GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-26-2010, 21:13   #1
SIUC4
Glockness
 
SIUC4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Houston
Posts: 793
Center Console Question

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....
__________________
Glock 22
Taurus 66B6 .357 Mag
Rem 870 Express Mag
AK 47
Smith and Wesson 657 .41 Mag
SIUC4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2010, 08:24   #2
05FLHT
Senior Member
 
05FLHT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NW Illinois
Posts: 195
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

Last edited by 05FLHT; 01-27-2010 at 08:27..
05FLHT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2010, 17:31   #3
isp2605
Senior Member
 
isp2605's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: IL
Posts: 4,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by 05FLHT View Post
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.
__________________
183rd FBINA
isp2605 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2010, 19:16   #4
MakeMineA10mm
Lifetime Membership
300AAC brass
 
MakeMineA10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 7,854
Blog Entries: 13
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"...
__________________
Glock Commemoratives

I want to buy your commemorative Glock! Looking for: FBI 100yr, Bell Helo, FOP Lodge1, Kiowa Warrior, SCI, and any new/unknown-to-me commemoratives.
MakeMineA10mm is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2010, 19:36   #5
isp2605
Senior Member
 
isp2605's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: IL
Posts: 4,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by MakeMineA10mm View Post
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.
__________________
183rd FBINA
isp2605 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2010, 22:23   #6
MakeMineA10mm
Lifetime Membership
300AAC brass
 
MakeMineA10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 7,854
Blog Entries: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by isp2605 View Post
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...
__________________
Glock Commemoratives

I want to buy your commemorative Glock! Looking for: FBI 100yr, Bell Helo, FOP Lodge1, Kiowa Warrior, SCI, and any new/unknown-to-me commemoratives.
MakeMineA10mm is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2010, 07:04   #7
volsbear
Lifetime Membership
IWannaBeSedated
 
volsbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 11,896
http://www.pjstar.com/news/x59307674...eoria-gun-case

As it's been said, this doesn't exempt you from the Wildlife Code.
__________________
"Fast is fine. But accuracy is final."

"He'd look better with lividity" - BlueIron

Black Rifle Club - RRA-PSG
S&W Club - 22227
volsbear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2010, 00:09   #8
8-Ball
Drifting Cowboy
 
8-Ball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Illinois
Posts: 6,011
Anyone have a link to the actual law about this center console thing? I'd like to look it over.
__________________
R.I.P

23skidoo (Jeff), CJLandry (Chad), Silent_Runner (Gloria), & GioaJack

Taken too soon.
8-Ball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2010, 00:25   #9
SIUC4
Glockness
 
SIUC4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Houston
Posts: 793
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8-Ball View Post
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
__________________
Glock 22
Taurus 66B6 .357 Mag
Rem 870 Express Mag
AK 47
Smith and Wesson 657 .41 Mag
SIUC4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2010, 21:46   #10
MakeMineA10mm
Lifetime Membership
300AAC brass
 
MakeMineA10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 7,854
Blog Entries: 13
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...
__________________
Glock Commemoratives

I want to buy your commemorative Glock! Looking for: FBI 100yr, Bell Helo, FOP Lodge1, Kiowa Warrior, SCI, and any new/unknown-to-me commemoratives.
MakeMineA10mm is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2010, 21:50   #11
MakeMineA10mm
Lifetime Membership
300AAC brass
 
MakeMineA10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 7,854
Blog Entries: 13
Here's a pretty good review of the issue with citation:

http://legaldefenders.blogspot.com/2...-illinois.html
__________________
Glock Commemoratives

I want to buy your commemorative Glock! Looking for: FBI 100yr, Bell Helo, FOP Lodge1, Kiowa Warrior, SCI, and any new/unknown-to-me commemoratives.
MakeMineA10mm is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2010, 22:27   #12
SIUC4
Glockness
 
SIUC4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Houston
Posts: 793
Quote:
Originally Posted by MakeMineA10mm View Post
Here's a pretty good review of the issue with citation:

http://legaldefenders.blogspot.com/2...-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...
__________________
Glock 22
Taurus 66B6 .357 Mag
Rem 870 Express Mag
AK 47
Smith and Wesson 657 .41 Mag
SIUC4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2010, 12:17   #13
SIUC4
Glockness
 
SIUC4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Houston
Posts: 793
Micheal Madigan = Yet another reason that I am leaving this state.....
__________________
Glock 22
Taurus 66B6 .357 Mag
Rem 870 Express Mag
AK 47
Smith and Wesson 657 .41 Mag
SIUC4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2010, 12:47   #14
Ryobi
SummertimeRules
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 2,308
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.
Ryobi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2010, 13:57   #15
isp2605
Senior Member
 
isp2605's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: IL
Posts: 4,945
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.
__________________
183rd FBINA
isp2605 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2010, 14:17   #16
05FLHT
Senior Member
 
05FLHT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NW Illinois
Posts: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by isp2605 View Post
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.
05FLHT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2010, 09:08   #17
CaptainXL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Illinois
Posts: 298
House Bill vote this week

This is info from NRA-ILA newsletter of 3/19/10

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

House Bill 5849, 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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2010, 08:36   #18
CaptainXL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Illinois
Posts: 298
Everyone is missing the point

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.
CaptainXL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2010, 12:05   #19
SIUC4
Glockness
 
SIUC4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Houston
Posts: 793
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainXL View Post
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.
__________________
Glock 22
Taurus 66B6 .357 Mag
Rem 870 Express Mag
AK 47
Smith and Wesson 657 .41 Mag
SIUC4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2010, 14:17   #20
isp2605
Senior Member
 
isp2605's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: IL
Posts: 4,945
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.
__________________
183rd FBINA
isp2605 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2010, 14:48   #21
05FLHT
Senior Member
 
05FLHT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NW Illinois
Posts: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by isp2605 View Post
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.

Last edited by 05FLHT; 02-11-2011 at 14:29..
05FLHT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2010, 15:43   #22
MakeMineA10mm
Lifetime Membership
300AAC brass
 
MakeMineA10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 7,854
Blog Entries: 13
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...)
__________________
Glock Commemoratives

I want to buy your commemorative Glock! Looking for: FBI 100yr, Bell Helo, FOP Lodge1, Kiowa Warrior, SCI, and any new/unknown-to-me commemoratives.
MakeMineA10mm is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2010, 16:38   #23
isp2605
Senior Member
 
isp2605's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: IL
Posts: 4,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by 05FLHT View Post
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.
__________________
183rd FBINA
isp2605 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2010, 06:41   #24
05FLHT
Senior Member
 
05FLHT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NW Illinois
Posts: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by isp2605 View Post
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.
05FLHT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2010, 10:52   #25
isp2605
Senior Member
 
isp2605's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: IL
Posts: 4,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by 05FLHT View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
183rd FBINA
isp2605 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 17:15.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,246
383 Members
863 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42