Lasers in Chicago? Do we have a definitive answer?

[BobPistol]

Chicago changed it this summer to 15. It was 12 in the post-McDonald era.

 

More freedom in Chicago? Shocking

[soundguy]

Chicago changed it this summer to 15. It was 12 in the post-McDonald era.

 

More freedom in Chicago? Shocking

 

Yeah... My Alderman event suggested loading my 17 rounders with only 15 to stay legal!

[tom28]

Very interesting section in the chicago ordinance. Todd has said they nutted their whole ordinance with that one sentence. This can be found on page 8 of the ordinance.

 

"Nothing in this section shall be construed to regulate any firearm or ammunition to the extent that such regulation is preempted."

 

Hopefully Rep Phelps can clarify this in future trailer bills.

 

[vezpa]

Hasn't our Senate leader already said he won't allow any pro gun or follow up bills to change our CCW bill in our favor to be voted on? We keep saying we will fix everything....I think we may be clinging to a hope that doesn't exist.

 

.

[fubarud]

I figure every creature deserves a warm meal.

 

http://assets.adamriff.com/images/dr_evil.jpg

[bob]

Hasn't our Senate leader already said he won't allow any pro gun or follow up bills to change our CCW bill in our favor to be voted on? We keep saying we will fix everything....I think we may be clinging to a hope that doesn't exist.

 

I would be real surprised if there are any substantive changes to the bill any time in the next few decades that are not directly related to something the courts tell the state has to be done in future (or maybe continuing) court cases. That does not mean we should not keep trying.

 

I could see some cleanup here and there but nothing substantive will pass.

[bmyers]

I think our battle front will be stopping the antis from adding anything to the bill.

[Tinner666]

I think our battle front will be stopping the antis from adding anything to the bill.

That battle is NEVER over! Keep pushing pro measures. Hard and often!

[Rail]

One more reason Madigan's version that had complete preemption should have been the one to pass. Perhaps if Wilson goes our way, we can get that and some other goodies.

[Xwing]

It will be interesting to see if the CPD have an "arrest now / let them fight it out in court" for laser pointers and other things that are against Chicago code but pre-empted. With the current CPD leadership, I doubt their policy will make sense...

[WarCry]

It will be interesting to see if the CPD have an "arrest now / let them fight it out in court" for laser pointers and other things that are against Chicago code but pre-empted. With the current CPD leadership, I doubt their policy will make sense...

 

I could actually see that as being the policy, but have a hard time imagining it would happen that way on the streets. Set aside the leadership, the Chicago PD isn't full of imbeciles. Yeah, there might be a few bad apples in the bunch - those looking to climb up the food chain rapidly - but they're likely the exception, not the rule.

[tchostler]

So has the laser checks actually begun?

[Rail]

There are going to be a lot of people carrying legally in Chicago come January. My guess is that things will sort themselves out early next year regarding lasers and other things.

[vezpa]

There are going to be a lot of people carrying legally in Chicago come January. My guess is that things will sort themselves out early next year regarding lasers and other things.

 

April or May, maybe. January...... NO

.

[Raptor12]

http://www.google.co....56643336,d.aWc Go past the prohibited places part and begin reading there. Laser SIGHTS are brought up, in Section IV Procedures. There is also 3 other Chicago area towns/counties with same no laser law, but I lost that link. Roseville,Kane????

[bobapunk]

Good thing my M&P 9c has laser GRIPS, not a laser SIGHT...

 

purple purple purple...

 

Sent from my SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

 

 

[DoktorPaimon]

I could actually see that as being the policy, but have a hard time imagining it would happen that way on the streets. Set aside the leadership, the Chicago PD isn't full of imbeciles. Yeah, there might be a few bad apples in the bunch - those looking to climb up the food chain rapidly - but they're likely the exception, not the rule.

 

My prediction is that you'll see the same thing happen with laser sights that you already see happen with knives and small amounts of drugs: CPD officers on the street will use "discretion." If you carry something worth stealing, though, expect to be asked to "surrender" your weapon.

[AuroraInstructor]

just saying...if bangers actually hit their targets....wouldn't we have less bangers to worry about? just saying.

Clearly you are a racist!

/sarc/

[CLEAR CUT]

I could see getting jammed up potentially with attached laser devices until there's a court ruling one way or the other. Then again, the lasermax device which replaces the firearm's guide rod with the laser device would make it integral to the firearm and thus part of the firearm. Meaning you need the guide rod for the firearm to function and it just happens to have the added capability of acting as a laser pointer. Hmmm...Loophole? Maybe; then again, I'm not a lawyer.

[transplant]

http://directives.chicagopolice.org/directives/data/a7a57bf0-13fc5603-92613-fc59-b4c8c0aba767ee8c.html

 

Section E-3 states:

 

the seized object is a laser sight, firearm silencer, or muffler.

 

(emphasis mine)

 

Though it would not surprise me to see "is" to include "has"

 

Section F-2 and F-3 of the directive are illegal to enforce due to preemption of transportation of firearms in a vehicle:

 

Impoundments

 

Members may only impound a vehicle pursuant to MCC 8-20-070 "Possession of Firearm" under the following three circumstances:

 

1. if the UUW offender does not have either a FOID card or a CCL and the weapon is not lawfully transported.

2. if the vehicle contains a sawed-off shotgun, .50 caliber rifle, short barrel rifle, machine gun, or assault weapon.

3. if vehicle contains a laser sight, firearm silencer, or muffler.

 

This directive is old though, from July 9, so it may have been replaced by now.

[Telecomtodd]

So if I was to use a SIRT pistol trainer in Cook County, they would arrest me - nice to know.

[Federal Farmer]

So if I was to use a SIRT pistol trainer in Cook County, they would arrest me - nice to know.

How do you come to that conclusion?

[bob]

http://directives.ch...aba767ee8c.html

 

Section E-3 states:

 

the seized object is a laser sight, firearm silencer, or muffler.

 

(emphasis mine)

 

Though it would not surprise me to see "is" to include "has"

 

Section F-2 and F-3 of the directive are illegal to enforce due to preemption of transportation of firearms in a vehicle:

 

Impoundments

 

Members may only impound a vehicle pursuant to MCC 8-20-070 "Possession of Firearm" under the following three circumstances:

 

1. if the UUW offender does not have either a FOID card or a CCL and the weapon is not lawfully transported.

pretty much by definition it can't be UUW if the firearm is lawfully being transported.

2. if the vehicle contains a sawed-off shotgun, .50 caliber rifle, short barrel rifle, machine gun, or assault weapon.

Preemption certainly covers transportation of the 50 cal rifle, so called assault weapons, and legal short barrel rifles. i don't see how you can expect protection for transporting firearms that are not legal to own since you can't possibly not be in violation of the UUW act..

3. if vehicle contains a laser sight, firearm silencer, or muffler.

I don't see how preemption can possibly cover silencers or mufflers since you cannot legally transport them. Laser sights are sort of iffy at present.

 

This directive is old though, from July 9, so it may have been replaced by now.

 

If I got caught though with a machine gun or other firearm that is not legal, I would still assert that I was legally transporting and thus my vehicle was not subject to confiscation. How far this would go with a judge is something else. Section 150 does say "any firearm" after all.

[Telecomtodd]

So if I was to use a SIRT pistol trainer in Cook County, they would arrest me - nice to know.

How do you come to that conclusion?

 

To clarify, Chicago - not all of Cook County.

http://www.isp.state...ces/chicago.pdf

 

8-20-060 Possession of a Laser Sight Accessory, Firearm Silencer or Muffler.

(a It is unlawful for any person to carry, possess, display for sale, sell or otherwise transfer any laser sight accessory, or a firearm silencer or muffler.

(b The provisions of this section shall not apply to any members of the armed forces of the United States, or the organized militia of this or any other state, or peace officers, to the extent that any such person is otherwise authorized to acquire or possess a laser sight accessory, or firearm silencer or muffler, and is acting within the scope of his duties.

(c Any laser sight accessory, or firearm silencer or muffler, carried, possessed, displayed or sold in violation of this section is hereby declared to be contraband and

shall be seized by and forfeited to the city

.

 

 

An advisory letter from Chicago PD to LEOs can be found (pdf), with the relevant section on page 8: http://www.handgunla...NewCarryLaw.pdf

E. Seizure and Forfeiture of Firearms

Members will only enforce MCC 8-20-250 “Seizure and Forfeiture of Firearms” under the following circumstances:

[...]

3. the seized object is a laser sight, firearm silencer, or muffler.

 

 

For those not familiar with SIRTs: http://nextleveltrai...-specifications This is a pistol trainer (appears to resemble a Glock 17/22) that does not contain the functional ability to fire a projectile, but it is equipped with as many as two lasers to be used as sighting aids for training purposes. While I am not an attorney, I could understand how a CPD patrolman even slightly versed in both the ordinance and the CPD advisory letter could come to the conclusion that SIRTs fall on the wrong side of our arguement.

 

Oh, and if it is found sitting in your vehicle they can impound your car, too - see section F of the advisory.

 

But, as a late friend of mine was fond of saying, "I could be wrong".

[Warners]

Okay....having read this whole thread, it seems the best way to instruct people is to tell them NOT to bring a laser into the city of Chicago, period. And to limit their magazine capacity to 15 rounds in Chicago as well. Correct? And where in Cook county is the 12 round limit enacted, exactly?

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Warner

[bob]

We have maybe 3 months before anyone is issued a license. There may be some clarification by the time licenses actually get issued.

 

Right now the whole issue of just how far the preemption goes is a little murky with respect to firearms accessories and parts, especially those that might be able to be used on both handguns and long guns.

 

IANAL so take what I say with that in mind. Just my personal opinion - I suspect that anything that is being used functionally as part of a handgun is probably preempted.

 

Things I think are preempted:

 

Magazines inserted in a handgun

Holsters that have handguns in them or that fit a handgun in your possession

Sighting systems of all types (including LASERs) that are functionally associated with a handgun

Magazines for a specific handgun in one's possession

Ammo that fits a handgun in your possession

 

Murky areas that may or may not be preempted:

 

Nominally handgun magazines not associated with a handgun you actually own

Holsters that do not have handguns in them and do not fit a handgun you own

Sighting systems of all types (including LASERs) that are not functionally associated with a handgun but are normally associated with hand guns

 

Things probably not preempted:

 

Normal capacity AR15 magazines unless they can somehow be functionally associated with a specific handgun

Rifle ammo even if there is a handgun it can be shot in unless you own such a handgun

Ammo that is nominally for handguns but you do not have a handgun in that caliber but you do have a rifle chambered in that caliber

[Warners]

We have maybe 3 months before anyone is issued a license. There may be some clarification by the time licenses actually get issued.

 

Right now the whole issue of just how far the preemption goes is a little murky with respect to firearms accessories and parts, especially those that might be able to be used on both handguns and long guns.

 

IANAL so take what I say with that in mind. Just my personal opinion - I suspect that anything that is being used functionally as part of a handgun is probably preempted.

 

 

True...some time before permits are ISSUED, but my question had to do with how instructors are training people NOW. I don't want to misinform students, and because of that I will err on the side of caution. I don't want to be the guy teaching people that lasers are preempted in Chicago and have a student get arrested based on my assumption. So what are you other instructors telling your students NOW on these issues?

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Warner

[bob]

We have maybe 3 months before anyone is issued a license. There may be some clarification by the time licenses actually get issued.

 

Right now the whole issue of just how far the preemption goes is a little murky with respect to firearms accessories and parts, especially those that might be able to be used on both handguns and long guns.

 

IANAL so take what I say with that in mind. Just my personal opinion - I suspect that anything that is being used functionally as part of a handgun is probably preempted.

 

 

True...some time before permits are ISSUED, but my question had to do with how instructors are training people NOW. I don't want to misinform students, and because of that I will err on the side of caution. I don't want to be the guy teaching people that lasers are preempted in Chicago and have a student get arrested based on my assumption. So what are you other instructors telling your students NOW on these issues?

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Warner

 

I think you should be telling them to approach things with caution, especially at first until we know what some of this stuff actually means.

 

The problem is that even real lawyers cannot tell you what some of this stuff means at present so how is a FCCL instructor going to do so?

 

It may be that at some point the ISP will issue some guidelines. While they would not have any legal meaning in a highly legalistic sense, they would have some weight coming from the governmental agency tasked with overseeing the FCCA.

 

It might even make sense for whoever has to do so to ask the AG to weigh in on specific questions. Again, that opinion is nothing but an opinion, but it does hold some weight.

 

Until the courts start ruling on things, we just will not know with any certainty, and even then it won't be final until the ILSC says so.

 

I would suggest training your students to use the utmost caution in what they do. This is probably good advice anyway. Hopefully you are training your students to run away from confrontations if that is an option, even if the use of a firearm would be legal. It would make just as much sense to teach them to avoid confronting a vague and badly written law.

[Federal Farmer]

So if I was to use a SIRT pistol trainer in Cook County, they would arrest me - nice to know.

How do you come to that conclusion?

 

To clarify, Chicago - not all of Cook County.

http://www.isp.state...ces/chicago.pdf

 

8-20-060 Possession of a Laser Sight Accessory, Firearm Silencer or Muffler.

(a It is unlawful for any person to carry, possess, display for sale, sell or otherwise transfer any laser sight accessory, or a firearm silencer or muffler.

(b The provisions of this section shall not apply to any members of the armed forces of the United States, or the organized militia of this or any other state, or peace officers, to the extent that any such person is otherwise authorized to acquire or possess a laser sight accessory, or firearm silencer or muffler, and is acting within the scope of his duties.

(c Any laser sight accessory, or firearm silencer or muffler, carried, possessed, displayed or sold in violation of this section is hereby declared to be contraband and

shall be seized by and forfeited to the city

.

 

 

An advisory letter from Chicago PD to LEOs can be found (pdf), with the relevant section on page 8: http://www.handgunla...NewCarryLaw.pdf

E. Seizure and Forfeiture of Firearms

Members will only enforce MCC 8-20-250 “Seizure and Forfeiture of Firearms” under the following circumstances:

[...]

3. the seized object is a laser sight, firearm silencer, or muffler.

 

 

For those not familiar with SIRTs: http://nextleveltrai...-specifications This is a pistol trainer (appears to resemble a Glock 17/22) that does not contain the functional ability to fire a projectile, but it is equipped with as many as two lasers to be used as sighting aids for training purposes. While I am not an attorney, I could understand how a CPD patrolman even slightly versed in both the ordinance and the CPD advisory letter could come to the conclusion that SIRTs fall on the wrong side of our arguement.

 

Oh, and if it is found sitting in your vehicle they can impound your car, too - see section F of the advisory.

 

But, as a late friend of mine was fond of saying, "I could be wrong".

 

First, don't go to the ISP site for current information on any municipal ordinance as most of them are out of date. Use amlegal.com for a less out-of-date version of Chicago ordinances.

 

Second, refer to 08-20-010 for the definition of "laser sight accessory".

 

“Laser sight accessory” means a laser sighting device which is either integrated into a firearm or capable of being attached to a firearm.

 

I don't see how a SIRT trainer can fit this definition. Indeed, back when we had a Chicago Gun Desk, they asserted that even laser bore sighting cartridges were not illegal and could be used for dry fire exercises. Of course, that does not constitute legal advice.

[RoadyRunner]

How can something that is 'integrated into a firearm' also be an 'accessory'. I'm thinking my S&W Bodyguard .380.

 

Chicago idiocy at its finest.