Jump to content


Photo

Diggins


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
120 replies to this topic

#61 Tvandermyde

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,809 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 09

Posted 08 October 2009 - 06:37 PM

that is what the court said. I woul;d keep a copy of the decision handy for a while until we see the reaction from the cops. i called the state police today to tell them about it and the sheriffs assn.

We'lll see what happens next. Getting it in the field for cops to understand will be the big thing.
While a 9 mm or .40 caliber bullet may or may not expand, it is an undeniable fact that a .45 caliber bullet will never shrink.
 
my posts are moderated due to some butthurt on the part of IC people not liking my comments at times

#62 abolt243

    Tim Bowyer

  • Moderator
  • 11,713 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 08 October 2009 - 06:38 PM

This is great news!

So to sum up, I can put my pistol in my glove box next to a loaded magazine in the car glove box without a case for either?



Someone to get us back on track!!!

Yes, as I understand it, the glove box/console is now recognized as a "case" or "other container" as required by the law.

My comment that started this thread off the tracks was an indirect way of saying that I had already made the transition in my own vehicle. Sorry it went awry!

AB
Are you a member of the ISRA?? If not, why not?? Join over 18,000 other Illinois gun owners in the fight for your rights!!!

The Roman Empire fell due to a large, corrupt government, overspending, an overextended military, insecure borders, and the illegal immigration of Goths, barbarians (anyone who was not educated), and religious fanatics. Sound familiar?


"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel Adams

Luke 11:21 - "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed." NASB


#63 Bud

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,572 posts
  • Joined: 06-August 09

Posted 08 October 2009 - 07:25 PM

If I interpret the Court's decision correctly, the center console doesn't have to be locked, just closed, so that the gun is "enclosed in a case". (Wasn't the state's argument that, at some point, the "case" was open"?)

That being "the case," seems to me that having the firearm there and a mag in your shirt pocket would be much quicker than having to open a fanny pack.


After reading the courts opinion, they are calling the Cameron's court analysis incorrect. So, does this mean that not just the center console but the glove compartment is now also considered a "case" by law. Or does this ruling just affect the center console ? The Cameron portion is on page 6 of the written opinion in the Diggins case.


Budman, you said transporting in a vehicle and transporting on a person is two entirely different things. That I have to disagree with you on. Transporting your firearm has certain criteria as set forty by the ILCS. As we all know, it's unloaded, enclosed in a case and you have to be in posession of a FOID card. That criteria is for transporting in a vehicle or on your person. My question is what's entirely different ?



Just based on my experience as a cop. If you put a weapoin in a fanny pack (which by the way is a dead giveaway unless you are wearing madras shorts and velcro tie gym shoes) and walk anywhere will be waving a red flag to every cop that sees you. And you will be in violation of the wildlife code and you will be charged and probably with Agg UUW.
Bud
 
 
Winter is coming
and the White Walkers are already attacking the cities



ITWT Club Member 001

ONE STATE- ONE LAW

#64 Tvandermyde

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,809 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 09

Posted 08 October 2009 - 08:03 PM

Budman --

transportation is transportation. Be it in a vehilce or on foot. The orginal law was conceived to allow a person to walk down the street with a cased firearm.

Unloaded enclosed in a case is just that unloaded enclosed in a case. As the court said:

"For its final argument, the State relies on the legislative history to give meaning to the term "case." However, we need not resort to the legislature history because we find the plain language of section 24–1.6©(iii) unambiguous.

Unpersuaded by the State's arguments, we conclude that the legislature used the broad general term "case" unmodified. Giving the word "case" its plain and ordinary meaning, as we must, permits but one conclusion: the term "case" in section 24–1.6©(iii) includes any portable or nonportable receptacle and need not be interpreted only in reference to firearms.

Based on the foregoing, we find, in the case at bar, that the center console of a vehicle falls within the ordinary definition of case. A center console is a receptacle that contains or holds something. As such, we find that defendant's conduct falls within the exception set forth in section 24–1.6©(iii). In so finding, we note that our result is controlled by the plain language of section 24–16©(iii) as enacted by the legislature. We are not at liberty to depart from the language employed. Whether the statute is wise or the best means to achieve the desired result are matters left to the legislature, not this court."

Nothing in the statute says you have to be in a vehilce to transport a firearm. It simply says that possession of a unloaded cased firearm is not a crime. Is not illigal conduct. And is protected within the definitions of the staute.


While a 9 mm or .40 caliber bullet may or may not expand, it is an undeniable fact that a .45 caliber bullet will never shrink.
 
my posts are moderated due to some butthurt on the part of IC people not liking my comments at times

#65 sirflyguy

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,755 posts
  • Joined: 28-September 09

Posted 08 October 2009 - 09:11 PM

What about a purse with a zippered compartment? Not that I use a purse, mind you! I was just asked.


Seriously?


Yes, seriously. Someone asked me about it when I was talking about the ruling. If a case is a case is a case, and the unloaded gun is in a compartment in the purse, and the compartment is zippered and is enclosed, then is this considered legal transportation?

United States Concealed Carry Association Certified Firearms Instructor

Defensive Firearms Coach (DFC) 

Fundamentals of Home Defense Handgun

Fundamentals of Concealed Carry
NRA-Certified Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA-Certified Personal Protection In the Home Instructor
NRA-Certified Personal Protection Outside the Home Instructor 
NRA-Certified Chief Range Safety Officer

IL FCCA Approved Instructor
http://www.mlftraining.com
https://www.facebook...ps/mlftraining/


#66 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 17,515 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 08 October 2009 - 09:44 PM

Yes, seriously. Someone asked me about it when I was talking about the ruling. If a case is a case is a case, and the unloaded gun is in a compartment in the purse, and the compartment is zippered and is enclosed, then is this considered legal transportation?

Sounds like "other container" to me.
"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#67 Murf

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 197 posts
  • Joined: 03-November 08

Posted 08 October 2009 - 10:09 PM

Just based on my experience as a cop. If you put a weapoin in a fanny pack (which by the way is a dead giveaway unless you are wearing madras shorts and velcro tie gym shoes) and walk anywhere will be waving a red flag to every cop that sees you. And you will be in violation of the wildlife code and you will be charged and probably with Agg UUW.

The Wildlife Code is more specific in its definition of "case," stating that it "means a container specifically designed for the purpose of housing a gun..." Therefore, it does appear that one could be charged with violating the Wildlife Code (for an unloaded firearm in a console, fanny pack, etc) and it could be upheld and still be consistent with the Diggins ruling. The significant difference would be that it's a Class B misdemeanor rather than a felony.

Now if one were to use one of the many fanny packs available that are indeed "specifically designed" for carrying a fiream, it might cover both bases.

#68 Subdriver

  • Members
  • 8 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 09

Posted 08 October 2009 - 11:25 PM

Just based on my experience as a cop. If you put a weapoin in a fanny pack (which by the way is a dead giveaway unless you are wearing madras shorts and velcro tie gym shoes) and walk anywhere will be waving a red flag to every cop that sees you. And you will be in violation of the wildlife code and you will be charged and probably with Agg UUW.

The Wildlife Code is more specific in its definition of "case," stating that it "means a container specifically designed for the purpose of housing a gun..." Therefore, it does appear that one could be charged with violating the Wildlife Code (for an unloaded firearm in a console, fanny pack, etc) and it could be upheld and still be consistent with the Diggins ruling. The significant difference would be that it's a Class B misdemeanor rather than a felony.

Now if one were to use one of the many fanny packs available that are indeed "specifically designed" for carrying a fiream, it might cover both bases.


Todd adressed the point about the wildlife code in post #57 above. Unless engaged in hunting (or or violation related to hunting) arrest based on the wildlife code would be on "thin ice". I think he also addresed the issue of fanny pack in a later post as well.
Subdriver

"A Republic ma'am.... if you can keep it" -- Dr. Ben Franklin

#69 sirflyguy

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,755 posts
  • Joined: 28-September 09

Posted 09 October 2009 - 05:51 AM

Yes, seriously. Someone asked me about it when I was talking about the ruling. If a case is a case is a case, and the unloaded gun is in a compartment in the purse, and the compartment is zippered and is enclosed, then is this considered legal transportation?

Sounds like "other container" to me.

It did to me as well, but I want to err on the side of caution. Thank you.

United States Concealed Carry Association Certified Firearms Instructor

Defensive Firearms Coach (DFC) 

Fundamentals of Home Defense Handgun

Fundamentals of Concealed Carry
NRA-Certified Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA-Certified Personal Protection In the Home Instructor
NRA-Certified Personal Protection Outside the Home Instructor 
NRA-Certified Chief Range Safety Officer

IL FCCA Approved Instructor
http://www.mlftraining.com
https://www.facebook...ps/mlftraining/


#70 Don Gwinn

    President, SCRA

  • Moderator
  • 2,683 posts
  • Joined: 18-June 04

Posted 09 October 2009 - 07:02 AM

After this ruling, I think they'd have a hard time pushing a case based on an unloaded firearm enclosed in a zippered compartment of a purse, yes.

I carry in a purse (mine's a tactical man-purse, but I don't kid myself) with a zippered compartment, actually. But mine has the factory holster and mag loops installed in the compartment so that it's clear that it was specifically designed to house a firearm. I agree with Todd about thin ice, but I had a retired ISP trooper hinting darkly about my "tinfoil hat craziness" and how he knows all about me and where I live awhile back, so I figure a questionable traffic stop or even arrest is not completely outside the realm of possibility for me. I comply with the Wildlife Code out of an abundance of caution.

While I'm admitting to manliness deficiency, I must note that my boxy little turbocharged Eurocar's console is not large enough to hold any of my pistols.


________________________________________________________________________________

Illinois Gun Owners' Lobbying Day

March 5, 2014

Be there or everyone will see that you have four equal sides and four 90-degree angles!

________________________________________________________________________________


#71 Tvandermyde

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,809 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 09

Posted 09 October 2009 - 07:04 AM

There was a case, where a woman had a gun in a purse and won at the appelate level. I think it was Bruner in Macon county. there was also another one down south around Williamson County i believe where she had it ina purse or fanny pack at the county fairgrounds.


** My hard drive crashed last week with all my court files and documents on it. I'm trying to salvage it but I may be short a lot of historical info I had for a while, until I rebuild it.

2. The Wildlife Code now has a problem of the doctrine of "lesser included" This is where the same conduct, gets you two different penalties. If unloaded and enclosed in a case, is legal. But unloaded and enclosed in a case gets you a ticket or what ever under the Wildlife Code, you are entitled to the lesser penalty. In this case, pun intended, no penalty.

As a side note, if you get pulled over after leaving the field by a CPO, you are transporting a gun. If they come up to you inthe field, you are allowed to have a loaded unclased gun while hunting, or let say it's just after sundown, you unload the gun, sling it over your shoulder, and start to walk out. You're still legal.

I don't get why people are so hung up on the Wildlife Code and the case stuff there. ALL the UUW cases are just that UUW not Wildlife Code charges.
While a 9 mm or .40 caliber bullet may or may not expand, it is an undeniable fact that a .45 caliber bullet will never shrink.
 
my posts are moderated due to some butthurt on the part of IC people not liking my comments at times

#72 sirflyguy

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,755 posts
  • Joined: 28-September 09

Posted 09 October 2009 - 09:55 AM

After this ruling, I think they'd have a hard time pushing a case based on an unloaded firearm enclosed in a zippered compartment of a purse, yes.

I carry in a purse (mine's a tactical man-purse, but I don't kid myself) with a zippered compartment, actually. But mine has the factory holster and mag loops installed in the compartment so that it's clear that it was specifically designed to house a firearm. I agree with Todd about thin ice, but I had a retired ISP trooper hinting darkly about my "tinfoil hat craziness" and how he knows all about me and where I live awhile back, so I figure a questionable traffic stop or even arrest is not completely outside the realm of possibility for me. I comply with the Wildlife Code out of an abundance of caution.

While I'm admitting to manliness deficiency, I must note that my boxy little turbocharged Eurocar's console is not large enough to hold any of my pistols.

Thank you for the response. It was as I thought, but it is always good to hear from others. I know that here in Williamson County, the SA (who I absolutely LOATHE!) has supposedly written a letter that many here keep in their fanny packs that says he will not prosecute transport in such items. Fanny pack, purse, tactical man-purse :thumbsup: , they are all containers.

United States Concealed Carry Association Certified Firearms Instructor

Defensive Firearms Coach (DFC) 

Fundamentals of Home Defense Handgun

Fundamentals of Concealed Carry
NRA-Certified Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA-Certified Personal Protection In the Home Instructor
NRA-Certified Personal Protection Outside the Home Instructor 
NRA-Certified Chief Range Safety Officer

IL FCCA Approved Instructor
http://www.mlftraining.com
https://www.facebook...ps/mlftraining/


#73 burningspear

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 815 posts
  • Joined: 23-May 07

Posted 09 October 2009 - 09:55 AM

Backup. External drives are cheap. Try Replicator by Karen (karenware.com)

Online and encrypted backup is around. Check out SpiderOak (spideroak.com), among a host of other free and pay to use sites.

#74 Tvandermyde

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,809 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 09

Posted 09 October 2009 - 09:59 AM

It was an external drive. My second one set up as an automatic backup didn't
While a 9 mm or .40 caliber bullet may or may not expand, it is an undeniable fact that a .45 caliber bullet will never shrink.
 
my posts are moderated due to some butthurt on the part of IC people not liking my comments at times

#75 Eireman

  • Members
  • 45 posts
  • Joined: 12-March 09

Posted 09 October 2009 - 10:06 AM

No wonder our County, State, and Country is in such a dysfunctional condition and financial mess. Our tax dollars are being wasted to split hairs, pick the electrons out of fly crap, and harass tax paying citizens who are forced to choose between personal protection and laws that the majority of the US has modified!

In the midst of the "budget crisis of epic proportions" our money is recklessly squandered fighting a war on semantics to rules (leaving sane and honest citizens unarmed) that have already been found detrimental to public well-being in 48 other states.


I will preface this with the fact that 2nd Amendment and common sense says I have the right to protect myself without paying for it! But since the world is motivated by cash - there are approximately 1.2 million FOID holders in IL and if only 60% (very conservative in my view because I think not only would more FOID users seek LTC but many currently non-FOID people would seek to be licensed) sought a license to carry at let just say $100 for five years that would add thirteen million to state revenue. There would be a marginal additional cost since the resources to issue FOID cards is already in place. Keep the $10 FOID and add the LTC endorsement for $100 extra.

1,122,276 FOID Holders
67,336,560 60% LTC at $100 for 5 years
13,467,312 Yearly revenue to IL (By comparison the IL lottery nets about 622 million per year)
"Right is only in question between equals, and while the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must." Thucydides

#76 cherryriver

    Actual Member

  • Members
  • 1,430 posts
  • Joined: 16-April 08

Posted 09 October 2009 - 10:39 AM

I can testify from the most inside of inside information that the Wheeling Police Department will be completely informed by late Saturday.
I'm told to carry the decision printout with me for a few months.
I'm also told not to vehicle-compartment-carry in or through Chicago, in any case.
One example cited was the potential use of the Cook County "assault weapons" ordinance, wherein pretty much any semi-auto could be a takedown point, even a 1911 if Alvarez is in the mood. A G17 or 1911 can hold a magazine that contains more than ten rounds, and in certain interpretations of the ordinance, that suffices to make the firearm an illegal-to-possess assault weapon.
I guess it's about ten thousand bucks to find out. If you won.
I don't share Don's fashion sense, but do share the abundance of caution.
Winter may change to summer, but the silly season goes on and on...

#77 Chris

    Furthering our cause through information overload.

  • Members
  • 4,711 posts
  • Joined: 15-January 08

Posted 09 October 2009 - 10:44 AM

I carry in a purse (mine's a tactical man-purse, but I don't kid myself) with a zippered compartment, actually. But mine has the factory holster and mag loops installed in the compartment so that it's clear that it was specifically designed to house a firearm.


For those of you wondering this is what Don and I use:

Maxpedition Jumbo Versipack - http://www.maxpediti...mp;idcategory=4


I have the "S-Type" version as I am left handed and it works great for me.
Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little.
- Edmund Burke

It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice.

Posted Image

#78 GarandFan

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,773 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 07

Posted 09 October 2009 - 10:58 AM

I'm also told not to vehicle-compartment-carry in or through Chicago, in any case.
One example cited was the potential use of the Cook County "assault weapons" ordinance, wherein pretty much any semi-auto could be a takedown point, even a 1911 if Alvarez is in the mood. A G17 or 1911 can hold a magazine that contains more than ten rounds, and in certain interpretations of the ordinance, that suffices to make the firearm an illegal-to-possess assault weapon.


I agree with your assessment.

However, I have but one question:

Since 1993, when it was enacted, how many times has Cook county prosecuted anyone under provisions of their "assault weapons ban?"

Anyone who knows, please weigh in.
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872

#79 1957Human

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,438 posts
  • Joined: 21-March 07

Posted 09 October 2009 - 11:21 AM

The Wildlife Code now has a problem of the doctrine of "lesser included" This is where the same conduct, gets you two different penalties. If unloaded and enclosed in a case, is legal. But unloaded and enclosed in a case gets you a ticket or what ever under the Wildlife Code, you are entitled to the lesser penalty. In this case, pun intended, no penalty.

***
I don't get why people are so hung up on the Wildlife Code and the case stuff there. ALL the UUW cases are just that [--] UUW not Wildlife Code charges.



Todd, I was thinking the same thing. After all, the same section of the Wildlife Code that prohibits possession of an uncased gun (aka, the "illegal-methods provision": section 2.33) also makes it "unlawful to kill or cripple any species protected by this Act for which there is a daily bag limit without making a reasonable effort to retrieve such species and include such in the daily bag limit." (See section 2.33(hh).) Yet, no one would argue that you need to include a squirrel you ran over on your way into work in your "bag limit," because implicit in a section 2.33 offense is that you need doing something related to hunting.

So I went looking for cases that repeat that principle. What I found, though, is not reassuring.

In 1978 one Kevin Kahl was found by a Nokomis police officer sleeping in his auto in a ditch with a loaded .357 in his open console. (The only thing he had been hunting was trouble.) He was subsequently charged under both the UUW provision of the Criminal Code and the Wildlife Code and found guilty of both. The appellate court tossed out the Wildlife Code violation as a lesser-include offense of UUW. People v. Kahl, 63 Ill. App. 3d 703 (1978). This is the opinion that established the principle that the uncased gun provision of the Wildlife Code is a lesser-included offense under UUW.

Two points are important here: (1) here’s an example of a guy who was not, nor had he been, hunting, yet he was charged under the Wildlife Code for an "illegal methods" (uncased weapon) offense, and (2) perhaps there aren’t currently uncased gun charges being filed under the Wildlife Code because they’ve been viewed, since 1978, as a lesser-included offense under the UUW statute. Even after Diggins, a naked gun in a console is still considered "uncased" under the Wildlife Code. That being the only offense that can be charged, how long before a gun-unfriendly State’s Attorney bring an "illegal methods" charge, regardless of whether one is hunting, under the Wildlife Code as a test case? You can bet there are a few who are even now thinking this way.

Nevertheless, another principle of the law would come into play if that happens. Where two statutes cover the same topic, the one more specific to the alleged activity controls. In this case, if one is engaged in hunting-related activities (even if going or coming from a hunt), he should follow the Wildlife Code in its definition of "case." If he's not, then the UUW definition of case should control the outcome. But, as you said, it's just a ticket and not a two-year vacation in beautiful Joliet.
Life Member of GOA

#80 cherryriver

    Actual Member

  • Members
  • 1,430 posts
  • Joined: 16-April 08

Posted 09 October 2009 - 11:42 AM

In answer to the question about how often and how the Cook County Assault Weapons ordinance is used to charge people, I don't have a solid answer and am not sure I would know how to find out.
My source-friend has always said that it wasn't being used in door-to-door confiscations; that it's used as an adjunct to other charges in cases such as gang members being run up on multiple charges.
While I have perfect confidence in my friend's veracity, and his more-than-20-years of street and SWAT experience, that's not a numerical proof.
I'm curious as well.
Winter may change to summer, but the silly season goes on and on...

#81 GarandFan

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,773 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 07

Posted 09 October 2009 - 11:49 AM

I'm curious as well.


As I understand, the number is ZERO.

But I would like confirmation of that, as well. I think the only way to find out is through the Cook county DAs office. Would that be suject to FOI requests? I don't suppose Alvarez would be terribly forthcoming otherwise.

But it true, it leads me to the belief that the Cook "assault weapons" ban is purely cosmetic itself, designed to harass and worry gun owners. Otherwise, they'd be sticking criminals with such charges. If it's not enforced, I ask you, what is the purpose of such an ordinance?


Anyway, sorry, back to Diggins. Hopefully Diggins and all this other stuff will not distract us too much from work toward passing a real carry bill. I suspect we'd do better concerning ourselves with getting a real carry bill than concerning ourselves with what kind of "container" we can carry our unloaded guns in.
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872

#82 boog

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,659 posts
  • Joined: 02-September 08

Posted 09 October 2009 - 12:06 PM

i just have 1 statement. this all started because a cop pulled this man over because he didn't signal a turn???
boog

CarrySafely.com

Illinois Certified Concealed Carry Instructor


#83 GarandFan

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,773 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 07

Posted 09 October 2009 - 12:31 PM

i just have 1 statement. this all started because a cop pulled this man over because he didn't signal a turn???
boog


Yes. I know it seems trivial (which is probaby your point), but failure to signal a turn is a moving violation and subjects you to a traffic stop.
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872

#84 1957Human

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,438 posts
  • Joined: 21-March 07

Posted 09 October 2009 - 01:00 PM

Anyway, sorry, back to Diggins. Hopefully Diggins and all this other stuff will not distract us too much from work toward passing a real carry bill. I suspect we'd do better concerning ourselves with getting a real carry bill than concerning ourselves with what kind of "container" we can carry our unloaded guns in.




A minor victory is twice as good as a minor setback, yet this is, indeed, many rods from the ultimate goal of restoration of our right to bear arms. It won't distract me.
Life Member of GOA

#85 1957Human

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,438 posts
  • Joined: 21-March 07

Posted 09 October 2009 - 01:13 PM

i just have 1 statement. this all started because a cop pulled this man over because he didn't signal a turn???
boog


More likely it started when the officer ran defendant's Florida plates and saw something like a prior drug conviction. The failure-to-signal was probably the first justification to arise for the stop.
Life Member of GOA

#86 bob

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,153 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 05

Posted 09 October 2009 - 01:39 PM

Nevertheless, another principle of the law would come into play if that happens. Where two statutes cover the same topic, the one more specific to the alleged activity controls. In this case, if one is engaged in hunting-related activities (even if going or coming from a hunt), he should follow the Wildlife Code in its definition of "case." If he's not, then the UUW definition of case should control the outcome. But, as you said, it's just a ticket and not a two-year vacation in beautiful Joliet.


A ticket that is a class B misdemeanor, which is nothing to sneeze at.

My guess is that this really changes almost nothing other than reducing the risk of felony charges for FOID card holders who are innocently doing something that can be twisted against them.

I have to admit I am a little astounded at some of the coverage this is getting on other forums, where the titles of the posts, and sometimes the posts themselves make it appear you can have a loaded firearm in your console.

This is a real problem for non-residents who might believe they can pass through IL with a gun in their console, even if it is unloaded, since they are not covered by the unloaded and encased exception.
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

The opinions expressed by this poster do not reflect the official stance of Illinois Carry. Apparently there was some confusion on the part of at least one person that it does, and I want to make things clear that my opinion is my own and that whatever the official stance of IC is or is not at present, it may or may not reflect my own opinion.

http://ilbob.blogspot.com/

#87 Saturdaynightspecial

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 104 posts
  • Joined: 19-November 06

Posted 09 October 2009 - 01:57 PM

Illinios Wildlife code defines case more specifically (could be home made). Must be designed to contain a gun.

So, keep a handgun in a "gun" case in the centerconsole.

Wildlife code applies to wildlife or hunting or both locations ONLY.

Todd would know...

#88 Saturdaynightspecial

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 104 posts
  • Joined: 19-November 06

Posted 09 October 2009 - 02:09 PM

If I interpret the Court's decision correctly, the center console doesn't have to be locked, just closed, so that the gun is "enclosed in a case". (Wasn't the state's argument that, at some point, the "case" was open"?)

That being "the case," seems to me that having the firearm there and a mag in your shirt pocket would be much quicker than having to open a fanny pack.


After reading the courts opinion, they are calling the Cameron's court analysis incorrect. So, does this mean that not just the center console but the glove compartment is now also considered a "case" by law. Or does this ruling just affect the center console ? The Cameron portion is on page 6 of the written opinion in the Diggins case.


Budman, you said transporting in a vehicle and transporting on a person is two entirely different things. That I have to disagree with you on. Transporting your firearm has certain criteria as set forty by the ILCS. As we all know, it's unloaded, enclosed in a case and you have to be in posession of a FOID card. That criteria is for transporting in a vehicle or on your person. My question is what's entirely different ?



Just based on my experience as a cop. If you put a weapoin in a fanny pack (which by the way is a dead giveaway unless you are wearing madras shorts and velcro tie gym shoes) and walk anywhere will be waving a red flag to every cop that sees you. And you will be in violation of the wildlife code and you will be charged and probably with Agg UUW.


Some fannypacks are specifically designed to contain a gun.

#89 bob

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,153 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 05

Posted 09 October 2009 - 02:13 PM

Wildlife code applies to wildlife or hunting or both locations ONLY.

It does not actually say that anywhere in the wildlife code. Or in any other statute that I could find.

Several cops on other forums have indicated they have charged people with this violation that were not hunting.

One case that was related on THR (I think) last year some time was a fellow traveling through IL who had a loaded 25 in his suitcase. I don't recall the details of the situation, but somehow a state trooper found the gun during a search and ended up giving him a citation for a wildlife code violation. Nothing else really fits since it was not immediately accessible by any stretch, but it was loaded and not in a "gun" case.
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

The opinions expressed by this poster do not reflect the official stance of Illinois Carry. Apparently there was some confusion on the part of at least one person that it does, and I want to make things clear that my opinion is my own and that whatever the official stance of IC is or is not at present, it may or may not reflect my own opinion.

http://ilbob.blogspot.com/

#90 lockman

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,468 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 09 October 2009 - 02:35 PM

Wildlife code applies to wildlife or hunting or both locations ONLY.

It does not actually say that anywhere in the wildlife code. Or in any other statute that I could find.

Several cops on other forums have indicated they have charged people with this violation that were not hunting.

One case that was related on THR (I think) last year some time was a fellow traveling through IL who had a loaded 25 in his suitcase. I don't recall the details of the situation, but somehow a state trooper found the gun during a search and ended up giving him a citation for a wildlife code violation. Nothing else really fits since it was not immediately accessible by any stretch, but it was loaded and not in a "gun" case.


If he had a loaded .25 in his suitecase that would be UUW under the crimminal code. I wonder why a cop would bother looking into the wildlife code to come up with a charge when he has an obvious class A misdemeanor, or an AGG UUW felony staring him in the face?

"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA,  CCRKBA, GOA, & SAF