FOID/CCL Holder Uses Firearm to Thrawt Robbery on Green Line Train

[pdl099]

I thought CTA restricted firearms on trains. Will be interesting to see how this plays out, i.e. whether FOID/CCL holder gets in any trouble. 

 

https://abc7chicago.com/cta-green-line-shooting-chicago-armed-robbery-police/12723332/

[soundguy]

 

It is the Firearm Concealed Carry Act that prohibits firearms/Concealed Carry on all public transportation.

 

I fully expect the lawful CCL Holder/Victim will not be charged for violating FCCA because he used his gun in self defense. This is how such self defense matters have been handled in Chicago for decades, even when handguns were prohibited. I do not expect our 'hero' to be given a key to the City. And he might lose his gun.

 

Cheers,

Tim

 

For reference:

 

430 ILCS 66/65

Sec. 65. Prohibited areas. (a) A licensee under this Act shall not knowingly carry a firearm on or into: (1) Any building, real property, and parking area

under the control of a public or private elementary or secondary school.

(2) Any building, real property, and parking area

under the control of a pre-school or child care facility, including any room or portion of a building under the control of a pre-school or child care facility. Nothing in this paragraph shall prevent the operator of a child care facility in a family home from owning or possessing a firearm in the home or license under this Act, if no child under child care at the home is present in the home or the firearm in the home is stored in a locked container when a child under child care at the home is present in the home.

(3) Any building, parking area, or portion of a

building under the control of an officer of the executive or legislative branch of government, provided that nothing in this paragraph shall prohibit a licensee from carrying a concealed firearm onto the real property, bikeway, or trail in a park regulated by the Department of Natural Resources or any other designated public hunting area or building where firearm possession is permitted as established by the Department of Natural Resources under Section 1.8 of the Wildlife Code.

(4) Any building designated for matters before a

circuit court, appellate court, or the Supreme Court, or any building or portion of a building under the control of the Supreme Court.

(5) Any building or portion of a building under the

control of a unit of local government.

(6) Any building, real property, and parking area

under the control of an adult or juvenile detention or correctional institution, prison, or jail.

(7) Any building, real property, and parking area

under the control of a public or private hospital or hospital affiliate, mental health facility, or nursing home.

(8) Any bus, train, or form of transportation paid

for in whole or in part with public funds, and any building, real property, and parking area under the control of a public transportation facility paid for in whole or in part with public funds.

(9) Any building, real property, and parking area

under the control of an establishment that serves alcohol on its premises, if more than 50% of the establishment's gross receipts within the prior 3 months is from the sale of alcohol. The owner of an establishment who knowingly fails to prohibit concealed firearms on its premises as provided in this paragraph or who knowingly makes a false statement or record to avoid the prohibition on concealed firearms under this paragraph is subject to the penalty under subsection (c-5) of Section 10-1 of the Liquor Control Act of 1934.

(10) Any public gathering or special event conducted

on property open to the public that requires the issuance of a permit from the unit of local government, provided this prohibition shall not apply to a licensee who must walk through a public gathering in order to access his or her residence, place of business, or vehicle.

(11) Any building or real property that has been

issued a Special Event Retailer's license as defined in Section 1-3.17.1 of the Liquor Control Act during the time designated for the sale of alcohol by the Special Event Retailer's license, or a Special use permit license as defined in subsection (q) of Section 5-1 of the Liquor Control Act during the time designated for the sale of alcohol by the Special use permit license.

(12) Any public playground. (13) Any public park, athletic area, or athletic

facility under the control of a municipality or park district, provided nothing in this Section shall prohibit a licensee from carrying a concealed firearm while on a trail or bikeway if only a portion of the trail or bikeway includes a public park.

(14) Any real property under the control of the Cook

County Forest Preserve District.

(15) Any building, classroom, laboratory, medical

clinic, hospital, artistic venue, athletic venue, entertainment venue, officially recognized university-related organization property, whether owned or leased, and any real property, including parking areas, sidewalks, and common areas under the control of a public or private community college, college, or university.

(16) Any building, real property, or parking area

under the control of a gaming facility licensed under the Riverboat Gambling Act or the Illinois Horse Racing Act of 1975, including an inter-track wagering location licensee.

(17) Any stadium, arena, or the real property or

parking area under the control of a stadium, arena, or any collegiate or professional sporting event.

(18) Any building, real property, or parking area

under the control of a public library.

(19) Any building, real property, or parking area

under the control of an airport.

(20) Any building, real property, or parking area

under the control of an amusement park.

(21) Any building, real property, or parking area

under the control of a zoo or museum.

(22) Any street, driveway, parking area, property,

building, or facility, owned, leased, controlled, or used by a nuclear energy, storage, weapons, or development site or facility regulated by the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The licensee shall not under any circumstance store a firearm or ammunition in his or her vehicle or in a compartment or container within a vehicle located anywhere in or on the street, driveway, parking area, property, building, or facility described in this paragraph.

(23) Any area where firearms are prohibited under

federal law.

Edited January 21, 2023 at 06:24 PM by soundguy
added some stuff...

[djmarkla]

He might lose his 2 Amendment protected civil righs. 

[2A4Cook]

On 1/21/2023 at 1:50 PM, djmarkla said:

He might lose his 2 Amendment protected civil righs. 

What a joke.  The Dems unleash their street savages on law abiding citizens, then put you into a lockbox with them and tell you that you can't protect yourself there, while the criminals happily rob you with them and if caught are coddled to the point there is no deterrent, so they carry them with impunity.  In Cook County, public transportation is where your 2A rights are most needed.  They have you trapped and at their "mercy" (they have none) if you are unarmed.  

[mauserme]

Could be an interesting post-Bruen sensitive places test.

 

 

[RANDY]

It's there some legal precedence that amounts to the lesser of two evils.   Basically allowed to violate the law to stop a greater threat, or something like that

[Rangerdeepv]

Didn't say anything about the vic being arrested for anything. Wonder who will be back on the street first?

[crufflesmuth]

Pretty sure the Hale Demar law applies to this situation

[McCroskey]

I'd be willing to bet no charges will be pressed against the robbery victim, but the cops will probably take his gun as "evidence" and he'll never see it again. That's what usually happens.

 

Plus, the politicians stand to lose much more by Kim Foxx pressing charges because the narrative is always "guns are weapons of war used for violence/crime, nothing else". It would establish that they not only know guns are valid and often necessary for personal protection, but will openly punish someone for protecting their own life with one.

[mikew]

On 1/21/2023 at 11:32 AM, pdl099 said:

 

https://abc7chicago.com/cta-green-line-shooting-chicago-armed-robbery-police/12723332/

The headline is:

Green Line shooting: Man shoots would-be robber on CTA train, Chicago police say

 

Sorry, he's a robber. 
If he was a would-be robber, he'd still be at home, thinking about going out and robbing.

 

 

[Euler]

On 1/21/2023 at 3:19 PM, RANDY said:

It's there some legal precedence that amounts to the lesser of two evils.   Basically allowed to violate the law to stop a greater threat, or something like that

 

"Necessity" is an affirmative defense. For example, there doesn't need to be a special law granting permission for fire trucks to speed. Between speeding and letting a house burn down, not speeding is worse. When the consequences of obeying a law are worse than breaking the law, necessity is the affirmative defense for breaking the law. ("Yes, I broke the law, but I had a good reason.")

 

Massad Ayoob has said necessity should have been Bernie Goetz's defense when he was charged with shooting several (attempted) robbers on a subway in 1984. It wasn't his defense, but he was acquitted of everything except misdemeanor possession of an unlicensed handgun, anyway. Also it was NYC, not Chicago, so it only suggests a defense. It doesn't set a precedent for IL.

 

BTW, can we give props to ABC 7 for calling the robber in this case "the suspect" and the victim "the victim," instead of calling the robber "the victim" and the victim "the shooter?" It shouldn't be necessary to praise a media outlet for getting the words right, but it happens so rarely.

[Howard Roark]

On 1/21/2023 at 12:14 PM, soundguy said:

 

I fully expect the lawful CCL Holder/Victim will not be charged for violating FCCA because he used his gun in self defense. This is how such self defense matters have been handled in Chicago for decades, even when handguns were prohibited. 

 

 

Do we have receipts?  Having hard data about that would be helpful.  Somehow, I am skeptical that this is generally or usually true.  Most likely, charging the self defender with Unlawful Use of A Weapon would depend upon the race and demographics of the defender, given Chicago "leaders" obsession with race over blind unbiased justice.

 

A defender who is perceived as having "privilege" like Whitey would more likely be charged.  Female, Black, less likely.  Non-binary?  Even less likely.  Friend or family of an Aldercreature?  They certainly would never be charged much less prosecuted, but nobody should be, even Whitey.

 

I'm reminded of Tom Wolfe's book, "Bonfire of the Vanities" as I think about this ugly truth about the motivation and bias of Blue Dem prosecutors in Blue Dem cities.

[soundguy]

On 1/22/2023 at 4:58 PM, Howard Roark said:

 

Do we have receipts?  Having hard data about that would be helpful.  Somehow, I am skeptical that this is generally or usually true.  Most likely, charging the self defender with Unlawful Use of A Weapon would depend upon the race and demographics of the defender, given Chicago "leaders" obsession with race over blind unbiased justice.

 

A defender who is perceived as having "privilege" like Whitey would more likely be charged.  Female, Black, less likely.  Non-binary?  Even less likely.  Friend or family of an Aldercreature?  They certainly would never be charged much less prosecuted, but nobody should be, even Whitey.

 

I'm reminded of Tom Wolfe's book, "Bonfire of the Vanities" as I think about this ugly truth about the motivation and bias of Blue Dem prosecutors in Blue Dem cities.

 

There was once a collection of newspaper accounts on a long closed forum or list server, the place where where fanny pack carry was advocated. You will need to approach it from the other end and search for stories of self defense in public where the defender was charged.

 

I shall entertain you with three I recall:

 

A 76 year old man is jumped by a mid-teen couple outside his home as he begins his weekly walk to the bank to deposit cash. He fights back and kills one with his concealed revolver as they start to run, the other escapes. His gun was confiscated to which he replies no big deal, I have other guns.

 

An adult man plays Lotto at the same time, at the same gas station, everyday. On this day a gun is shoved into his back as a robber demands his wallet and the keys to his van. The victim complies but walks to the passenger side of his van to retrieve his pistol from under the passenger seat and kills the robber. He was not detained by CPD. His gun was confiscated.

 

A 13 year old boy decides to show his best friend the Beretta Tomcat with the tip-up barrel that Dad secretly keeps in his sock drawer. He drops the magazine, racks the slide and pulls the trigger with the pistol against his friends head. Friend is killed instantly because racking the slide on a tip-up barrel is not a reliable way to clear the chamber... obviously the kid was violating gun safety rules, as was Dad, plus it's Chicago and you can't have a gun. CPD investigated and confiscated his pistol. He was not charged because " adding more hardship to this horrible accident would solve nothing".

 

We did a story on the third one and interviewed some of the characters. I owned a Beretta Bobcat at the time. I was familiar enough with it to inform the producer and correspondent as to how it operated.

 

I am not sure if we did a story on the Lotto guy. I did visit the scene, out of interest and curiosity, and I could take you there. It's on the north side of a street just east of the Dan Ryan. I'll need to drive around a bit to find the right one.

 

Once, while lost on the south side in the mid '70s, we were pulled over by CPD because we were lost. They can tell. We were directed to Rush and Division (not our destination) and advised we should be carrying a gun if we came back.

 

Up in Wrigleyville in the mid '90 we were shooting an America's Most Wanted episode. The producer hired an armorer from Indiana to bring some weapons to fire in her two-flat basement... simulating the El Rukn firing range at The Fort. Since we were going to be firing blanks from pistols and fully automatic weapons, I suggested she call her local precinct. She did, they said thanks for the heads up. I had earplugs under my disconnected headphones to keep my ears from ringing as they fired several thousand rounds.

 

All of these tales take place in Chicago when unregistered handguns were prohibited and decades before Illinois approved legal concealed carry.

 

Cheers,

Tim

 

 

 

 

Edited January 23, 2023 at 01:45 AM by soundguy

[pdl099]

Update on the story. Sounds like victim "violated" Chicago mag limits too. Case for higher mag limits or more marksmanship training for the robbery victim? No mention of what happened legally with him. 

 

https://cwbchicago.com/2023/01/arrested-32-times-since-2014-man-allegedly-engaged-in-a-firefight-with-a-concealed-carry-holder-on-a-cta-train.html

[farmkid71]

I think the victim is going to get into trouble based on this part, if it is really true: 

 

"After stepping off the train, the guard pulled out his own firearm on the platform, reentered the train, and launched into a “firefight” with Moss, Cromydas continued."

 

They will say the robbery was over, no need to pull your gun and start a gunfight.  It will get twisted to paint him as the instigator. 

It almost reminds me of the recent story about a gas station or small store owner who went after a robber right after the robbery.  The robber shot the worker dead and that was called self defense because they said the robbery was over.  They broke down the whole thing into two separate incidents.  Anything to defend the real criminals/instigators. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Str8Shooter]

Who can say that a robbery is over if someone else is holding your property and defending his possession of it with a deadly weapon?

 

So if I'm wrestling with someone who temporarily has my wallet am I guilty of attempted robbery if I try to get it back?

 

Or am I supposed to surrender like a meek mouse because by some idiotic rule the robbery is declared over and someone might get hurt in my trying to retrieve my property while possession of it is still in active dispute?

[soundguy]

On 1/22/2023 at 8:00 PM, pdl099 said:

Update on the story. Sounds like victim "violated" Chicago mag limits too. Case for higher mag limits or more marksmanship training for the robbery victim? No mention of what happened legally with him. 

 

The preempted Chicago magazine limit is 15 rounds...  he could be nearly finished with his second 10 round mag or third 8 round magazine. Marksmanship and "when to fire" training may be in order. From the article, I believe he is still in the clear. Time will tell...

 

Cheers,

Tim

[Illinois Sucks]

On 1/22/2023 at 9:10 PM, farmkid71 said:

I think the victim is going to get into trouble based on this part, if it is really true: 

 

"After stepping off the train, the guard pulled out his own firearm on the platform, reentered the train, and launched into a “firefight” with Moss, Cromydas continued."

 

They will say the robbery was over, no need to pull your gun and start a gunfight.  It will get twisted to paint him as the instigator. 

It almost reminds me of the recent story about a gas station or small store owner who went after a robber right after the robbery.  The robber shot the worker dead and that was called self defense because they said the robbery was over.  They broke down the whole thing into two separate incidents.  Anything to defend the real criminals/instigators. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Moss threatened to shoot the victim if he did not exit at the next stop, which was Cicero, according to Cromydas.

 

He was being threatened at gunpoint to get off the train.  I would say it was far from over.  It sounds to me like he did what he was told till he had an opportunity to defend himself.

[Helpdesk9]

"The guard expended 18 rounds, four of which jammed, during the incident, he said."

[markthesignguy]

There's that magic word again....  "Guard"

 

a bank guard.

security personel

tan cards

different rules for carrying on the way to work or home after work.

 

and if he had 4 jams, that does not speak well to weapons care.

 

[yurimodin]

On 1/21/2023 at 12:14 PM, soundguy said:

(8) Any bus, train, or form of transportation paid

for in whole or in part with public funds, and any building, real property, and parking area under the control of a public transportation facility paid for in whole or in part with public funds.

My rights don't end where public funding begins.

[Smallbore]

I do not understand why the fcca, uuw, the foid act and all the Illinois criminal code did keep the passengers safe preventing the robber from possessing a gun on the government funded train. I must be stupid for not understanding. I need a progressive liberal to explain it, please.

[Euler]

On 1/28/2023 at 2:32 PM, Smallbore said:

I do not understand why the fcca, uuw, the foid act and all the Illinois criminal code did keep the passengers safe preventing the robber from possessing a gun on the government funded train. I must be stupid for not understanding. I need a progressive liberal to explain it, please.

 

I do not meet your qualifications, but I believe the answer they would give is:

 

it's Indiana's fault. We need national bans to stop Indiana from causing all Chicago crime.