FOID - Car transporting while working

[ClayMontJr]

Hello, I would like a CLEAR and EXACT answer to these questions?

 

Facts:

 

(720 ILCS 5/24-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 24-1)

(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; or

(iv) are carried or possessed in accordance with the Firearm Concealed Carry Act by a person who has been issued a currently valid license under the Firearm Concealed Carry Act

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Supreme Court of Illinois.

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. Michael DIGGINS, Appellee.

No. 106367.

Decided: October 08, 2009

------------------------------------------------------------------------

(720 ILCS 5/Art. 7 heading)

ARTICLE 7. JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE; EXONERATION

 

(720 ILCS 5/7-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-1)

Sec. 7-1. Use of force in defense of person.

 

(720 ILCS 5/7-3) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-3)
Sec. 7-3. Use of force in defense of other property.

　

Questions: (FOID only)

 

In section (iii)

 

1. "a case", could this be a soft gun case or briefcase?

2. "are unloaded", gun with no inserted mag/empty chamber but a loaded mag outside or about the person?

3. "other container", can this other container be a center console or glove compartment?

4. Can I transport in a car gun safe unloaded? (since a glove box and center console are easily broken into)

5. If my vehicle is my place of business, such as cab, ridesharing (uber/lyft), or technician with equipment, am I just a victim for car-jacking?

 

It seems during a possible violent attack we have the cards stacked against us? What laws do we have to prevent people from being victims? Saying "Stop I'm going to call the police when or if I can!", isn't very effective.

[kwc]

"CLEAR" and "EXACT" are often not congruent with interpreting statutes.

 

However, as an FCCL instructor, a FOID card-only holder, and active participant in IllinoisCarry, I am personally confident the answers to your first 4 questions are "yes."

 

As for the 5th question, you asked if you are a victim... I guess if you've already been attacked the answer is "yes." If you don't have a loaded firearm ready-to-use and you are attacked, sure--it will be harder to defend yourself and you could suffer the consequences as a result.

[lawman]

Read "Transport your Firearm Legally" from the Illinois State Police and I think you will have the answers to your questions.

 

http://www.gunssavelife.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/TransportLegally.pdf

[Glock23]

#1-4: Yes.

#5: Technically, yes, as I believe the exemption for carrying with a FOID is for "fixed" places of business. That aside, keep your windows up, your doors locked, and your head on a swivel when entering/exiting the vehicle.

[Bubbacs]

Uber/Lyft don't allow employees to carry firearms while working IIRC.

[axs_sense]

Not to get a bit off topic......since I've received my CCL a few months ago, I stopped using Uber and Lyft, deleted the apps off my phone due to their unfair No Firearm policy for riders.

 

https://www.uber.com/legal/policies/firearms-prohibition-policy/en/

 

 

https://help.lyft.com/hc/en-us/articles/213584258-Safety-Policies

 

 

Neither ride service performs an extensive background check on their drivers. Us law abiding citizens have gone thru a more extensive background check (including fingerprinting) and are less dangerous than their drivers.

[Glock23]

Not to get a bit off topic......since I've received my CCL a few months ago, I stopped using Uber and Lyft, deleted the apps off my phone due to their unfair No Firearm policy for riders.

 

https://www.uber.com/legal/policies/firearms-prohibition-policy/en/

 

 

https://help.lyft.com/hc/en-us/articles/213584258-Safety-Policies

 

 

Neither ride service performs an extensive background check on their drivers. Us law abiding citizens have gone thru a more extensive background check (including fingerprinting) and are less dangerous than their drivers.

 

Their policies have no bearing on Illinois law. If their cars are not posted with the ISP approved GFZ sign, carry on.

[chislinger]

Their policies have no bearing on Illinois law. If their cars are not posted with the ISP approved GFZ sign, carry on.

Only real property can be posted. A sign on a car has no force of law.

[Glock23]

 

Their policies have no bearing on Illinois law. If their cars are not posted with the ISP approved GFZ sign, carry on.

Only real property can be posted. A sign on a car has no force of law.

 

Correct, but it would at least show their intent to legally prohibit carry, if that's what they were aiming for.

 

Real property or not, I wouldn't knowingly ignore a statutory GFZ sign anywhere.

[RoadyRunner]

Hello, I would like a CLEAR and EXACT answer to these questions?

 

Your best bet is to consult with your attorney, who will be willing to defend you if his/her advise is challenged. You likely won't get 'CLEAR and EXACT' in any internet forum.

 

But the answer to the first 4 questions is 'Yes'. It's been confirmed in several lawsuits over the years.

[soylentgreen]

If you drive or ride for Uber and you carry, you're not breaking any law. The only thing they can do is banish you from their app if they find out. The only way they should find out is if you had to use your weapon to save yourself from great bodily harm or death. In that case, I'd say giving up access to the app is a consequence I'd be willing to live with.

[Xwing]

If you drive or ride for Uber and you carry, you're not breaking any law. The only thing they can do is banish you from their app if they find out. The only way they should find out is if you had to use your weapon to save yourself from great bodily harm or death. In that case, I'd say giving up access to the app is a consequence I'd be willing to live with.

 

Yep.

 

And to the OP, I believe your original questions have been answered. But I would heavily recommend taking the training and getting a CCW, as carrying on a CCW is much, much better than transporting on a FOID.

[junglebob]

#1-4: Yes.

#5: Technically, yes, as I believe the exemption for carrying with a FOID is for "fixed" places of business. That aside, keep your windows up, your doors locked, and your head on a swivel when entering/exiting the vehicle.

You are wrong about that you can transport where you wish if your firearm is encased and unloaded and you have a FOID. In a fixed place of business you can carry a loaded firearm if you are an owner or employee.

 

There is nothing in the law that says you can only transport going to a range or gun shop or similar place. Some states limit transport, Illinois doesn't.

 

Haven't you heard of "container transport" or "fanny pack transport" transporting an unloaded gun on your person.

 

Of course there are places that will get you arrested under federal law transporting, such as post offices, federal buildings, and court houses.

 

The courts have upheld this type of transport. I suggest you google Horstman vs. Dupage and read about the unlawful arrest of John Hostman in Dupage County, he was transporting that way. He also got a very big settlement

from Dupage.

 

Even during the debate on the Safe Neighborhoods Act it was brought up that a person could transport that way when walking down the street.

[tseeker]

Hello, I would like a CLEAR and EXACT answer to these questions? Facts: (720 ILCS 5/24-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 24-1)(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; or (iv) are carried or possessed in accordance with the Firearm Concealed Carry Act by a person who has been issued a currently valid license under the Firearm Concealed Carry Act------------------------------------------------------------------------Supreme Court of Illinois.The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. Michael DIGGINS, Appellee.No. 106367.Decided: October 08, 2009------------------------------------------------------------------------(720 ILCS 5/Art. 7 heading)ARTICLE 7. JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE; EXONERATION (720 ILCS 5/7-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-1)Sec. 7-1. Use of force in defense of person. (720 ILCS 5/7-3) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-3) Sec. 7-3. Use of force in defense of other property.ãQuestions: (FOID only) In section (iii) 1. "a case", could this be a soft gun case or briefcase?2. "are unloaded", gun with no inserted mag/empty chamber but a loaded mag outside or about the person?3. "other container", can this other container be a center console or glove compartment?4. Can I transport in a car gun safe unloaded? (since a glove box and center console are easily broken into)5. If my vehicle is my place of business, such as cab, ridesharing (uber/lyft), or technician with equipment, am I just a victim for car-jacking? It seems during a possible violent attack we have the cards stacked against us? What laws do we have to prevent people from being victims? Saying "Stop I'm going to call the police when or if I can!", isn't very effective.

If I understand your questions correctly...

 

1. Yes

 

2. The mag can be on or about the person...Or in the same case with the gun (as long as it's not inserted)

 

3. Yes

 

4. Yes

 

5. Being violently attacked in a manner that would cause great bodily harm or carjacked are forcible felonies and deadly force would be justified to stop such and assault (provided you could get to your gun and load it in time)

 

And while yes...In the absence of possible poof that you were indeed legally transporting, you could possibly be charged with illegal transport or some such nonsense, if such circumstances were to arise.

 

I would much rather be judged by twelve than carried by six

 

Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk

 

[Glock23]

 

#1-4: Yes.

#5: Technically, yes, as I believe the exemption for carrying with a FOID is for "fixed" places of business. That aside, keep your windows up, your doors locked, and your head on a swivel when entering/exiting the vehicle.

You are wrong about that you can transport where you wish if your firearm is encased and unloaded and you have a FOID. In a fixed place of business you can carry a loaded firearm if you are an owner or employee.

 

There is nothing in the law that says you can only transport going to a range or gun shop or similar place. Some states limit transport, Illinois doesn't.

 

Haven't you heard of "container transport" or "fanny pack transport" transporting an unloaded gun on your person.

 

Of course there are places that will get you arrested under federal law transporting, such as post offices, federal buildings, and court houses.

 

The courts have upheld this type of transport. I suggest you google Horstman vs. Dupage and read about the unlawful arrest of John Hostman in Dupage County, he was transporting that way. He also got a very big settlement

from Dupage.

 

Even during the debate on the Safe Neighborhoods Act it was brought up that a person could transport that way when walking down the street.

 

 

I'm aware of the transport laws.

 

My response to #5 was working with the assumption that the OP was wanting to carry in his vehicle, as his question related to his vehicle being his place of business... hence my reply that carrying with a FOID required a fixed place of business.

[Bitter Clinger]

The courts have upheld this type of transport. I suggest you google Horstman vs. Dupage and read about the unlawful arrest of John Hostman in Dupage County, he was transporting that way. He also got a very big settlement

from Dupage.

I just read that case. Wow, what a nightmare they put that poor guy through.

Horstman tried to sue the crap out of everyone involved, but unfortunately most of his case was dismissed (looks like due to corrupt cronyism in the IL legal system). Nobody was held accountable. Not even the cops who violated his rights in the first place. He only got a paltry $50K check when he should've gotten at least $1 million.

 

Further proof that corrupt law enforcement and lawyers can get away with practically anything in this state.

[soylentgreen]

 

I just read that case. Wow, what a nightmare they put that poor guy through.

Horstman tried to sue the crap out of everyone involved, but unfortunately most of his case was dismissed (looks like due to corrupt cronyism in the IL legal system). Nobody was held accountable. Not even the cops who violated his rights in the first place. He only got a paltry $50K check when he should've gotten at least $1 million.

 

Further proof that corrupt law enforcement and lawyers can get away with practically anything in this state.

 

 

And people wonder why no one trusts the cops. You never know when something that you thinks is "reasonable" and legal might put you under arrest by some overzealous dirtbag cop.

 

My guess is that after all of that, the cops know who Horstman is and they don't harass him anymore about his guns. I'm sure there was a moment there where they thought they were in deep poopy.

[C0untZer0]

Only real property can be posted. A sign on a car has no force of law.

 

I ride Metra and I can't remember if the train cars are posted, I know the stations are but I can't remember if the train cars are posted. I wonder if PACE buses are posted...

[Xwing]

 

Only real property can be posted. A sign on a car has no force of law.

I ride Metra and I can't remember if the train cars are posted, I know the stations are but I can't remember if the train cars are posted. I wonder if PACE buses are posted...

 

 

I have not seen any train cars posted, but they are still prohibited by statute. Every station I have seen is posted though.

[C0untZer0]

I thought Horstman was a member here...

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gangrel]

I thought Horstman was a member here... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Signage law pertains to real property, not to vehicles. Trains and buses paid for in whole or in part by public funds are no-go for carry specifically by statute, but the signage law does not apply. The stations need to be posted, as they are real property and are also specifically called out by law as GFZ.

 

(d) Signs stating that the carrying of firearms is prohibited shall be clearly and conspicuously posted at the entrance of a building, premises, or real property specified in this Section as a prohibited area, unless the building or premises is a private residence. Signs shall be of a uniform design as established by the Department and shall be 4 inches by 6 inches in size. The Department shall adopt rules for standardized signs to be used under this subsection.

(Source: P.A. 98-63, eff. 7-9-13; 99-29, eff. 7-10-15.)

Note: "Building, premises, or real property." Not "vehicles, buses, trains, or other modes of transportation." Same argument for why a taxi or an Uber car can't post a 4x6 no Berettas sign on the window and have it be legally binding. The signage law doesn't cover that. But, it also don't make it legal to ignore the statute.

[C0untZer0]

Well I didn't see any signs on the train anyway, and I was looking for them...

[Dr Duke]

Buses in Decatur have the No Berettas sign.

[gangrel]

Buses in Decatur have the No Berettas sign.

That's great, but it doesn't change the fact that the signage part of the law does not apply to them. Buses, trains, shuttles, taxis, Ubers, Lyfts, rikshaws....none of these fall under the definition of "building, premises, or real property." It is our job as licensees to know which of these are and are not a "bus, train, or form of transportation paid for in whole or in part with public funds." Looking for a "No Berettas" sign is not going to help you here, because as written, the vehicles themselves do NOT need to be posted.