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 02-21-2010, 07:58   #41
05FLHT
Senior Member
 
05FLHT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NW Illinois
Posts: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by volsbear View Post
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.
05FLHT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2010, 08:09   #42
volsbear
Lifetime Membership
IWannaBeSedated
 
volsbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 12,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by 05FLHT View Post
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.
__________________
"Fast is fine. But accuracy is final."

"He'd look better with lividity" - BlueIron

Black Rifle Club - RRA-PSG
S&W Club - 22227

Last edited by volsbear; 02-21-2010 at 08:12..
volsbear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2010, 08:13   #43
volsbear
Lifetime Membership
IWannaBeSedated
 
volsbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 12,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by 05FLHT View Post
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
__________________
"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 02-21-2010, 08:57   #44
05FLHT
Senior Member
 
05FLHT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NW Illinois
Posts: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by volsbear View Post
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...howtopic=20426

Last edited by 05FLHT; 02-21-2010 at 09:00..
05FLHT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2010, 15:11   #45
MakeMineA10mm
Lifetime Membership
300AAC brass
 
MakeMineA10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 7,856
Blog Entries: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by volsbear View Post
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.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
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 02-21-2010, 16:00   #46
rwk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 15
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 [URL="http://store.thewilderness.com/index.php?cPath=51"]http://store.thewilderness.com/index.php?cPath=51[/URL]

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
__________________
LOYALTY ABOVE ALL ELSE, EXCEPT HONOR

Last edited by rwk; 02-21-2010 at 16:04..
rwk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2010, 20:27   #47
MakeMineA10mm
Lifetime Membership
300AAC brass
 
MakeMineA10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 7,856
Blog Entries: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwk View Post
I have read all these threads

So I will use 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.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
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 02-21-2010, 21:13   #48
MakeMineA10mm
Lifetime Membership
300AAC brass
 
MakeMineA10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 7,856
Blog Entries: 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/Opinion...ber/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/do...se-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:
Illinois Glockers' Club

Cutaway view showing out it works (functioning unit is completely enclosed in 16-ga. steel)
Illinois Glockers' Club

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...
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
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 02-21-2010, 21:25   #49
05FLHT
Senior Member
 
05FLHT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NW Illinois
Posts: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by MakeMineA10mm View Post
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.
05FLHT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2010, 21:27   #50
volsbear
Lifetime Membership
IWannaBeSedated
 
volsbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 12,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by 05FLHT View Post
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.
__________________
"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 02-21-2010, 21:59   #51
SIUC4
Glockness
 
SIUC4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Houston
Posts: 793
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.
__________________
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 02-21-2010, 23:41   #52
MakeMineA10mm
Lifetime Membership
300AAC brass
 
MakeMineA10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 7,856
Blog Entries: 13
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.)
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
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 02-22-2010, 07:40   #53
05FLHT
Senior Member
 
05FLHT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NW Illinois
Posts: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by volsbear View Post
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2010, 07:51   #54
05FLHT
Senior Member
 
05FLHT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NW Illinois
Posts: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by MakeMineA10mm View Post
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.
05FLHT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2010, 15:37   #55
MakeMineA10mm
Lifetime Membership
300AAC brass
 
MakeMineA10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 7,856
Blog Entries: 13
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.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
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 02-22-2010, 17:22   #56
rwk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 15
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:
  1. Unloaded, and
  2. Enclosed in a case, and
  3. Not immediately accessible or broken down in a nonfunctioning state.
Source
[URL]http://www.isp.state.il.us/foid/firearmsfaq.cfm[/URL]
__________________
LOYALTY ABOVE ALL ELSE, EXCEPT HONOR

Last edited by rwk; 02-23-2010 at 06:31..
rwk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2010, 19:28   #57
05FLHT
Senior Member
 
05FLHT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NW Illinois
Posts: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwk View Post
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).
05FLHT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2010, 20:48   #58
volsbear
Lifetime Membership
IWannaBeSedated
 
volsbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 12,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by MakeMineA10mm View Post
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.
__________________
"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 02-23-2010, 23:27   #59
MakeMineA10mm
Lifetime Membership
300AAC brass
 
MakeMineA10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 7,856
Blog Entries: 13
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.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
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 02-24-2010, 06:15   #60
volsbear
Lifetime Membership
IWannaBeSedated
 
volsbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 12,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by MakeMineA10mm View Post
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.
__________________
"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

 
  
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 04:44.




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


Users Currently Online: 596
150 Members
446 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31