kurt555gs Posted December 7, 2014 at 02:24 PM Share Posted December 7, 2014 at 02:24 PM I see all kinds of posts crying for expanding carry into what is now prohibited places but a real lack of official interest in protecting FOID transport in those very same areas. We have that right now by law and an important case like this that can solidify our rights to transport in areas that are prohibited to carry like court houses are going to slip away? Really? Are the powers that be really that short sighted here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmer Fudd Posted December 7, 2014 at 02:50 PM Share Posted December 7, 2014 at 02:50 PM I see all kinds of posts crying for expanding carry into what is now prohibited places but a real lack of official interest in protecting FOID transport in those very same areas. We have that right now by law and an important case like this that can solidify our rights to transport in areas that are prohibited to carry like court houses are going to slip away? Really? Are the powers that be really that short sighted here?Courthouses are still a problem......and the powers seem to be doing quite well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevis Posted December 7, 2014 at 02:58 PM Share Posted December 7, 2014 at 02:58 PM The problem is the BS of "sensitive areas." I really think that's a made up term, and the only case where it could be argued that carry shouldn't be allowed by anyone but trained people in that exact location are nuclear power facilities and the like. These are a secured location, not a sensitive location. I think it's a real problem that rights are impeded, especially on land and in buildings that are paid for by the public in the first place. Instead, they make those places temples to the state... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pipedoc Posted December 7, 2014 at 03:00 PM Share Posted December 7, 2014 at 03:00 PM I see all kinds of posts crying for expanding carry into what is now prohibited places but a real lack of official interest in protecting FOID transport in those very same areas. We have that right now by law and an important case like this that can solidify our rights to transport in areas that are prohibited to carry like court houses are going to slip away? Really? Are the powers that be really that short sighted here?Salient point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firepiper Posted December 7, 2014 at 04:41 PM Share Posted December 7, 2014 at 04:41 PM If I recall correctly…… There was already a case of somebody bring a weapon to a courthouse in a purse that was not charged or at least not convicted Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windchaser Posted December 7, 2014 at 05:14 PM Share Posted December 7, 2014 at 05:14 PM The problem is the BS of "sensitive areas." I really think that's a made up term, and the only case where it could be argued that carry shouldn't be allowed by anyone but trained people in that exact location are nuclear power facilities and the like. These are a secured location, not a sensitive location. I think it's a real problem that rights are impeded, especially on land and in buildings that are paid for by the public in the first place. Instead, they make those places temples to the state... I have to admit I don't think I would be comfortable with transport into the courthouse at 26th and California. It really open the potential to slip some of Chicago's "finest" a gun. Given it is a secure location I think providing secure storage would be a better option. City Hall, Village Halls and similar places I don't see much of an issue allowing FOID transport. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt555gs Posted December 8, 2014 at 12:46 AM Share Posted December 8, 2014 at 12:46 AM You fight for rights or negotiate for privileges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
POAT54 Posted December 8, 2014 at 01:57 AM Share Posted December 8, 2014 at 01:57 AM If I recall correctly…… There was already a case of somebody bring a weapon to a courthouse in a purse that was not charged or at least not convicted Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkI found one in DeKalb county, Just a news story about arrest and charge, but no court record showed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Harley Posted December 8, 2014 at 02:06 AM Share Posted December 8, 2014 at 02:06 AM People are mis interpreting people vs bruner. The felony UUW charge was dropped because her purse was a case ...the other lesser charge of carrying in a govt building stuck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karim18 Posted December 8, 2014 at 01:09 PM Share Posted December 8, 2014 at 01:09 PM IMHO, the Op is the "friend" being mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beezil Posted December 8, 2014 at 02:37 PM Share Posted December 8, 2014 at 02:37 PM IMHO, the Op is the "friend" being mentioned. point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted December 8, 2014 at 02:54 PM Share Posted December 8, 2014 at 02:54 PM People are mis interpreting people vs bruner. The felony UUW charge was dropped because her purse was a case ...the other lesser charge of carrying in a govt building stuck. this is the case and it was in Macon Co. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobapunk Posted December 8, 2014 at 03:06 PM Share Posted December 8, 2014 at 03:06 PM In terms of the FCCA, a courthouse is the same as a playground, park, hospital, etc... In other words, a prohibited location is a prohibited location. He isn't being charged under (430 ILCS 66/65) - the FCCA, he wasn't carrying. He is being charged with UUW under (720 ILCS 5/24-1). It sounds like what they are charging him with specifically is: (2) A person who violates subsection 24-1(a)(1), 24-1(a)(2), or 24-1(a)(3) in any school, regardless of the time of day or the time of year, in residential property owned, operated or managed by a public housing agency or leased by a public housing agency as part of a scattered site or mixed-income development, in a public park, in a courthouse, on the real property comprising any school, regardless of the time of day or the time of year, on residential property owned, operated or managed by a public housing agency or leased by a public housing agency as part of a scattered site or mixed-income development, on the real property comprising any public park, on the real property comprising any courthouse, in any conveyance owned, leased or contracted by a school to transport students to or from school or a school related activity, in any conveyance owned, leased, or contracted by a public transportation agency, or on any public way within 1,000 feet of the real property comprising any school, public park, courthouse, public transportation facility, or residential property owned, operated, or managed by a public housing agency or leased by a public housing agency as part of a scattered site or mixed-income development commits a Class 4 felony. "Courthouse" means any building that is used by the Circuit, Appellate, or Supreme Court of this State for the conduct of official business. According to the OP, he is not being charged under 24-1(a)(1), 24-1(a)(2), or 24-1(a)(3). Therefore, the section that you quoted can not apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobapunk Posted December 8, 2014 at 03:31 PM Share Posted December 8, 2014 at 03:31 PM 720 ilcs 21-6 deals with public supported property. but under (a)(4) I would bet there are penalty enhancementsTD, do you agree that (a)(4) does not appear to apply to this case? (4) Carries or possesses in any vehicle or concealed on or about his person except when on his land or in his own abode, legal dwelling, or fixed place of business, or on the land or in the legal dwelling of another person as an invitee with that person's permission, any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm, except that this subsection (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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gstrom99 Posted December 9, 2014 at 08:41 PM Share Posted December 9, 2014 at 08:41 PM I almost did the same thing in Michigan. I went to the county building with my computer bag. I had put the pistol in the bag while packing to leave and forgot it was in there. If I didn't stop to look for some papers, I might not have remembered it was there. There were two officers doing searches at the door and went through everything. How can people "forget" where they put (or if they even HAVE) a firearm with them??? This is serious stuff, people! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted December 10, 2014 at 10:14 PM Share Posted December 10, 2014 at 10:14 PM I almost did the same thing in Michigan. I went to the county building with my computer bag. I had put the pistol in the bag while packing to leave and forgot it was in there. If I didn't stop to look for some papers, I might not have remembered it was there. There were two officers doing searches at the door and went through everything. How can people "forget" where they put (or if they even HAVE) a firearm with them??? This is serious stuff, people! It can happen. Back before the carry law passed I was carrying on my own property and had an unexpected/urgent need to go into town. Was halfway to town before I realized I was not 'unloaded/enclosed in a case. Scared the bejeebers out of me and taught me a quick lesson. Before entering a known government Carry Free/Gun Free zone, check yourself, your bags, your purse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singlecoilpickup Posted December 10, 2014 at 10:18 PM Share Posted December 10, 2014 at 10:18 PM It can happen. Back before the carry law passed I was carrying on my own property and had an unexpected/urgent need to go into town. Was halfway to town before I realized I was not 'unloaded/enclosed in a case. Scared the bejeebers out of me and taught me a quick lesson. Before entering a known government Carry Free/Gun Free zone, check yourself, your bags, your purse. I hear you can also invite the Beloit PD to check yourself, your bags, your purse, and they might even find guns you didn't know you had! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkroenlein Posted December 18, 2014 at 04:10 AM Share Posted December 18, 2014 at 04:10 AM The last entry (12/10) on the case look up is this- "Illinois State Police Court Disposition Form Filed This Date." Any body know what this might indicate? There was a "Pretrial event" event scheduled for yesterday at 9:30am, for which no entry has been made and no new dates are scheduled. Of course, I have no idea how long it takes them to update. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pipedoc Posted December 18, 2014 at 02:14 PM Share Posted December 18, 2014 at 02:14 PM It usually takes a few days I think to be updated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
POAT54 Posted December 19, 2014 at 04:41 PM Share Posted December 19, 2014 at 04:41 PM It was updated, 1.29.15 Plea. I do not know what that means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pipedoc Posted December 19, 2014 at 05:16 PM Share Posted December 19, 2014 at 05:16 PM It will say jury trial or bench trial on the date it is scheduled for trial as confirmed by an attorney friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pipedoc Posted December 19, 2014 at 05:21 PM Share Posted December 19, 2014 at 05:21 PM It looks like all the motions are done and he will officially enter his plea on that date. It will probably be scheduled for trial then. Just assumptions on my part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkroenlein Posted December 19, 2014 at 06:03 PM Share Posted December 19, 2014 at 06:03 PM I pray for two things. The defendant has the fortitude to fight and that his legal council is adequate. I would have thought a motion for summary judgement citing Bruner would have been in order by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Lee Swagger Posted December 19, 2014 at 07:45 PM Share Posted December 19, 2014 at 07:45 PM It really doesn't matter whether the firearm was unloaded and in a case. He was in a courthouse. The same would apply for an airport, jail visitation, or anything similar. This isn't that hard to understand. It is being overanalyzed to death here folks. There is absolutely no excuse for trying to bring a firearm into a courthouse. To make matters worse, he had a loaded magazine with him. It would have taken all but 2 seconds to put the magazine into the Glock and make it work. It is important to understand that "FOID Carry" does not apply everywhere. And the officers making the arrest have no way of knowing his intent. Hopefully we will find that he had no malicious intent, and the case is resolved accordingly. But as RESPONSIBLE gun owners, it isnt wise to always rush to the defense of those who act irresponsibly with them, no matter whether they have a FOID/CCL or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkroenlein Posted December 19, 2014 at 10:11 PM Share Posted December 19, 2014 at 10:11 PM It really doesn't matter whether the firearm was unloaded and in a case. He was in a courthouse. The same would apply for an airport, jail visitation, or anything similar. This isn't that hard to understand. It is being overanalyzed to death here folks. There is absolutely no excuse for trying to bring a firearm into a courthouse. To make matters worse, he had a loaded magazine with him. It would have taken all but 2 seconds to put the magazine into the Glock and make it work. It is important to understand that "FOID Carry" does not apply everywhere. And the officers making the arrest have no way of knowing his intent. Hopefully we will find that he had no malicious intent, and the case is resolved accordingly. But as RESPONSIBLE gun owners, it isnt wise to always rush to the defense of those who act irresponsibly with them, no matter whether they have a FOID/CCL or not. Incorrect Bob Lee Swagger. It does matter if it's unloaded and in a case. There is an exception to the statute that the defendant has been charged with, and it has previously been ruled on in People v Bruner. There may or may not be another statute with which the defendant could be tried on and found guilty, but this one appears to be a loser for the prosecutor. As RESPONSIBLE gun owners, we should not be so quick to abandon our own where no evidence of malicious intent exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt555gs Posted December 20, 2014 at 04:41 AM Share Posted December 20, 2014 at 04:41 AM " To make matters worse, he had a loaded magazine with him. It would have taken all but 2 seconds to put the magazine into the Glock and make it work. It is important to understand that "FOID Carry" does not apply everywhere. " But it sure does apply in a court house. This guy is sitting in jail, totally innocent of the law he is charged with violating and he has a public defender. Where are the gun rights groups helping with his defence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted December 20, 2014 at 04:53 AM Share Posted December 20, 2014 at 04:53 AM There is something missing here. I can't help but feel we don't have all the information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt555gs Posted December 20, 2014 at 05:13 AM Share Posted December 20, 2014 at 05:13 AM Unless the newspaper accounts were wrong and the gun was in fact loaded. Then he would be guilty of UUW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
POAT54 Posted December 20, 2014 at 06:27 PM Share Posted December 20, 2014 at 06:27 PM There is something missing here. I can't help but feel we don't have all the information.I keep thinking the same. When name is run in court records, he had 2 traffic tickets. His lawyer? Someone asked here for info, never came back? A lot we are missing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt555gs Posted December 21, 2014 at 12:11 AM Share Posted December 21, 2014 at 12:11 AM I sent a link to the Bruner decision to a friend that's a lawyer in Joliet. She said she would print it out and give it to his public defender this coming Tuesday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.