Center Console Question [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Center Console Question


SIUC4
01-26-2010, 22:13
I have read the legislation and it is my understanding that you can carry your weapon in center console and glove box.
I hear people are still getting into some trouble of this situation??
I carry my holstered G22 unloaded in my center console and have a couple fully loaded magazines in the bottom of the console...
Anyone see a problem with this, I never get a strait answer from the LE around here because quite honestly alot of them are themselves unclear on this subject....

05FLHT
01-27-2010, 09:24
The UUW Statute says the firearm must either be 1) disassembled into an inoperable state, 2) inaccessible or 3) unloaded and fully enclosed in a case. The IL SC recently ruled in Diggins that a center console constitutes a case, as defined by the UUW Statute. Carrying an unloaded firearm, with loaded magazines accessible, inside your fully enclosed center console would exempt you from the UUW charge.

****IMPORTANT****

1) Transporting an unloaded firearm inside a center console does not exempt you from a Wildlife Code violation, as the case is not specifically designed to house a firearm. It has been argued by some LEO and SA's that the IL "complied" statutes allows for a WC violation (misdemeanor). So, if you choose to do this, although you would not face a felony charge, you may become a test case for a WC violation (assuming you are not engaged in hunting/fishing ect...).

2) If you open the center console while not on your own property, or property which you would be legal to possess an uncased firearm, YOU WOULD BE COMMITTING UUW!

IMHO, a much better (and more practical) way to "transport" a firearm in your vehicle, or on your person, would be to use a case designed to house a firearm, that also allows access to the firearm (i.e. CCW fanny pack or Maxpedition Versi Pack). Again, the firearm must be unloaded and fully enclosed, but you could have the loaded magazine in the same compartment.

For more information -

http://www.isp.state.il.us/foid/firearmsfaq.cfm

http://www.isp.state.il.us/docs/1-154.pdf

isp2605
02-15-2010, 18:31
1) Transporting an unloaded firearm inside a center console does not exempt you from a Wildlife Code violation, as the case is not specifically designed to house a firearm. It has been argued by some LEO and SA's that the IL "complied" statutes allows for a WC violation (misdemeanor). So, if you choose to do this, although you would not face a felony charge, you may become a test case for a WC violation (assuming you are not engaged in hunting/fishing ect...).

Actually a person would not be a test case. It's already been tested and upheld by the courts all over the state numerous times every year. Uncased gun even while not engaged in hunting is a fairly common charge.

MakeMineA10mm
02-15-2010, 20:16
isp is certainly correct, although I think it's a stupid, chincy, non-sensical type of charge. I had a buddy once who was out shooting clay birds in his backyard range (on his own property) with a Win 1200 Defender (8-shot mag), and a Consvtn. Ofcr. came out of the woods and wrote him a ticket for having an unplugged shotgun in the field during hunting season. Clearly, my buddy wasn't hunting and was even on his own property and the case of clay birds (or what was left of it) and the pigeon thrower were there.

This was totally legal, because conservation officers do not have to respect private property when they are enforcing conservation laws...

I have a problem with a conservation officer (or a state's attorney) using this technically legal application of the law for something it obviously was not intended for... This kind of silliness/abuse of power is what gets the anti-govt./conspiracy theory/militia-movement/KKK/American Nazi Party/World Church of the Creator whackos all fired up with their anti-govt. speech. (Of course, it gives them credibility [which they don't deserve], because in this case they are right...) Every time a State's Atty. "wins" a case based on conservation law where it really shouldn't be applied is not really a "win"...

isp2605
02-15-2010, 20:36
isp is certainly correct, although I think it's a stupid, chincy, non-sensical type of charge. I had a buddy once who was out shooting clay birds in his backyard range (on his own property) with a Win 1200 Defender (8-shot mag), and a Consvtn. Ofcr. came out of the woods and wrote him a ticket for having an unplugged shotgun in the field during hunting season.
He should have taken that one to court. Some CPOs tend to be a bit overboard.
Here's another CPO story.
My brother use to be a buckskinner of sorts when he was really getting into blackpowder hunting. Made his clothes and all his gun accessories including gun case. He'd made a real nice case out of deer skin with the fringe and bead work. It completely covered the gun and the end was made to tie to close the case. DNR was running a check near where he was deer hunting and he was stopped coming home. The CPO wrote him a ticket for uncased gun because she said it wasn't a factory made case. He fought the ticket. I went to court just to see what the judge would say. The CPO got on the stand and said the case wasn't a factory made therefore it wasn't legal. She said when the statute said "specifically made for a firearm" that it meant factory made. The judge wasn't happy with that testimony. No where has the law stated the case had to be factory made. Brother didn't even have to testify. Judge gave a directed verdict and explained his ruling to the CPO. Afterwards I talked to a buddy who was legal counsel for DNR about her testimony. He assured me their CPOs are not taught cases have to be factory made. He contacted the CPO chief and they got it straightened out with their CPOs.
DNR has some really good CPOs. I've worked with quite a few of them and some are very good friends. I've also worked with some who are way way overboard on what they think and do.

volsbear
02-16-2010, 08:04
http://www.pjstar.com/news/x593076740/Supreme-Court-upholds-ruling-on-Peoria-gun-case

As it's been said, this doesn't exempt you from the Wildlife Code.

MakeMineA10mm
02-16-2010, 23:23
He should have taken that one to court. Some CPOs tend to be a bit overboard.
Here's another CPO story.
My brother use to be a buckskinner of sorts when he was really getting into blackpowder hunting. Made his clothes and all his gun accessories including gun case. He'd made a real nice case out of deer skin with the fringe and bead work. It completely covered the gun and the end was made to tie to close the case. DNR was running a check near where he was deer hunting and he was stopped coming home. The CPO wrote him a ticket for uncased gun because she said it wasn't a factory made case. He fought the ticket. I went to court just to see what the judge would say. The CPO got on the stand and said the case wasn't a factory made therefore it wasn't legal. She said when the statute said "specifically made for a firearm" that it meant factory made. The judge wasn't happy with that testimony. No where has the law stated the case had to be factory made. Brother didn't even have to testify. Judge gave a directed verdict and explained his ruling to the CPO. Afterwards I talked to a buddy who was legal counsel for DNR about her testimony. He assured me their CPOs are not taught cases have to be factory made. He contacted the CPO chief and they got it straightened out with their CPOs.
DNR has some really good CPOs. I've worked with quite a few of them and some are very good friends. I've also worked with some who are way way overboard on what they think and do.

Yeah, that's been my exact experience too. The overzealous ones give all the rest a bad name, of course...

8-Ball
02-18-2010, 01:09
Anyone have a link to the actual law about this center console thing? I'd like to look it over.

SIUC4
02-18-2010, 01:25
Anyone have a link to the actual law about this center console thing? I'd like to look it over.

Look at post number 2

MakeMineA10mm
02-18-2010, 22:46
8-ball,
There is NO legislation on this issue. This stems from an ILLINOIS Supreme Court ruling issued late last year (2009) on a case out of Peoria County wherein a man was arrested, charged, and convicted of UUW (Unlawful Use of Weapons) for having a gun in the center console of his car. He was convicted, and after his sentence was pretty much over, he finally got in front of the I.S.C. and they reversed the conviction.

Some MAJOR aspects of their ruling that are almost never stated are:

To qualify as "a case," the center console must lock,
The gun still must be unloaded,

And, this only applies to the UUW statute. If you have the gun in the center console, you can still be charged with a wildlife code violation for having the gun "accessible."

For Concealed Carry to work in IL., there's going to have to be several laws revised...

MakeMineA10mm
02-18-2010, 22:50
Here's a pretty good review of the issue with citation:

http://legaldefenders.blogspot.com/2009/11/illinois-supreme-court-changes-illinois.html

SIUC4
02-18-2010, 23:27
Here's a pretty good review of the issue with citation:

http://legaldefenders.blogspot.com/2009/11/illinois-supreme-court-changes-illinois.html

There are a few too many errors in this blog, and this is a blog, not legal legislation, and there is actually legislation on this matter, coming from the afore mentioned supreme court ruling...I have many LEO buddies in states such as GA and TX and they all laught at the fact that the LEOs here in IL are worried about more danger...

volsbear
02-19-2010, 05:00
There are a few too many errors in this blog, and this is a blog, not legal legislation, and there is actually legislation on this matter, coming from the afore mentioned supreme court ruling...I have many LEO buddies in states such as GA and TX and they all laught at the fact that the LEOs here in IL are worried about more danger...

You are ill-informed. There is NO statute in Illinois regarding guns that specifically references "center consoles." You won't see it which is why you can't find it (that, and because you are asking other members of this thread to do the work so that you don't have to :) ). The Supreme Court decision that has been given to you (a few times now) contains CASE LAW. You should take a few minutes to review what case law is and how it affects the application of the law on the street.

What has been said to you, a few times now, is that Illinois law requires firearms to be secured in a case during transportation to avoid prosecution until the UUW law. The Illinois Supreme Court recently ruled that in some cases, many types of "center consoles" meet the requirements established in the "closed case" mandate under the law. But in many cases, a firearm transported in a center console may not be sufficient to protect you from prosecution under the Wildlife Code which has somewhat different requirements.

Now, in the next legislative session, you MAY see language pop up in a bill with the words "center console" because of the recent decision. But as of yet, no such language exists.

MakeMineA10mm
02-19-2010, 07:39
There are a few too many errors in this blog, and this is a blog, not legal legislation, and there is actually legislation on this matter, coming from the afore mentioned supreme court ruling...I have many LEO buddies in states such as GA and TX and they all laught at the fact that the LEOs here in IL are worried about more danger...

Well, the blog I posted above gave a nice synopsis, which is why I posted it. There are no factual errors in the blog itself, but if you don't trust it, go to a legal library and look up the case as cited at that blog by Supreme Court case number and name...

It sounds like (although not totally clear) that you may be asking about new legislation that is not yet law, but is being proposed in the legislature?? If that is the case, you can go to the Illinois legislature's website and look it up. Most of the proposed legislation is listed there.

Finally, LEOs here in Illinois are worried about this, because this has been an ultra-liberal state for FAR TOO LONG! The restrictions of our rights have been in place so long that even LEOs (typically conservative-minded) have fallen prey to the liberal beliefs and have been taught that you can't trust the population. Then, pundits, media, and police administrators (IACP - who are very political and very liberal-minded, it seems) all say that it would be dangerous to have guns in LOCKED center consoles and you get more of this feeling. So, yeah, misinformed/brainwashed LEOs are worried about this.

THIS LEO is NOT! Concealed Carry lowers crime. Concealed Carry holders are extremely rarely involved in misbehavior. These are not people we need to worry about. Of course, this center console ruling applies to EVERYONE, not just good folks, so there is a tiny bit of unfortunateness that we can't charge a real bad guy with carrying in the console...

The bottom line that LEOs who are against this are not thinking about is: the bad guys are carrying in their UNlocked consoles, in their pants, in their coats, in their car doors, in their car seats, etc., etc., etc. - so legislation or supreme court rulings mean nothing to them and the danger an LEO should worry about is already there, and allowing good people to carry adds nothing to an LEOs worries.

Logic over emotions...

SIUC4
02-19-2010, 12:19
THIS LEO is NOT! Concealed Carry lowers crime. Concealed Carry holders are extremely rarely involved in misbehavior. These are not people we need to worry about. Of course, this center console ruling applies to EVERYONE, not just good folks, so there is a tiny bit of unfortunateness that we can't charge a real bad guy with carrying in the console...

I like where your thinking is on this topic, NOW why can we not get IL Legislation to see that CCLs are not an easy thing to get, the FOID card process is already long enough, and I believe that IL is the only state that require's the use of a FOID...I am leaving this state soon to become LE in Texas....Everytime that you make a traffic stop you must understand that the people are armed...makes you stay and you toes more and not let your guard down...

volsbear
02-19-2010, 12:23
I like where your thinking is on this topic, NOW why can we not get IL Legislation to see that CCLs are not an easy thing to get, the FOID card process is already long enough, and I believe that IL is the only state that require's the use of a FOID...I am leaving this state soon to become LE in Texas....Everytime that you make a traffic stop you must understand that the people are armed...makes you stay and you toes more and not let your guard down...

If you have to ask this question, then you need to spend considerable time learning about, and understanding, Michael Madigan.

isp2605
02-19-2010, 12:30
, and I believe that IL is the only state that require's the use of a FOID
NJ also has FOID.
At least IL doesn't have firearms registration/license, a pre-purchase permit, inspection of the firearm after purchase, restriction/approval on type of firearm purchase.

If you have to ask this question, then you need to spend considerable time learning about, and understanding, Michael Madigan.
Right there is the absolute truth. As long as The Sphinx is running the House there won't be CCW in IL. Doesn't matter who gets elected governor.

volsbear
02-19-2010, 13:11
Right there is the absolute truth. As long as The Sphinx is running the House there won't be CCW in IL. Doesn't matter who gets elected governor.

Yes, indeed. The only hope Brady would have, if elected, is to veto every single spending bill passed by the house and senate until Madigan and Cullerton call a CCW bill for a vote. And that would take balls of solid iron AND a desire to be a single term governor.

SIUC4
02-19-2010, 13:17
Micheal Madigan = Yet another reason that I am leaving this state.....

Ryobi
02-19-2010, 13:47
Please. You say the LE in your area don't know the one thing they do know- state law. Other "police friends" you happen to have laugh at other cops for recognizing the potential for increased danger during traffic stops. I think both things happened within the confines of the internet, if at all.

05FLHT
02-19-2010, 14:33
Right there is the absolute truth. As long as The Sphinx is running the House there won't be CCW in IL. Doesn't matter who gets elected governor.

Not necessarily so. More information on US vs Skoien here -

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=20222

Short of The SCOTUS setting the level of scrutiny in McDonald vs. Chicago, strict scrutiny will be used in the 7th circuit when addressing the "core" Second Amendment issue of "self defense."

Off the top of my head, carry challenges have already been filed in DC, California (two that I know of) and the SC of NY or NJ (I can't remember) just denied hearing a case. I have pretty good suspicion that if a challenge in the 7th circuit has not already been written, there will be one ready to go post McDonald.

On a side note, where are Daley and Madigan going to get the $$$ to fight any of this. The handwriting is on the wall for McDonald as it is not a question of "if," but of "how" to incorporate the Second. The flagship "Chicago" is sinking fast in a big sea of taxpayer unrest and blatant corruption.

volsbear
02-19-2010, 14:53
Not necessarily so. More information on US vs Skoien here -

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=20222

Short of The SCOTUS setting the level of scrutiny in McDonald vs. Chicago, strict scrutiny will be used in the 7th circuit when addressing the "core" Second Amendment issue of "self defense."

Off the top of my head, carry challenges have already been filed in DC, California (two that I know of) and the SC of NY or NJ (I can't remember) just denied hearing a case. I have pretty good suspicion that if a challenge in the 7th circuit has not already been written, there will be one ready to go post McDonald.

On a side note, where are Daley and Madigan going to get the $$$ to fight any of this. The handwriting is on the wall for McDonald as it is not a question of "if," but of "how" to incorporate the Second. The flagship "Chicago" is sinking fast in a big sea of taxpayer unrest and blatant corruption.

First...
Yes, the handwriting is on the wall for McDonald. But take some time and read about what Supreme Court decisions actually accomplish and HOW. They are EXTREMELY limited in their scope. The issue in McDonald will ultimately decide whether or not the precedent set in the Heller decision will apply to the states (read = whether or not Chicago's and similar gun bans and registration are Constitutional). McDonald WILL NOT ESTABLISH CONCEALED CARRY IN ILLINOIS. Why? Because that is NOT the issue before the Court. All the sheeple thought Heller would set them free too. But it didn't. Because SCOTUS decisions are limited to the EXACT and PRECISE question posed to the Court. There is no CONCEALED CARRY provision in the legal argument in McDonald. The only argument will center around whether or not Chicago's gun ban and registration are Constitutional.

Second...
Even if gun bans are ruled unConstitutional in McDonald, the legislature would still have to introduce and pass a concealed carry bill and the governor would have to sign it. MICHAEL MADIGAN WILL NOT CALL THAT BILL FOR A VOTE. Ever. He'll die first. Why, at I-GOLD last year (which I attended) did a democratic Governor Quinn so quickly vow that he would sign a CCW bill if it was passed? Because... he has EVERY CONFIDENCE that the bill will never be read on the floor, much less make it out of committee.

Third...
Federal district court rulings in other districts outside of Illinois will have zero influence on Illinois law.

Please....... PLEASE...... figure out what you're talking about before you spew this stuff publicly. You just clearly don't understand how the principles here are working.

isp2605
02-19-2010, 14:57
What Volsbear said. McDonald, like Heller, is not about CCW. It is about registration. Even if the USSC finds for McDonald it has no bearing at all on CCW.
Madigan doesn't need any dollars to fight CCW. All he has to do is exactly like he's done every year in the past - just don't let the bills on the floor for a vote.

05FLHT
02-19-2010, 15:09
First...
Yes, the handwriting is on the wall for McDonald. But take some read and read about what Supreme Court decisions actually accomplish and HOW. They are EXTREMELY limited in their scope. The issue in McDonald will ultimately decide whether or not the precedent set in the Heller decision will apply to the states (read = whether or not Chicago's and similar gun bans are Constitutional). McDonald WILL NOT ESTABLISH CONCEALED CARRY IN ILLINOIS. Why? Because that is NOT the issue before the Court. All the sheeple though Heller would set them free too. But it didn't. Because SCOTUS decision are limited to the EXACT and PRECISE question posed to the Court. There is no CONCEALED CARRY provision in the legal argument in McDonald. The only argument will center around whether or not Chicago's gun ban is legal.

Second...
Even if gun bans are ruled unConstitutional in McDonald, the legislature would still have to introduce and pass a concealed carry bill and the governor would have to sign it. MICHAEL MADIGAN WILL NOT CALL THAT BILL FOR A VOTE. Ever. He'll die first.

Third...
Federal district court rulings in other districts outside of Illinois will have zero influence on Illinois law.

Please....... PLEASE...... figure out what you're talking about before you spew this stuff publicly. You just clearly don't understand how the principles here are working.

You may want to visit the link I posted and review the cited case, in which the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has already set the level of scrutiny as "strict" for the "core" Second Amendment issue of "self defense." If The SCOTUS does not set the level of scrutiny in McDonald, which they may or may not (it is their choice), strict scrutiny will be used in the 7th Circuit.

I guess Madigan could say no to a federal court ruling, if it had to go that far, but I don't think that would last too long. The Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights is just a little bit bigger even than Madigans over inflated head.

As to your assumption that a Federal Appeals Court does not have jurisdiction, I'll let the internet be your guide -

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (in case citations, 7th Cir.) is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the courts in the following districts:
Central District of Illinois
Northern District of Illinois
Southern District of Illinois
Northern District of Indiana
Southern District of Indiana
Eastern District of Wisconsin
Western District of Wisconsin

You may not want to agree with what I say (although I don't know why), but please look at the information that I post before you tell me that I am wrong. Ok, Thanks.

05FLHT
02-19-2010, 15:17
What Volsbear said. McDonald, like Heller, is not about CCW. It is about registration. Even if the USSC finds for McDonald it has no bearing at all on CCW.
Madigan doesn't need any dollars to fight CCW. All he has to do is exactly like he's done every year in the past - just don't let the bills on the floor for a vote.

With all due respect, I never said that Heller, or McDonald for that matter was in regards to to carry. They both are however directly related to the keeping and bearing of arms. Heller declared the right of the individual, over the collective, and McDonald deals with incorporating the right against the States.

If, and when, a challenge is brought to the fact the Illinois restricts the right of citizens to lawfully bear arms (openly or concealed), the level of scrutiny used in the 7th Circuit is set at strict for the "core" Second Amendment issue of "self defense." I could be wrong, but I do not think "broken down into a non-functioning state," "inaccessible" or "unloaded and encased" is going to pass muster.

isp2605
02-19-2010, 15:17
If the USSC came down with a ruling mandating IL to implement CCW then obviously Madigan has no say. Don't hold your breath. The USSC won't rule such in McDonald since CCW is not the issue before the court. There is nothing in the pleadings concerning CCW. It's about being able to possess and register a gun in Chicago. Possession doesn't not equate to CCW.
Heller didn't change anything in WDC concerning CCW.

05FLHT
02-19-2010, 15:48
If the USSC came down with a ruling mandating IL to implement CCW then obviously Madigan has no say. Don't hold your breath. The USSC won't rule such in McDonald since CCW is not the issue before the court. There is nothing in the pleadings concerning CCW. It's about being able to possess and register a gun in Chicago. Possession doesn't not equate to CCW.
Heller didn't change anything in WDC concerning CCW.


You need to look at the big picture. Heller declared the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms - shall not be infringed, is an individual right. Individual right, Check 1. McDonald will answer the question, is the Second Amendment incorporated against the States via the 14th Amendment (due process) or if the right to bear arms is a privilege or Immunity of being a citizen. (either way) incorporated against the States, Check 2.

Now we have the Second Amendment guaranteeing an individual right to keep and bear arms, that is incorporated against the States. If The SCOTUS does not set the level of scrutiny in McDonald, the level has already been set in the 7th Circuit at strict(which does include Illinois). At that point, all it takes is a case to challenge the current situation in Illinois, where the right to lawfully bear arms (both openly and concealed) is legislated illegal. My guess is "shall not be infringed," is going to be one hell of a hurdle for Illinois to overcome.

ETA - Heller didn't change anything in DC as far as right to carry, but Palmer vs. DC might.

MakeMineA10mm
02-19-2010, 16:43
Actually, I think you're all right, you're just missing each other's fine points, which is causing confusion.

05FLHT, the one thing I'd say that is against your route of logic is that the US Supreme Court probably WILL limit the effect of their ruling. They typically do in really high-level issues like this, because in general the SC likes changes to go slowly and incrementally, rather than fast and broadly...

You can look at the issue of Civil Rights as an example. Tremendous strides were made, but it took many cases over a few decades to succeed with that. And, it took many people willing to be subjugated to the tyranny that lead to the decisions. (Except in civil rights, the minorities were oppressed more than volunteering, although many of them put themselves in positions to have it done to them...)

isp2605
02-19-2010, 17:38
You need to look at the big picture. Heller declared the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms - shall not be infringed, is an individual right. Individual right, Check 1. McDonald will answer the question, is the Second Amendment incorporated against the States via the 14th Amendment (due process) or if the right to bear arms is a privilege or Immunity of being a citizen. (either way) incorporated against the States, Check 2.

Now we have the Second Amendment guaranteeing an individual right to keep and bear arms, that is incorporated against the States. If The SCOTUS does not set the level of scrutiny in McDonald, the level has already been set in the 7th Circuit at strict(which does include Illinois). At that point, all it takes is a case to challenge the current situation in Illinois, where the right to lawfully bear arms (both openly and concealed) is legislated illegal. My guess is "shall not be infringed," is going to be one hell of a hurdle for Illinois to overcome.

ETA - Heller didn't change anything in DC as far as right to carry, but Palmer vs. DC might.

I do look at the big picture. I also understand how the courts work. I reviewed court cases a lot of years and how they impacted IL law.
The fact is regardless of what the USSC rules the case has nothing to do with CCW. If a favorable ruling the USSC is looking at whether Chicago can effectively ban the possession of handguns due to their ordinance of no new registrations. It has nothing to do with CCW. It's about banning possession by enacting a law where no new can be registered. So if the USSC rules in favor of McDonald the end result will be Chicago can't enact a registration plan that eliminates new possessions. Even Heller didn't rule out registration, only the method it was implemented.
There's a tremendous distance between ruling the city cannot implement its form of registration and forcing a state to implement CCW. In McDonald the state is not even at issue. It's about Chicago.
You can hope all you want. But just because you hope for something doesn't mean it's fact. The fact is McDonald isn't about CCW and CCW is not at issue before the court.

05FLHT
02-20-2010, 07:41
I do look at the big picture. I also understand how the courts work. I reviewed court cases a lot of years and how they impacted IL law.
The fact is regardless of what the USSC rules the case has nothing to do with CCW. If a favorable ruling the USSC is looking at whether Chicago can effectively ban the possession of handguns due to their ordinance of no new registrations. It has nothing to do with CCW. It's about banning possession by enacting a law where no new can be registered. So if the USSC rules in favor of McDonald the end result will be Chicago can't enact a registration plan that eliminates new possessions. Even Heller didn't rule out registration, only the method it was implemented.
There's a tremendous distance between ruling the city cannot implement its form of registration and forcing a state to implement CCW. In McDonald the state is not even at issue. It's about Chicago.
You can hope all you want. But just because you hope for something doesn't mean it's fact. The fact is McDonald isn't about CCW and CCW is not at issue before the court.

I have not said that the court, in McDonald, is answering the question of CCW. If you really think I am saying this, please point out my post so I can correct the mistake. McDonald, by the way, is a little big bigger than "banning possession by enacting a law where no new can be registered," as the court is answering the question of how to incorporate the Second Amendment against the States (DP or P&I). If The SCOTUS incorporates the Second Amendment against the States, they are incorporating the right to keep (your answer to Chicago's ban) and bear arms.

I will emphatically state again, just so we a crystal clear, that McDonald is not directly addressing the right to carry (or bear) a firearm, although the court did address the right to self defense in Heller, stating it was a protected individual right. What Heller did, and what McDonald will do however, is set the legal basis for further court challenges, including the current situation in Illinois where it is legislated illegal to bear arms (openly or concealed). If you remember in Heller, the court did address concealed firearms and stated they could be regulated by the States. However, once the right is incorporated, and if the level of scrutiny remains set at strict for the 7th Circuit, I find it hard to fathom that a ban on the right to bear arms, both concealed and openly, will be held as not infringing.

There may be "tremendous distance between ruling the city cannot implement its form of registration and forcing a state to implement CCW,"but that distance will be filled with a new court challenge specifically dealing the the current state of Illinois law infringing the right to keep and bear arms.

isp2605
02-20-2010, 11:52
I have not said that the court, in McDonald, is answering the question of CCW. If you really think I am saying this, please point out my post so I can correct the mistake.
Read the third paragraph in your post #21. You interjected the carry issue with the McDonald case. Carrying is not at issue in McDonald.
Your paragraph following that you interject that Madigan is going to somehow have to come up with money to fight it. McDonald is an issue with Chicago and registration by city ordinance. The state of IL does not have registration so Madigan is not involved.


I will emphatically state again, just so we a crystal clear, that McDonald is not directly addressing the right to carry (or bear) a firearm,
If you want to make it crystal clear then don't try interjecting carrying into this. McDonald is not about carrying.

If you remember in Heller, the court did address concealed firearms and stated they could be regulated by the States.
That's correct but nothing was said about CCW. Heller only dealt with the way WDC effectively eliminated possession of guns because of the registration law, same thing that's occurring in Chicago. The ruling in Heller did nothing to change carrying a firearm, only forcing WDC to enact different registration law.
So don't think much will change in the state regardless of whatever the USSC rules. At best Chicago will be forced to change its registration laws. To think that will somehow force IL to adopt any CCW legislation is not realistic nor legally required.

05FLHT
02-20-2010, 14:21
Read the third paragraph in your post #21. You interjected the carry issue with the McDonald case. Carrying is not at issue in McDonald.
Your paragraph following that you interject that Madigan is going to somehow have to come up with money to fight it. McDonald is an issue with Chicago and registration by city ordinance. The state of IL does not have registration so Madigan is not involved.


If you want to make it crystal clear then don't try interjecting carrying into this. McDonald is not about carrying.


That's correct but nothing was said about CCW. Heller only dealt with the way WDC effectively eliminated possession of guns because of the registration law, same thing that's occurring in Chicago. The ruling in Heller did nothing to change carrying a firearm, only forcing WDC to enact different registration law.
So don't think much will change in the state regardless of whatever the USSC rules. At best Chicago will be forced to change its registration laws. To think that will somehow force IL to adopt any CCW legislation is not realistic nor legally required.

First off, FACE PALM.

Post #21 is a response to your quote, which I included in my post, where you stated your belief that Illinois will never have concealed carry because of the Speaker of the House, Michael Madigan.

My response to you is to first advise you that I do not necessarily believe that to be the case.

To support my belief a link to a discussion of the recent 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in US vs. Skoien, which short a setting of the level of scrutiny by The SCOTUS in McDonald vs. Chicago, sets the default level of scrutiny at strict.

Next I advise of the several cases which have been filed in regards to carrying of a firearm for self defense. I express my belief, and I will quote myself directly from post #21, "I have pretty good suspicion that if a challenge in the 7th circuit has not already been written, there will be one ready to go post McDonald." To clarify, I stated that it is my belief and challenge will be filed within the jurisdiction of the 7th Circuit post (post means after) Mcdonald to challenge Illinois infringement of the right to bear arms.

Furthermore, I go on to make a comment regarding the ridiculous amount of $$$ being spent on fighting a clearly unconstitutional ban on handguns (for god sake, it is nearly identical to the ban DC had) and express my belief that a bankrupt City of Chicago and State of Illinois will not be able to justify spending additional taxpayer $$$ on fighting clearly unconstitutional challenges.

I am sorry sir, but you are mistaken. Heller and a post McDonald incorporation of the Second Amendment will allow for a challenge of the Illinois ban on concealed, or openly carried firearms for self defense. Short of The SCOTUS setting a level of scrutiny in McDonald, the default level has been set in the 7th Circuit via US vs. Skoien at strict. A ban on the bearing of arms, openly and concealed, for self defense is a clear infringement of the Second Amendment, AND DOES NOT NECESSARILY NEED TO BE DECIDED BY THE SCOTUS.

SIUC4
02-20-2010, 15:32
First of FACE PALM.......LOVE IT!

volsbear
02-20-2010, 19:05
I am sorry sir, but you are mistaken. Heller and a post McDonald incorporation of the Second Amendment will allow for a challenge of the Illinois ban on concealed, or openly carried firearms for self defense. Short of The SCOTUS setting a level of scrutiny in McDonald, the default level has been set in the 7th Circuit via US vs. Skoien at strict. A ban on the bearing of arms, openly and concealed, for self defense is a clear infringement of the Second Amendment, AND DOES NOT NECESSARILY NEED TO BE DECIDED BY THE SCOTUS.
Even if Heller, and McDonald (if the Court rules in our favor) and a list of future not-yet-filed cases end up pro 2-A, the Court is very unlikely to frame language in a decision that will result in CCW being rammed down the throat of Illinois. All things being equal, the Court has ALWAYS deferred to the "reasonable restriction" standard as it pertains to civil liberties. There ARE reasonable restrictions, and there needs to be for very good reason. In the context of firearms, the Court will likely rule that gun bans (and registration for the purpose of effecting gun bans and for hassling gun owners) are in fact unreasonable. But considering history, it seems extremely unlikely that the Court will find Illinois gun laws to be unreasonable restrictions on second amendment rights. If anything, they will defer to state sovereignty and simply say "it's a states' rights issue" and defer to the Illinois legislature.

In that case, YOU STILL NEED TO PASS A BILL and get it signed. In order to pass a bill, it needs to make it past Mike Madigan. And it won't. Not while he breaths.

You can pipe dream all you want but it's extremely rare for the Court to ram sweeping changes down a state's throat. It's far more likely that the Court would say something to the extent of, "CCW is a states' rights issue, 48 states want CCW, and Illinois isn't one of them."

isp2605
02-20-2010, 20:46
You just don't understand what I and volsbear are trying to explain to you. The issue before the USSC has nothing to do with CCW nor does it have anything to do with the state of IL. You're hoping for some court response but the case at hand has nothing to do with what result you are hoping for. It makes no more sense than to think the USSC is going to force IL to allow full auto. It's just not an issue before the court. What may or may not follow McDonald is irrelevant to McDonald.
Additionally your thinking that Madigan is spending any money fighting any gun law shows a lack of understanding of the legislative process. Madigan hasn't, isn't, and doesn't have to come up with dollars to fight anything. The state of IL is not at issue in McDonald. It's about a Chicago ordinance, not anything IL has passed as law.
If you think Heller resulted in the allowance of CCW in WDC then just try it. Let us know how it works out for you. You might want to get yourself a good attorney first. You'll need it. The USSC ruling in Heller had nothing to do with CCW.
Your view of what you think the USSC is ruling on shows you're spending way too much time reading the stuff put out but some at ILCarry.com and ISRA. If the USSC rules in favor of McDonald you won't see any change in IL laws as nothing in McDonald pertains to IL law. It won't change IL anymore than it will force any other state to lessen their CCW laws. It's just not an issue before the court.
Volsbear did a very good job of explaining the process. He knows of which he speaks. Just wishing something otherwise does not make it so. You can wish all you want but facts are what you are wishing to happen is not reality.

MakeMineA10mm
02-20-2010, 21:25
A better question in my mind is why, with 37 states having SHALL ISSUE CCW laws on the books, and 2 states having no restrictions whatsoever, and three of the 9 "May-Issue" states running their CCW programs AS IF THEY WERE shall-issue, WHY THE HELL DO WE NOT JUST GO FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CLARIFY THE MEANING OF THE 2nd AMEND.? The time has never been as ripe as now.

volsbear
02-21-2010, 07:36
A better question in my mind is why, with 37 states having SHALL ISSUE CCW laws on the books, and 2 states having no restrictions whatsoever, and three of the 9 "May-Issue" states running their CCW programs AS IF THEY WERE shall-issue, WHY THE HELL DO WE NOT JUST GO FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CLARIFY THE MEANING OF THE 2nd AMEND.? The time has never been as ripe as now.

Why not? Here we go...

1. We don't have the votes.
2. We don't WANT the federal government to address gun ownership in any way, shape or form. History tell us that the fed screws things up more than they help.
3. It's my firm personal belief that gun ownership, possession, and carry is a STATES' RIGHTS issue... not a federal one. Let's NOT encourage the federal government to get involved in an issue that the founders wanted to leave in the hands of the states and, particularly, INDIVIDUALS.
4. You don't amend the Constitution of the United States to "clarify" something. Amendments are intended to right wrongs, guarantee rights, etc. It's kind of a big deal. The gun lobby, while it's got some clout, doesn't have nearly the clout to get something like that done.
5. See #2 again. The fed could screw up a one-car funeral. They'd screw this up too.

If you want CCW in Illinois, the solution is simple but the task is enormous. You'd have to orchestrate the unseating of Michael Madigan and John Cullerton and then fill the majority of both houses with Chicago conservatives (replace the liberal ones) and RETAIN the downstate democrats who, year after year, are the ones to file CCW bills and gain tremendous downstate support on them. I'm talking about the political equivalent of a hostile takeover. This is a vastly quicker solution, though incredibly difficult, than is waiting for a herd of cases to make it to the Supreme Court which could slowly pick away at gun restrictions in Illinois.

See, simple. You just have to figure out how to mold the minds of the 10 million or so residents of Chicago, Cook County, and most of the suburbs.

05FLHT
02-21-2010, 07:42
You just don't understand what I and volsbear are trying to explain to you. The issue before the USSC has nothing to do with CCW nor does it have anything to do with the state of IL. You're hoping for some court response but the case at hand has nothing to do with what result you are hoping for. It makes no more sense than to think the USSC is going to force IL to allow full auto. It's just not an issue before the court. What may or may not follow McDonald is irrelevant to McDonald.
Additionally your thinking that Madigan is spending any money fighting any gun law shows a lack of understanding of the legislative process. Madigan hasn't, isn't, and doesn't have to come up with dollars to fight anything. The state of IL is not at issue in McDonald. It's about a Chicago ordinance, not anything IL has passed as law.
If you think Heller resulted in the allowance of CCW in WDC then just try it. Let us know how it works out for you. You might want to get yourself a good attorney first. You'll need it. The USSC ruling in Heller had nothing to do with CCW.
Your view of what you think the USSC is ruling on shows you're spending way too much time reading the stuff put out but some at ILCarry.com and ISRA. If the USSC rules in favor of McDonald you won't see any change in IL laws as nothing in McDonald pertains to IL law. It won't change IL anymore than it will force any other state to lessen their CCW laws. It's just not an issue before the court.
Volsbear did a very good job of explaining the process. He knows of which he speaks. Just wishing something otherwise does not make it so. You can wish all you want but facts are what you are wishing to happen is not reality.

I understand what you are saying, you are however, for some reason, completely unable to read the words that I put to post.

You state "The issue before the USSC has nothing to do with CCW nor does it have anything to do with the state of IL." I have not EVER, in any post in this thread, stated or implied that McDonald has anything to do with CCW. I have even stated emphatically to the contrary on more then several occasions now. I will not waste anymore of my time responding to your ridiculous assumption that I am some how implying the above notion of McDonald addressing CCW. The issue in the case of McDonald vs. Chicago is the constitutionality of Chicago's ban on handguns in light of the courts ruling in Heller vs. DC. The question the court chose to answer is whether the Second Amendment is incorporated against the States via the 14th Amendment (Due Process) or if the right to keep and bear arms is a Privilege or Immunity. Are we kosher yet?

As to my "thinking that Madigan is spending any money fighting any gun law,"which shows my "lack of understanding of the legislative process," you must not have lived in Illinois for too long. Who is paying to defend Chicago? Who paid the office of the Illinois Attorney General to research, write and file an Amicus Brief on behalf of Chicago? ...the sound of crickets... Well, it is the taxpayers of Illinois who are paying these bills. Well, actually not paying these bills...because there is not enough $$$ for Chicago or Illinois to pay bills anymore. The City of Chicago and State of Illinois, in case you have not heard, are insolvent (thats a fancy word for broke, as in can't pay the bills).

"If you think Heller resulted in the allowance of CCW in WDC then just try it. Let us know how it works out for you. You might want to get yourself a good attorney first." Did you miss the post, post #26, where I attached the filing for Palmer vs DC, a recently (post Heller) filing which deals specifically with carrying a firearm in DC for self defense. I think I will wait for the outcome of the case before I try to break a current law, thank you very much.

"Your view of what you think the USSC is ruling on shows you're spending way too much time reading the stuff put out but some at ILCarry.com and ISRA." Your lack of understanding shows your not spending enough time keeping abreast of current legal developments and precedents, nor understanding of their impacts on future challenges.

"If the USSC rules in favor of McDonald you won't see any change in IL laws as nothing in McDonald pertains to IL law. It won't change IL anymore than it will force any other state to lessen their CCW laws. It's just not an issue before the court." I clearly beg to differ. Post McDonald, incorporation Illinois ban on bearing arms will most certainly be challenged as an infringement of a Constitutionally protected right.

Do you have anything new and useful to contribute to this discussion, or are we done yet?

volsbear
02-21-2010, 07:52
I'm not concerned with Madigan's friend-of-the-court brief. 37 other attorney generals wrote a pro-2A brief and signed onto it. McDonald will be heard, argued, and considered outside of the scope of Illinois law. Besides, from what I've heard, the Madigan brief is akin to grasping at straws and ignores most of the most basic tenets of Constitutional foundation.

05FLHT
02-21-2010, 07:56
Why not? Here we go...

1. We don't have the votes.
2. We don't WANT the federal government to address gun ownership in any way, shape or form. History tell us that the fed screws things up more than they help.
3. It's my firm personal belief that gun ownership, possession, and carry is a STATES' RIGHTS issue... not a federal one. Let's NOT encourage the federal government to get involved in an issue that the founders wanted to leave in the hands of the states and, particularly, INDIVIDUALS.
4. You don't amendment the Constitution of the United States to "clarify" something. Amendments are intended to right wrongs, guarantee rights, etc. It's kind of a big deal. The gun lobby, while it's got some clout, doesn't have nearly the clout to get something like that done.
5. See #2 again. The fed could screw up a one-car funeral. They'd screw this up too.

If you want CCW in Illinois, the solution is simple but the task is enormous. You'd have to orchestrate the unseating of Michael Madigan and John Cullerton and then fill the majority of both houses with Chicago conservatives (replace the liberal ones) and RETAIN the downstate democrats who, year after year, are the ones to file CCW bills and gain tremendous downstate support on them.

See, simple. You just have to figure out how to mold the minds of the 10 million or so residents of Chicago, Cook County, and most of the suburbs.

Or option #2, succeed in a court challenge, post McDonald, showing an Illinois ban on bearing arms for self defense is unconstitutional. You have to remember, the Constitution does not give rights, it protects rights we already have. Furthermore, regulation may be a States issue, but that does not mean a State can legislate a complete ban.

This is the reason US vs. Skoien is an important precedent right now, it sets the level of scrutiny at strict for the 7th Circuit. If a challenge is filed, and is appealed to the 7th Circuit, the State will need show the law does not infringe on the right to bear arms, quite a high hurdle to overcome.

05FLHT
02-21-2010, 07:58
I'm not concerned with Madigan's friend-of-the-court brief. 37 other attorney generals wrote a pro-2A brief and signed onto it. McDonald will be heard, argued, and considered outside of the scope of Illinois law. Besides, from what I've heard, the Madigan brief is akin to grasping at straws and ignores most of the most basic tenets of Constitutional foundation.

Yes, I have read it and agree. My point was however, that as the brief was researched, written by and filed by the Office of the Illinois Attorney General, we, as Illinois taxpayers, paid for it.

volsbear
02-21-2010, 08:09
Or option #2, succeed in a court challenge, post McDonald, showing an Illinois ban on bearing arms for self defense is unconstitutional. You have to remember, the Constitution does not give rights, it protects rights we already have. Furthermore, regulation may be a States issue, but that does not mean a State can legislate a complete ban.



Actually, it does neither. Human rights are unalienable. They existed before the Constitution was born. The Constitution was not intended to "protect" rights or to give them. It was intended to guarantee those rights that were implicity inherent with the dawn of the human race.

And Illinois does not have a complete ban on firearms - not even close - which is why I believe the basic frame of your argument is flawed. The SCOTUS has *always* deferred to the concept "reasonable restriction" when it comes to state regulation of Constitutionally guaranteed rights. McDonald, I believe, will definitely yield a decision whereby Chicago (and similar) gun bans and registration are deemed an unreasonable restriction on civil liberties. But that's IT.

There are states that do have CCW but still have greater restrictions on firearm ownership. They are allowed to do this because reasonable restrictions of Constitutionally guaranteed rights are allowed. Free speech is a Constitutionally guaranteed right, but you still can't yell "FIRE!" in a movie theater with fear of government intervention. It is highly unlikely that SCOTUS will consider any current Illinois gun law to be an unreasonable restriction on the second amendment. Why? Because no case before the Court has raised that precise, exact question.

I do agree with you that cases like Heller and McDonald will serve a small, incremental victory in the context the larger second amendment issue. That's undeniable (and happily so). But these cases will have an almost undistinguishable impact on the prospect of Illinois getting CCW - other than as what they are - extremely small, almost invisible steps on the road to liberating this state from liberals.

But I do appreciate your comments and I applaud anyone who actually puts thought into this issue. I went to I-GOLD last year and was SHOCKED... no, ASTONISHED... at how many people who couldn't understand why Heller didn't justify them carrying a concealed pistol on the lawn of the capitol building.

So at least everyone in this thread is thinking, though we don't necessarily agree on the finer points.

volsbear
02-21-2010, 08:13
Yes, I have read it and agree. My point was however, that as the brief was researched, written by and filed by the Office of the Illinois Attorney General, we, as Illinois taxpayers, paid for it.

I know. But I don't really think that's what ISP meant when he referred 'Madigan not having to pay for it.' I believe his reference was aimed at demonstrating that it costs him nothing (be it cash or political capital) to simply not call a CCW bill for a vote.

I think, very innocently, you were both unintentionally missing each others' points :)

05FLHT
02-21-2010, 08:57
Actually, it does neither. Human rights are unalienable. They existed before the Constitution was born. The Constitution was not intended to "protect" rights or to give them. It was intended to guarantee those rights that were implicity inherent with the dawn of the human race.

And Illinois does not have a complete ban on firearms - not even close - which is why I believe the basic frame of your argument is flawed. The SCOTUS has *always* deferred to the concept "reasonable restriction" when it comes to state regulation of Constitutionally guaranteed rights. McDonald, I believe, will definitely yield a decision whereby Chicago (and similar) gun bans and registration are deemed an unreasonable restriction on civil liberties. But that's IT.

There are states that do have CCW but still have greater restrictions on firearm ownership. They are allowed to do this because reasonable restrictions of Constitutionally guaranteed rights are allowed. Free speech is a Constitutionally guaranteed right, but you still can't yell "FIRE!" in a movie theater with fear of government intervention. It is highly unlikely that SCOTUS will consider any current Illinois gun law to be an unreasonable restriction on the second amendment. Why? Because no case before the Court has raised that precise, exact question.

I do agree with you that cases like Heller and McDonald will serve a small, incremental victory in the context the larger second amendment issue. That's undeniable (and happily so). But these cases will have an almost undistinguishable impact on the prospect of Illinois getting CCW - other than as what they are - extremely small, almost invisible steps on the road to liberating this state from liberals.

But I do appreciate your comments and I applaud anyone who actually puts thought into this issue. I went to I-GOLD last year and was SHOCKED... no, ASTONISHED... at how many people who couldn't understand why Heller didn't justify them carrying a concealed pistol on the lawn of the capitol building.

So at least everyone in this thread is thinking, though we don't necessarily agree on the finer points.

I agree with most of your post.

I would like to point out however, that just like free speech, there cannot be a complete ban on bearing arms. Whereas yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is banned because of it's intent to cause a panic, brandishing or intimidating with a firearm (or any weapon for that matter) can, and should be regulated. This does not mean however, that a state can regulate a "right" practically ineffective. Again, the level of scrutiny will be the crucial factor in determining the final allowable legislation of the right to keep and bear arms.

For a very good, but in depth, read of the history of cases dealing with the right to keep and bear arms, you may visit the following link and find the attachment in the first post.

I will now bow out, agreeing that although we ALL may disagree on some of the finer points, that is our right to do so.

ETA attachment.

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=20426

MakeMineA10mm
02-21-2010, 15:11
Why not? Here we go...

1. We don't have the votes.
2. We don't WANT the federal government to address gun ownership in any way, shape or form. History tell us that the fed screws things up more than they help.
3. It's my firm personal belief that gun ownership, possession, and carry is a STATES' RIGHTS issue... not a federal one. Let's NOT encourage the federal government to get involved in an issue that the founders wanted to leave in the hands of the states and, particularly, INDIVIDUALS.
4. You don't amend the Constitution of the United States to "clarify" something. Amendments are intended to right wrongs, guarantee rights, etc. It's kind of a big deal. The gun lobby, while it's got some clout, doesn't have nearly the clout to get something like that done.
5. See #2 again. The fed could screw up a one-car funeral. They'd screw this up too.

If you want CCW in Illinois, the solution is simple but the task is enormous. You'd have to orchestrate the unseating of Michael Madigan and John Cullerton and then fill the majority of both houses with Chicago conservatives (replace the liberal ones) and RETAIN the downstate democrats who, year after year, are the ones to file CCW bills and gain tremendous downstate support on them. I'm talking about the political equivalent of a hostile takeover. This is a vastly quicker solution, though incredibly difficult, than is waiting for a herd of cases to make it to the Supreme Court which could slowly pick away at gun restrictions in Illinois.

See, simple. You just have to figure out how to mold the minds of the 10 million or so residents of Chicago, Cook County, and most of the suburbs.

I like and agree with your statement (in a different post) that the Constitution merely guarantees unalienable rights that existed before the Constitution, but the problem with that is where the rubber meets the road. Even though, I'm sure in all of our opinions, the second amendment protects our INDIVIDUAL right to KEEP (own) and BEAR (carry) arms, there are NUMEROUS state, federal, and local laws which have been enacted and enforced (and continue to exist) which take away that right to some degree or another.

In my opinion, in an effort to be eloquent, brief, and cover multiple points (Militia definition, Sovereignty of the US, and RKBA), the wording of the second amendment has left it open to interpretation and questioning by unknowing or politically divergent people that the Second Amend. is not about an Individual Right. (Even though 25 out of the 28 points covered in the Bill of Rights, ARE about an individual right. State's Rights in the 10th Amend. & Militia and Sovereignty in the 2d Amend. are the three non-individual rights.)

05FLHT is comfortable leaving this in the hands of the Court. While I agree with his implied feeling that the Court's purpose is to correct abuse by legislature and executive, I don't like trusting the Courts, as they've become too political. I work in the Court system and there's too much authority/weight given to one man or small group of them (at Appellate or Supreme levels). Depending on the political philosophy of the Judge(s) involved, you could lose, and as we've all seen, Courts can be as political as the rest of the government. (We could debate why that should not be and that they've lost their philosophical perspective of being neutral and an independent check-and-balance, but that won't change the facts of how things are...)

Taking your points one by one:

1. (We don't have the votes.) We will in about 10 months. Not to mention that you've missed the point I was making earlier in that more than 3/4 of the states already have shall-issue or CCW friendly laws in place. We don't NEED Congress. If 3/4s of the states ratify the amendment, it's done. Screw Congress!

2. (The federal govt. always screws things up.) Well, my first response is, See my response to #1 immediately above. My second response is that we need it to be a Constitutional issue so that there is equal application of the law everywhere you go. I concede and understand your point that it's easier for us to get grass-roots changes accomplished at our own state's levels, but how do you like having 10-20 different CCW laws across the US along with some states that don't even permit it? How does that help you when you travel? And, to take your last point at this time - The intent of my post wasn't to address getting CCW in Illinois. It was to get CCW for EVERYBODY in an equally-applied way across the US, so everyone would be playing from the same sheet of music, so-to-speak.

3. (It's my personal belief that this is a State's Rights issue.) Well, first off, see my comments immediately above in response to your second point. Second, you are contradicting yourself. If RKBA is an unalienable right, it is NOT a state's rights issue, it is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS issue. Those needed to be protected in the Bill of Rights, and IMO we need to redress the abuses put upon our right to self-protection that have been abused by a loosely-worded 2nd Amend. (Not to criticize the Founding Fathers; they knew what they were doing, but they relied upon [trusted] future generations to protect what they started, and that's what I'm proposing.)

4. (You don't amend the Constitution to "clarify" something.) Really? Again, you are contradicting yourself. What do you think "righting wrongs" is? It's clarifying something for someone in power who decided to do something wrong... Yes, it is "kind-of" a big deal. Do you not think restricting or taking away our right to personal self-protection as well as to keep in check a tyrannical government isn't a "Big Deal"??? If worded correctly, it could eliminate all the BS with the UN (or any other future organization's) treaty about world-wide gun control, as well as providing nationwide CCW, and reigning in the controls that the government continues to add on through the years.

5. (See #2 again.) Well, this is redundant, so no need to respond.


Seriously, I think you're not seeing the big picture. The NRA, especially through their eloquent spokesman Wayne LaPierre, and the tremendous grass-roots groundswell, and other pro-gun organizations, (GOA, JFP2A, etc.) have really accomplished a lot (considering the way things went from 1968 through 1994), and I feel this change that has been accomplished has also given us data (success of CCW) and sentiment of more and more people to be more pro-gun along with pro-conservative (Tea parties, etc.) making the next few years the optimum time to get something meaningful, long-term, and supremely powerful (Const. Amend. level) that will protect our rights in regards to gun ownership.

rwk
02-21-2010, 16:00
I have read all these threads

This is how I see it, and I live in IL

1. Stay out of Chicago

2. MakeMineA10 says your console must be locked. I have tried to confirm this and can't. If true its this and the glove box is only kind of carry that would need to be locked

3. I do not want to transport with out a case anyway. My console moves up and down. So I dont want it moving around with out a case

So I will use http://store.thewilderness.com/index.php?cPath=51 (http://store.thewilderness.com/index.php?cPath=51)

I put the mag in the top of the Safepacker not as shown in there pictures
It is a separate compartment

This will cover the conservation law

It can also be used as a fannypack carry or on a shoulder strap

MakeMineA10mm
02-21-2010, 20:27
I have read all these threads

So I will use http://store.thewilderness.com/index.php?cPath=51 (http://store.thewilderness.com/index.php?cPath=51)

I put the mag in the top of the Safepacker not as shown in there pictures
It is a separate compartment

This will cover the conservation law


Conservation Law, in essence, requires the gun be:
1) unloaded
2) in a case
3) inaccessible from the passenger compartment/driver's seat

Your safepacker in the console will cover you, but if you go back to the first page, you'll note ISP and I both pointed out that you'll still be subject to violation of the Conservation Code, which is a MUCH LESSOR offense than UUW, but still arrestable, AND they can seize your gun...

I'll try and find the original wording of the Sup. Crt. so you can see what they said. As I recall, the wording about it being locked was in their research about defining what a "case" is.

MakeMineA10mm
02-21-2010, 21:13
OK, Just for you guys, I've done some homework!

Here is the link to the published opinion of the Illinois Supreme Court on this case (State of Illinois vs. Diggins, Docket No. 106367):
http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2009/October/106367.pdf

It's 8-pages and gets into some legal wording, but the jest of this is that I'm not sure I was right about the console being locked. Diggins ASSERTED that the console was locked, and became unlocked and ajar subsequent to the officer asking him for his license, and Diggins asking his passenger to get the keys to the console and unlock it. At that point in time, Diggins realized it might not be smart to reach inside there when there are guns in it, so he told the officer of the presence of the guns. The officer then cuffed Diggins and his passenger, and found the console's lid "ajar." (Presumably the passenger unlocked it and started to open it, if you believe the defendant's story.)

The Supreme Court's long discussion of what defines a case never mentioned whether it be locked or not, and in fact, they used Webster's dictionary to determine the "common definition" of a case and none of the examples used in their published opinion do in fact lock... It is interesting in the last paragraph or two of the opinion that the Sup. Crt. referred the case back to local circuit for trying, as there was still room to seek a conviction based on the argument of whether the guns were ENCLOSED by the center console. (In other words, did the jury believe the officer that the console was ajar, or did they believe Diggins and his witness - the passenger - that it was locked until the officer asked for ID.) Still, the extensive mention of Diggins' argument at trial that he had previously had the console locked implies to me that the Supreme Court would have taken that into consideration as well in cementing the case for Diggins.

Just in case there are any more doubting Thomas' out there, I also found another source, which is an instructional paper written for updating Law Enforcement Officers about case law changes/affects on enforcement. It is published at the Police Training Institute's website (PTI) at the University of Illinois. PTI is one of 6-8 training academies throughout Illinois which train and certify police officers. Their 2-page summary can be found here:
http://www.pti.uiuc.edu/resources/documents/UUW-Enclosedinacase-Diggins.doc

I happen to work in the Judicial System in the Circuit where this case came from, and I know the original trial Judge who failed to give the defense an opportunity to define "case" for the jury, and then told the Jury when they came back with a question during deliberations that the console is not a case. Now, he's a fairly popular Judge (if you're pro-law-and-order) and I'd say that I like him and prefer him to other Judges in our circuit (since I'm a law-and-order kind of guy), but you can see how even a "good" Judge cannot be trusted 100% with making interpretations/rulings on things about our rights. This particular Judge, just like most of the police officers I work with, because of the long-standing oppressive gun laws in this state, believe that this state of affairs (that the presence of a gun anywhere in a car) is normal and acceptable, rather than Big Brother gone too far...

It's through my 20 years of experience in Law Enforcement and 10+ years involvement in the Courts, including the one that this case came out of, that I'd say IN MY OPINION, because we're fighting this uphill battle, the smartest way you can go is to keep the gun locked in a device that unquestionably secures it. I like this:
http://dev.truckvault.com/images/snw/S&W-QuickDraw7.jpg

Cutaway view showing out it works (functioning unit is completely enclosed in 16-ga. steel)
http://dev.truckvault.com/images/snw/S&W-QuickDraw3.jpg

Now, if you don't want to do this, or keep the gun in a locked center console or a locked glove compartment, then make sure you understand you're volunteering to be a test case. The Supreme Court said that if the console was "ajar" (or even if it wasn't), the originating Circuit could take the case back to trial to determine if the console "enclosed" the weapon as required in the UUW statute. IN MY OPINION, by having it in a locked compartment or device, such as that shown above, you'll have a MUCH better defense (to the point that the State's Atty. may not want to bother with the case). If not, you can be our test case, and I hope you win...

05FLHT
02-21-2010, 21:25
Conservation Law, in essence, requires the gun be:
1) unloaded
2) in a case
3) inaccessible from the passenger compartment/driver's seat

Your safepacker in the console will cover you, but if you go back to the first page, you'll note ISP and I both pointed out that you'll still be subject to violation of the Conservation Code, which is a MUCH LESSOR offense than UUW, but still arrestable, AND they can seize your gun...

I'll try and find the original wording of the Sup. Crt. so you can see what they said. As I recall, the wording about it being locked was in their research about defining what a "case" is.

The only additional requirement of the Wildlife Code is that the case must be designed to house a firearm. This would exclude a center console.

I would not personally transport an unloaded firearm in a center console. Unloaded and enclosed in a case designed to house a firearm is the only way to be compliant with the letter of the law (both UUW and WC), although this is no guarantee that you will encounter an IL LEO who understand this.

volsbear
02-21-2010, 21:27
The only additional requirement of the Wildlife Code is that the case must be designed to house a firearm. This would exclude a center console.



A factory console... maybe. There are companies out there who sell equipment that modifies a factory console into a gun safe. That would create an interesting twist in a courtroom.

SIUC4
02-21-2010, 21:59
MakeMinea10mm.......Do you currently use one of those secure lockable cases in your vehicle? AND if you were to get pulled over and the officer asks if you have a gun in the car, it would be the LEOs decesion to say thats cool have a nice night, or say I am gonna take action on this situation...I have been pulled over twice in the last two years with weapons in my car, legally ( they were in the trunk both times ) One officer asked if I had weapons, the other did not.

MakeMineA10mm
02-21-2010, 23:41
I do not. Since I'm active LE, I can carry, and do so on my person. On occasion I may leave a weapon in my car, but it's typically field stripped and hidden in two separate locations - out of preventing theft of a functional weapon than any transportation issues.

And, yes, you are correct, it's up to the LEO to take action, or not. The further down-state you get the better off you are, but it's no guarantee. I know guys here in Central Illinois who would arrest their own mothers. I also knew a guy (since retired) who said that the one thing he hadn't accomplished yet in his career was to arrest another cop... So, you get all kinds, and what kind you get will determine how you are treated.

Another HUGE factor is whether you look like a problem or not. Right or wrong, if your vehicle has big chrome wheels with itty-bitty tires, smoked windows, or under-vehicle neon lights, count on getting stopped. Likewise, if you've got full-sleeve tattoos and a goatee, you're more likely to get more intensive attention.

If you're driving a decent vehicle and don't look like you just robbed the 7-11, and an LEO asks you about a gun, and you give him a straight-honest answer, you've got a great shot of being told "see you later." If you fall into the "extra-attention category" and you've got a gun, probably going to be a different story...

If you have one of those cases in your car, and it's locked, I'd tell the officer it has an unloaded gun in it. If he asks you to open it, I'd tell him you'd be happy to open it after he gets a search warrant (you have a 4th Amendment right against unreasonable search, which requires a warrant to get into a locked container under your control), and I'd explain to him that you're doing this, simply because you want to force documentation that you're carrying in a locked container designed to hold and transport a firearm, not because you're being a butt-hole. 99% of the time, if you're a clean, decent person and you know the law, and you're not lying, the cop is not going to be interested in pursuing this, unless you do it the wrong way and he decides he wants to show you who the boss is. (Or, unless you get the rare power-freak, who will write his own mother a ticket.)

05FLHT
02-22-2010, 07:40
A factory console... maybe. There are companies out there who sell equipment that modifies a factory console into a gun safe. That would create an interesting twist in a courtroom.

That is not something I would want to try and explain to LE on the street. Even transporting unloaded and fully encased, in a case designed to house a firearm, may get you arrested and a court date to show you where in compliance with the statute. Some officers understand the law, the reasons a person would want to transport a firearm and would do little more than make sure everything is in compliance. Other officers will, by their own words, put you to the ground, hold a knee to your back, gun to your head and let the DA sort it out. It is obviously the latter that you need to consider when you choose a transportation method.

05FLHT
02-22-2010, 07:51
If you have one of those cases in your car, and it's locked, I'd tell the officer it has an unloaded gun in it. If he asks you to open it, I'd tell him you'd be happy to open it after he gets a search warrant (you have a 4th Amendment right against unreasonable search, which requires a warrant to get into a locked container under your control), and I'd explain to him that you're doing this, simply because you want to force documentation that you're carrying in a locked container designed to hold and transport a firearm, not because you're being a butt-hole. 99% of the time, if you're a clean, decent person and you know the law, and you're not lying, the cop is not going to be interested in pursuing this, unless you do it the wrong way and he decides he wants to show you who the boss is. (Or, unless you get the rare power-freak, who will write his own mother a ticket.)

You probably have a different perspective being that you are LE. I am not sure I would feel comfortable telling an officer that I have any sort of weapon inside my vehicle, unfortunate but true. I have a permit to carry (outside of IL obviously) and have been pulled over for a courtesy notice that I had a tail light out. I did not need to notify I was carrying concealed, but I did (I always notify on trips just to make sure I am always in compliance). I also have all my documentation in one packet and readily available once the officer lets me know its OK to take my hands off the steering wheel. Inside IL, if I was transporting, I don't think I would answer (if asked) anything more than "there is nothing illegal in my vehicle." It is not that I do not want to be honest, but do not feel in IL it would be in my best interest.

MakeMineA10mm
02-22-2010, 15:37
I see your point, and I think you're answers would be valid. My reference above to telling the officer what was inside is if you have one of the large safe/vaults in the passenger compartment that is not concealed. Many officers will probably ask about it.

I like your comments about inter-action with out-of-state LEOs, because it shows that there is an unnecessary paranoia among Illinois LEOs about the CCW issue. This is something that the NRA/ISRA will need to address to get the police officers and unions behind CCW even stronger than they already are.

rwk
02-22-2010, 17:22
MakeMineA10mm

You said the folowing

Conservation Law, in essence, requires the gun be:
1) unloaded
2) in a case
3) inaccessible from the passenger compartment/driver's seat

Your safepacker in the console will cover you, but if you go back to the first page, you'll note ISP and I both pointed out that you'll still be subject to violation of the Conservation Code, which is a MUCH LESSOR offense than UUW, but still arrestable, AND they can seize your

Where do you find this in the Conservation Law

3) inaccessible from the passenger compartment/driver's seat




The Following is from the ISP

How can I legally transport a firearm on my person or in my vehicle?

Three statutory codes regulate the possession, transfer, and transportation of firearms- the Criminal Code, the Wildlife Code, and the Firearm Owner’s Identification Act. Under Unlawful Use of Weapons (UUW) in the Criminal Code, persons who have been issued a valid FOID card may transport a firearm anywhere in their vehicle or on their person as long as the firearm is unloaded and enclosed in a case, firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container. Firearms that are not immediately accessible or are broken down in a non-functioning state may also be carried or transported under the Criminal Code.

The Wildlife Code, however, is more restrictive. It requires that all firearms transported in or on any vehicle be unloaded and in a case.

Because of this, it is recommended that, in order to be in compliance with all statutes, all firearms be transported:

1. Unloaded and,
2. Enclosed in a case, and
3. By persons who have a valid FOID card.


Source: Illinois State Police titled “Transport Your Gun Legally” – Commonly asked questions on transporting firearms. George H. Ryan, Governor; Illinois State Police, Sam W. Nolen, Director; Dept. of Natural Resources, Brent Manning, Director.
(Printed by the Authority of the State of Illinois, ISP Central Printing Section, ISP 1-154 [8-00] 70M


Now for non-residence


Non- residents must be legally eligible to possess or acquire firearms and ammunition in their state of residence. It is recommended that, in order to be in compliance with all statutes, non-residents transport all firearms:
Unloaded, and
Enclosed in a case, and
Not immediately accessible or broken down in a nonfunctioning state.
Source
http://www.isp.state.il.us/foid/firearmsfaq.cfm

05FLHT
02-22-2010, 19:28
MakeMineA10mm

You said the folowing

Conservation Law, in essence, requires the gun be:
1) unloaded
2) in a case
3) inaccessible from the passenger compartment/driver's seat

Your safepacker in the console will cover you, but if you go back to the first page, you'll note ISP and I both pointed out that you'll still be subject to violation of the Conservation Code, which is a MUCH LESSOR offense than UUW, but still arrestable, AND they can seize your


Where do you find this



I think you have the statutes confused. For the UUW statute, the listed exclusion are 1)broken down into a non functioning state, or 2)unloaded and encased or 3) inaccessible (say loaded, but locked in your trunk. It was explained to me this exclusion was added to protect hunters who may have accidentally left the firearm loaded, but stored it in the trunk). Any one of these 3 exclusions will exempt you from a felony charge of UUW.

The Wildlife Code is more specific as far as the type of "case" the firearm can be enclosed in. In the WC, the case must be specifically designed to house a firearm.

A FOID card is only attainable by residents of IL, and would not be required of a visiting non resident (there is no way for them to obtain one).

volsbear
02-22-2010, 20:48
This is something that the NRA/ISRA will need to address to get the police officers and unions behind CCW even stronger than they already are.

You can convince cops on the street all you want. But legislators tend to believe CALEA and the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police. And we all know those organizations tend to view CCW.

Fortunately, the Illinois Sheriff's Association came out strong for CCW last year. Hopefully they'll repeat that this year and beyond.

MakeMineA10mm
02-23-2010, 23:27
The police unions pull a lot of political weight too. Perhaps not as publicly in the newspapers and TV as IACP, but as far as votes, they count heavily too.

I find that IACP news-ops are usually with (liberal) politicians who would vote against CCW anyway, looking desperately to find someone in a uniform to agree with them, so they can look pro-police and anti-crime...

In my county, there is no Chief or other LE executive who is anti-CCW.

volsbear
02-24-2010, 06:15
The police unions pull a lot of political weight too. Perhaps not as publicly in the newspapers and TV as IACP, but as far as votes, they count heavily too.

I find that IACP news-ops are usually with (liberal) politicians who would vote against CCW anyway, looking desperately to find someone in a uniform to agree with them, so they can look pro-police and anti-crime...

In my county, there is no Chief or other LE executive who is anti-CCW.

The chief in the city where I live/work and the sheriff wouldn't even answer a question about it. The chief is a CALEA kiss-ass and I don't know what the hell the sheriff's problem is. RINO maybe.

05FLHT
02-24-2010, 06:58
You can convince cops on the street all you want. But legislators tend to believe CALEA and the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police. And we all know those organizations tend to view CCW.

Fortunately, the Illinois Sheriff's Association came out strong for CCW last year. Hopefully they'll repeat that this year and beyond.

Hopefully, post incorporation they will come around. They took an oath to the Constitution and the people, not cronies and political hacks. Another big win would be with Brady in the Governors mansion (looks like Dillard is ready to concede). If Monken was not replaced outright, I think he certainly would now be in favor of right to carry legislation.

volsbear
02-24-2010, 07:34
And very few police unions in the Chicago suburbs will endorse concealed carry.

05FLHT
02-24-2010, 08:08
And very few police unions in the Chicago suburbs will endorse concealed carry.

We'll see where the chips fall post McDonald. Who knows, by then the climate in IL may resemble WI with everybody looking to all of a sudden make a deal. There is a pro Second Amendment movement sweeping the Nation right now, which has for some reason been entirely ignored by IL (Chicago) media. The closer we get to a McDonald ruling, the harder it will be keep it out of the spotlight.

05FLHT
02-24-2010, 08:24
The police unions pull a lot of political weight too. Perhaps not as publicly in the newspapers and TV as IACP, but as far as votes, they count heavily too.

I find that IACP news-ops are usually with (liberal) politicians who would vote against CCW anyway, looking desperately to find someone in a uniform to agree with them, so they can look pro-police and anti-crime...

In my county, there is no Chief or other LE executive who is anti-CCW.

They can still be pro-police and anti-crime, they just need to realize there does not need to be an us vs. them mentality. If they really feel everybody is better off unarmed, then they can take away off duty carry and fight to repeal LEOSA.

I really don't see an immediate jump to "constitutional" carry in IL, although if the legislature keeps pushing back you never know. I think all involved would be a lot more comfortable setting up a "shall" issue licensing process, with fingerprints, background checks and minimum training requirement. Linking ones permit to the drivers license also would not be a bad idea.

I really don't think a lot of people would have a problem making some of these "concessions," to see carry legislation in IL. This is why all parties need to come together, from the beginning, to make sure everyone has their say in the matter.

volsbear
02-24-2010, 09:09
Madigan will NEVER ---- I repeat NEVER ---- call a CCW bill for a vote.

05FLHT
02-24-2010, 10:58
Madigan will NEVER ---- I repeat NEVER ---- call a CCW bill for a vote.

Like I said, they (Madigan and his ilk) think they hold the upper hand, and at this point they do. I do not think that post McDonald it is going to mean that much anymore (my opinion). If this attitude keeps up, it will be a very small corner that they will have painted themselves into (again, my opinion).

The olive branch is a regulated "shall" issue permitting system. Require fingerprinting, minimum training and run a background check. Otherwise, call the bluff, wait for the court challenges to come and end up with "Constitutional" carry (no permit required).

Madigan controls the IL House, he is not God.

volsbear
02-24-2010, 11:19
Fingerprinting, background checks, and training are a good idea anyway.

And it'll take MANY more court challenges past a McDonald victory to paint the libs into a corner. McDonald will settle a very isolated issue that is completely unrelated to CCW. But every victory counts.

05FLHT
02-24-2010, 16:35
Fingerprinting, background checks, and training are a good idea anyway.

And it'll take MANY more court challenges past a McDonald victory to paint the libs into a corner. McDonald will settle a very isolated issue that is completely unrelated to CCW. But every victory counts.

Not this again...:wavey:

My bet is the challenge is filed the day after the ruling in McDonald. The challenge I am referring to is IL's ban on the bearing of arms (open/concealed carry). If I'm wrong you win. If I'm right, you win. :wavey:

volsbear
02-25-2010, 07:23
I'm all for win-win propositions.

But cases are generally two years behind each other, as was the case with Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010). We need to speed this up. I'm already 36 and I want to CCW in IL before I die LOL

05FLHT
02-25-2010, 09:58
I'm all for win-win propositions.

But cases are generally two years behind each other, as was the case with Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010). We need to speed this up. I'm already 36 and I want to CCW in IL before I die LOL

I'm a step behind you at 32 and agree 110%.

SIUC4
02-25-2010, 19:12
I am 23 and I will be surprised if there will ever be CC in IL, unless we can give Chicago to WI or something?

05FLHT
02-26-2010, 07:44
I am 23 and I will be surprised if there will ever be CC in IL, unless we can give Chicago to WI or something?

WI doesn't want Chicago. I think the plan is either to wait for Chicago to sink into the lake, or find a way to float it up to Canada.

SIUC4
02-26-2010, 13:03
FLOAT IT UP TO CANADA! Hell that is a genius idea never even though about that one yet...

MakeMineA10mm
02-26-2010, 13:10
I am 23 and I will be surprised if there will ever be CC in IL, unless we can give Chicago to WI or something?

WI doesn't want Chicago. I think the plan is either to wait for Chicago to sink into the lake, or find a way to float it up to Canada.

I'm all for any of these ideas, as well as putting up a wall around it with jagged glass and electrified barbed wired along the top and a minefield. (Sorry Volsbear, but you're living in a bad "neighborhood" being from anywhere in NE Illinois...)

MakeMineA10mm
02-26-2010, 14:35
OK, Rick, here ya go:

I'm guilty of being too short-winded in my above answer. Normally, people complain that I'm too long winded (including you!), so I tried to shorten it up, and in so doing, I created an error. I didn't respond earlier, because I don't like taking the time to answer something when someone else has, and 05FLT did so, immediately under your last post.

You are running the risk of getting your information from a summary by someone else, as well. Here, let's cut and paste the entire UUW statute for everyone to read, look at and interpret themselves (I've bolded the pertinent section about them being broken down or inaccessible or in a non-functioning state):

(720 ILCS 5/Art. 24 heading)
ARTICLE 24. DEADLY WEAPONS

(720 ILCS 5/24‑1) (from Ch. 38, par. 24‑1)
(Text of Section from P.A. 96‑41)
Sec. 24‑1. Unlawful Use of Weapons.
(a) A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowingly:
(1) Sells, manufactures, purchases, possesses or

carries any bludgeon, black‑jack, slung‑shot, sand‑club, sand‑bag, metal knuckles or other knuckle weapon regardless of its composition, throwing star, or any knife, commonly referred to as a switchblade knife, which has a blade that opens automatically by hand pressure applied to a button, spring or other device in the handle of the knife, or a ballistic knife, which is a device that propels a knifelike blade as a projectile by means of a coil spring, elastic material or compressed gas; or
(2) Carries or possesses with intent to use the same

unlawfully against another, a dagger, dirk, billy, dangerous knife, razor, stiletto, broken bottle or other piece of glass, stun gun or taser or any other dangerous or deadly weapon or instrument of like character; or
(3) Carries on or about his person or in any

vehicle, a tear gas gun projector or bomb or any object containing noxious liquid gas or substance, other than an object containing a non‑lethal noxious liquid gas or substance designed solely for personal defense carried by a person 18 years of age or older; or
(4) Carries or possesses in any vehicle or concealed

on or about his person except when on his land or in his own abode or fixed place of business 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; or
(5) Sets a spring gun; or
(6) Possesses any device or attachment of any kind

designed, used or intended for use in silencing the report of any firearm; or
(7) Sells, manufactures, purchases, possesses or

carries:
(i) a machine gun, which shall be defined for

the purposes of this subsection as any weapon, which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manually reloading by a single function of the trigger, including the frame or receiver of any such weapon, or sells, manufactures, purchases, possesses, or carries any combination of parts designed or intended for use in converting any weapon into a machine gun, or any combination or parts from which a machine gun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person;
(ii) any rifle having one or more barrels less

than 16 inches in length or a shotgun having one or more barrels less than 18 inches in length or any weapon made from a rifle or shotgun, whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise, if such a weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches; or
(iii) any bomb, bomb‑shell, grenade, bottle or

other container containing an explosive substance of over one‑quarter ounce for like purposes, such as, but not limited to, black powder bombs and Molotov cocktails or artillery projectiles; or
(8) Carries or possesses any firearm, stun gun or

taser or other deadly weapon in any place which is licensed to sell intoxicating beverages, or at any public gathering held pursuant to a license issued by any governmental body or any public gathering at which an admission is charged, excluding a place where a showing, demonstration or lecture involving the exhibition of unloaded firearms is conducted.
This subsection (a)(8) does not apply to any auction

or raffle of a firearm held pursuant to a license or permit issued by a governmental body, nor does it apply to persons engaged in firearm safety training courses; or
(9) Carries or possesses in a vehicle or on or about

his person any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or firearm or ballistic knife, when he is hooded, robed or masked in such manner as to conceal his identity; or
(10) Carries or possesses on or about his person,

upon any public street, alley, or other public lands within the corporate limits of a city, village or incorporated town, except when an invitee thereon or therein, for the purpose of the display of such weapon or the lawful commerce in weapons, or except when on his land or in his own abode or fixed place of business, any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm, except that this subsection (a) (10) 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.
A "stun gun or taser", as used in this paragraph (a)

means (i) any device which is powered by electrical charging units, such as, batteries, and which fires one or several barbs attached to a length of wire and which, upon hitting a human, can send out a current capable of disrupting the person's nervous system in such a manner as to render him incapable of normal functioning or (ii) any device which is powered by electrical charging units, such as batteries, and which, upon contact with a human or clothing worn by a human, can send out current capable of disrupting the person's nervous system in such a manner as to render him incapable of normal functioning; or
(11) Sells, manufactures or purchases any explosive

bullet. For purposes of this paragraph (a) "explosive bullet" means the projectile portion of an ammunition cartridge which contains or carries an explosive charge which will explode upon contact with the flesh of a human or an animal. "Cartridge" means a tubular metal case having a projectile affixed at the front thereof and a cap or primer at the rear end thereof, with the propellant contained in such tube between the projectile and the cap; or
(12) (Blank); or
(13) Carries or possesses on or about his or her

person while in a building occupied by a unit of government, a billy club, other weapon of like character, or other instrument of like character intended for use as a weapon. For the purposes of this Section, "billy club" means a short stick or club commonly carried by police officers which is either telescopic or constructed of a solid piece of wood or other man‑made material.
(b) Sentence. A person convicted of a violation of subsection 24‑1(a)(1) through (5), subsection 24‑1(a)(10), subsection 24‑1(a)(11), or subsection 24‑1(a)(13) commits a Class A misdemeanor. A person convicted of a violation of subsection 24‑1(a)(8) or 24‑1(a)(9) commits a Class 4 felony; a person convicted of a violation of subsection 24‑1(a)(6) or 24‑1(a)(7)(ii) or (iii) commits a Class 3 felony. A person convicted of a violation of subsection 24‑1(a)(7)(i) commits a Class 2 felony and shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 3 years and not more than 7 years, unless the weapon is possessed in the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle as defined in Section 1‑146 of the Illinois Vehicle Code, or on the person, while the weapon is loaded, in which case it shall be a Class X felony. A person convicted of a second or subsequent violation of subsection 24‑1(a)(4), 24‑1(a)(8), 24‑1(a)(9), or 24‑1(a)(10) commits a Class 3 felony. The possession of each weapon in violation of this Section constitutes a single and separate violation.
(c) Violations in specific places.
(1) A person who violates subsection 24‑1(a)(6) or

24‑1(a)(7) 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 2 felony and shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 3 years and not more than 7 years.
(1.5) A person who violates subsection 24‑1(a)(4),

24‑1(a)(9), or 24‑1(a)(10) 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 3 felony.
(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.
(3) Paragraphs (1), (1.5), and (2) of this

subsection (c) shall not apply to law enforcement officers or security officers of such school, college, or university or to students carrying or possessing firearms for use in training courses, parades, hunting, target shooting on school ranges, or otherwise with the consent of school authorities and which firearms are transported unloaded enclosed in a suitable case, box, or transportation package.
(4) For the purposes of this subsection (c),

"school" means any public or private elementary or secondary school, community college, college, or university.
(5) For the purposes of this subsection (c),

"public transportation agency" means a public or private agency that provides for the transportation or conveyance of persons by means available to the general public, except for transportation by automobiles not used for conveyance of the general public as passengers; and "public transportation facility" means a terminal or other place where one may obtain public transportation.
(d) The presence in an automobile other than a public omnibus of any weapon, instrument or substance referred to in subsection (a)(7) is prima facie evidence that it is in the possession of, and is being carried by, all persons occupying such automobile at the time such weapon, instrument or substance is found, except under the following circumstances: (i) if such weapon, instrument or instrumentality is found upon the person of one of the occupants therein; or (ii) if such weapon, instrument or substance is found in an automobile operated for hire by a duly licensed driver in the due, lawful and proper pursuit of his trade, then such presumption shall not apply to the driver.
(e) Exemptions. Crossbows, Common or Compound bows and Underwater Spearguns are exempted from the definition of ballistic knife as defined in paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of this Section.
(Source: P.A. 95‑331, eff. 8‑21‑07; 95‑809, eff. 1‑1‑09; 95‑885, eff. 1‑1‑09; 96‑41, eff. 1‑1‑10; 96‑328, eff. 8‑11‑09.)

volsbear
02-26-2010, 20:40
(Sorry Volsbear, but you're living in a bad "neighborhood" being from anywhere in NE Illinois...)

I'm a good 40 miles southwest of the city in a republican-controlled county. I'm good.

rwk
03-01-2010, 15:55
Well I only took the good parts
OLD Young buddy

on or about his person except when on his land or in his own abode or fixed place of business 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; or

This is what is clear to me

(i) are broken down in a non‑functioning state;

or
(ii) are not immediately accessible; or
(iii) are unloaded and enclosed in a case,


So in a case on your seat next to you will be OK
if it is unloaded in your truck or what ever


vaya con Dios

05FLHT
03-01-2010, 19:21
firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container by a person who has been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card; or

This is what is clear to me

(i) are broken down in a non‑functioning state;

or
(ii) are not immediately accessible; or
(iii) are unloaded and enclosed in a case,


So in a case on your seat next to you will be OK
if it is unloaded in your truck or what ever


vaya con Dios

Just make sure whatever your "case" or "transporting container" is, it is designed to house a firearm. That is the only way you will comply with the Wildlife Code.

If your "transporting" to be "six seconds from safety," I'd personally only use a commercially made container designed to house a firearm (Original Tommy Gun Pack, Maxpedition Versipack or similar. That is of course, is only my opinion. This is a choice you would need to research and preferably consult a competent attorney on.

rwk
03-01-2010, 20:24
Just make sure whatever your "case" or "transporting container" is, it is designed to house a firearm. That is the only way you will comply with the Wildlife Code.

If your "transporting" to be "six seconds from safety," I'd personally only use a commercially made container designed to house a firearm (Original Tommy Gun Pack, Maxpedition Versipack or similar. That is of course, is only my opinion. This is a choice you would need to research and preferably consult a competent attorney on.


This was in one of my earlier post

I have read all these threads


3. I do not want to transport with out a case anyway. My console moves up and down. So I dont want it moving around with out a case

So I will use http://store.thewilderness.com/index.php?cPath=51 (http://store.thewilderness.com/index.php?cPath=51)

I put the mag in the top of the Safepacker not as shown in there pictures
It is a separate compartment

This will cover the conservation law

It can also be used as a fannypack carry or on a shoulder strap

05FLHT
03-01-2010, 21:03
I've got a Wilderness 5 Stitch Instructor belt that I love. To transport, I prefer a Maxpedition Versi Pack. Honestly, with all the storage I don't know how I used to walk around 15lbs lighter. It holds my phone, first aid kit, flashlight, hand sanitizer, multi-tool and some diapers and wipes for my littlest one.

CaptainXL
03-20-2010, 09:08
This is info from NRA-ILA newsletter of 3/19/10

++++++++++++++

House Bill 5849 (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=76&GA=96&DocTypeId=HB&DocNum=5849&GAID=10&LegID=51468&SpecSess=&Session=), introduced by State Representative Harry Osterman (D-14), would overturn last year’s Illinois Supreme Court ruling that held the storage boxes built into vehicles qualified for storing unloaded firearms for lawful transportation under <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Illinois</st1:place></st1:State> law. This bill would change the law to make it more difficult to lawfully transport unloaded firearms.

Call your state representative and urge him to OPPOSE HB-5849<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

CaptainXL
03-22-2010, 08:36
I originally posted the information, which was taken from the NRA-ILA newsletter that I received to get people to contact their IL State Reps.

I URGE YOU TO CALL OR EMAIL YOUR STATE REP AND ASK HIM TO OPPOSE AND VOTE NO FOR THE BILL.

This bill comes up for a vote the week of 3/22/10. Call or email now.

SIUC4
03-22-2010, 12:05
I originally posted the information, which was taken from the NRA-ILA newsletter that I received to get people to contact their IL State Reps.

I URGE YOU TO CALL OR EMAIL YOUR STATE REP AND ASK HIM TO OPPOSE AND VOTE NO FOR THE BILL.

This bill comes up for a vote the week of 3/22/10. Call or email now.

I have sent 4 emails to my local rep with 4 autoreplies. I am sure they are not even being read, calling him just gets an automated message as well.