PM, said:

Maybe this guy ought to give Todd a call?

Somehow I think he will have enough trouble making bail. I don't think a Nevada resident would think to call the local NRA lobbyist.

maybe the NRA ought to send Todd to bail him out.   Based off of the information given in this article , this is a lawsuit ripe for the picking!

[JackTripper]

Uncle Harley, on 16 April 2012 - 07:41 PM, said:

JackTripper, on 16 April 2012 - 07:07 PM, said:

lockman, on 16 April 2012 - 06:25 PM, said:

Maybe this guy ought to give Todd a call?

Somehow I think he will have enough trouble making bail. I don't think a Nevada resident would think to call the local NRA lobbyist.

maybe the NRA ought to send Todd to bail him out.   Based off of the information given in this article , this is a lawsuit ripe for the picking!

Well if any of the IllinoisCarry.com officers want to organize a collection, I can pledge $100 to his bail.

[JackTripper]

Just re-read article.

Ouch

$50K bail

That is crazy!

[citrix_guy]

JackTripper, on 16 April 2012 - 07:50 PM, said:

Just re-read article.

Ouch

$50K bail

That is crazy!

Yeah, while guys get arrested for Robbery and assault get out in a couple of days on i-bonds...

[Thanks2mcdonald]

Patriots & Tyrants, on 16 April 2012 - 03:55 PM, said:

pyre400, on 16 April 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:

Patriots & Tyrants, on 16 April 2012 - 03:44 PM, said:

Unless there is something I am missing I can have as many loaded mags as I want as long as the gun is in a case. That is why I asked specifically if Chicago had anything that conflicted with state law.

Yes, I believe they have their own transport ordinance that requires the firearm to be in a non-functioning state (i.e. taken down, or bolt removed, etc)

That is gun taken down, but isint specific to the magazine loaded. I am going to dig around the interweb and see if I can find any POSSIBLE different between state law and city law that they can hang this guy with.

See page 6 of Chicago gun ordinance.

https://portal.chica...er-registry.pdf

[Joeyl]

C0untZer0, on 16 April 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

Last year CPD took down a drug dealer, his drug house and his gang.  Even though the gang members had firearms and were convicted felons - even they didn't get AG UUW, they got possesion of a weapon by a felon, and they weren't held on 50K bail, and they were only facing 2 - 4 year sentences (according to the paper).

This is another example of Chicago politians having absolute hatred and contempt for citizens who dare to believe that they have rights under the second amendment and simultaneously being soft on gangs and real crime.

From today's Tribune, story on the man who killed a two y/o girl. My link "Johnson had been free on $25,000 bail in connection with a Sept. 17, 2011 arrest, his first arrest on serious charges, according to court records.........Last year, police arrested Johnson about 2:30 a.m. on the sidewalk in the 1000 block of West Addison Street, in possession of a handgun, according to police and court records.
After he made bail in the gun case, Johnson was again arrested on Oct. 11 about 2:20 p.m. in an alley in the 4700 block of North Sheridan Road, according to court records. Johnson pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unlawfully possessing a blackjack, served two days in jail and paid a $250 fine, according to police and court records. He was scheduled to appear in court in connection with the gun charge on May 19."

Amazing, a thug walking around Wrigleyville packing gets 25k bail, then while on bail gets caught with a blackjack which I understand is a UUW offense and still manages to stay out of jail long enough to kill a young girl. Compared to what was published about the Nevada man, unless their are other factors you are absolutely right CountZero this is b.s.

[Thanks2mcdonald]

Joeyl, on 16 April 2012 - 08:16 PM, said:

C0untZer0, on 16 April 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

Last year CPD took down a drug dealer, his drug house and his gang.  Even though the gang members had firearms and were convicted felons - even they didn't get AG UUW, they got possesion of a weapon by a felon, and they weren't held on 50K bail, and they were only facing 2 - 4 year sentences (according to the paper).

This is another example of Chicago politians having absolute hatred and contempt for citizens who dare to believe that they have rights under the second amendment and simultaneously being soft on gangs and real crime.

From today's Tribune, story on the man who killed a two y/o girl. My link "Johnson had been free on $25,000 bail in connection with a Sept. 17, 2011 arrest, his first arrest on serious charges, according to court records.........Last year, police arrested Johnson about 2:30 a.m. on the sidewalk in the 1000 block of West Addison Street, in possession of a handgun, according to police and court records.
After he made bail in the gun case, Johnson was again arrested on Oct. 11 about 2:20 p.m. in an alley in the 4700 block of North Sheridan Road, according to court records. Johnson pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unlawfully possessing a blackjack, served two days in jail and paid a $250 fine, according to police and court records. He was scheduled to appear in court in connection with the gun charge on May 19."

Amazing, a thug walking around Wrigleyville packing gets 25k bail, then while on bail gets caught with a blackjack which I understand is a UUW offense and still manages to stay out of jail long enough to kill a young girl. Compared to what was published about the Nevada man, unless their are other factors you are absolutely right CountZero this is b.s.

+1

Read the same article. Plenty of stories like this can be seen weekly here in Chicago.  Laws are "so effective" at stopping people with illegal weapons.  So make it tougher for regular people to own responsibly. It's a joke.

[kurt555gs]

I'm surprised there aren't more details other than the limited Tribune article available by now. Something just isn't right with this story.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

[TFC]

This is exactly the kind of case the NRA should be going head-to-head with the City of Chicago over.
I guess unless the media show up, it's a no go. You're on your own.
Let the flaming begin....

[vactor]

i would appreciate it if someone PM'd me Todd's contact info.  this is a case i may be involved with and i think the NRA and theISRA and other politicians might want to be involved as well.  wisconin CCW holder arrested at reyhound station with unloaded gun in closed case. thanks!

[abolt243]

vactor, on 20 May 2012 - 06:41 PM, said:

i would appreciate it if someone PM'd me Todd's contact info.  this is a case i may be involved with and i think the NRA and theISRA and other politicians might want to be involved as well.  wisconin CCW holder arrested at reyhound station with unloaded gun in closed case. thanks!

His email is on his profile page:  tvandermyd@aol.com

[C0untZer0]

I still don't understand how this guy violated state law.

He may have violated Greyhound policy, but I don't see a UUW.