Transporting guns in Illinois


PDA






mudriver
June 7, 2009, 12:18 PM
Can anyone provide a link to reliable information?

Thanks:)

If you enjoyed reading about "Transporting guns in Illinois" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
kurtmax
June 7, 2009, 12:21 PM
Here (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Transporting+guns+in+Illinois)

Deanimator
June 7, 2009, 05:00 PM
In or through?

It makes a big difference.

ilbob
June 8, 2009, 01:14 PM
In or through?

It makes a big difference.
In reality as long as you are staying away from Chicago and Cook County, the normal Illinois rules apply.

Unloaded, in a gun case, and in the trunk.

Best to stay out of Cook County/Chicago. The rules are different and by most accounts they don't abide by FOPA transportation protections, if they even admit they exist.

louis2dogs
June 8, 2009, 02:25 PM
There is no requirement to have the gun out of reach. Just three requirements:

1. Unloaded
2. In a case
3. By a FOID card holder.

This even covers "on your person". Some folks around here carry unloaded in a fanny pack with magazine(s) NOT in the gun.

Here is a link to a publication put out by the Illinois State Police and Department of Natural Resources.

www.isp.state.il.us/docs/transgun0-000.pdf


This is a three-fold brochure, so the pages may seem confusing. Look at the first column on page two.

Lou

damien
June 8, 2009, 02:38 PM
In reality as long as you are staying away from Chicago and Cook County, the normal Illinois rules apply.


Most of Cook County has no problem with guns either, just a few municipalities (Evanston, Oak Park, Chicago, some others). Cabela's in Hoffman Estates sells AR-15s, 30 round magazines, and occasionally a Barrett .50 when in stock, for example.

isp2605
June 8, 2009, 06:25 PM
Here is a link to a publication put out by the Illinois State Police and Department of Natural Resources.

www.isp.state.il.us/docs/transgun0-000.pdf
Why that brochure keeps popping up on the internet is a mystery. Neither the ISP nor DNR has put that pub out for a long time. It's been over 10 years since it was out of print. Ryan, Nolen, and Manning have been gone from state government for a long time.

To answer the OP's question, to transport a firearm it has to be unloaded and in a case. If you are an IL resident then you also need a FOID card. Ammo can be carried in the same case as the firearm. Mags can be loaded but loaded mags cannot be inserted in the firearm.
http://www.isp.state.il.us/foid/firearmsfaq.cfm

As far as carrying an unloaded gun in a fanny pack I can only caution a person to be aware that could land one in jail facing felony charges. In about 2001 the fanny pack carry became a public issue. My agency received numerous calls every day from the public and other LE agencies asking for an opinion. We contacted the IL AG's office for an opinion. His office refused to give an opinion and deferred interpretations to each of the county state's attorneys. We then contacted each of the 102 state's attorneys. We got opinions that ranged from "It's illegal and I'll prosecute" to "It's legal and nothing to prosecute." However, the most common response was "Take them into custody and then bring me the case and I'll then decide." Few wanted to commit themselves. Not much help. What that meant was you could be in one county using fanny pack carry and would not have to worry about being charged. Cross the road into another county and the state's attorney would charge a felony. Then cross into another county and you'd be taken to jail and await for the state's attorney to decide. Just because one state's attorney wouldn't charge doesn't mean a thing when traveling to a different county with a different state's attorney.
Since we did that survey the AG has changes as have a lot of the state's attorneys. However, I suspect if we'd take the same survey today we'd get pretty much the same results. It could get a guy jammed up spending a lot of money to an attorney even if the charges were dropped. If the SA would decide to go to trial it could cost a whole lot of money and a person would risk a criminal conviction. What a person does is their own choice, however, they need to be informed of the circumstances and that fanny pack carry isn't as clear cut as some try to make it sound.

damien
June 8, 2009, 06:51 PM
As far as carrying an unloaded gun in a fanny pack I can only caution a person to be aware that could land one in jail facing felony charges.

I know this is not case law, but here is a ruling where the DA went against a guy and lost:

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2007/jul/20/news/chi-gunbelt_20jul20

With Mother’s Day approaching, Shaun Kranish needed a gift, so he strappedon his unloaded semiautomatic 9 mm pistol and left his Rockford home to dosome shopping.

During his May 2006 trip to CherryVale Mall in Cherry Valley, Kranish putthe 15-round magazine into a separate pouch on the holster, where he couldeasily reach it if necessary.

Kranish, 21, picked up some tea for his mother, ate pizza at the foodcourt, then noticed two security guards warily following him. Taken intocustody, he was charged with aggravated unlawful use of a weapon, a felony.

Earlier this week, a Winnebago County judge dismissed the charge in aruling that gun advocates hailed as a victory for 2nd Amendment rights inIllinois. Advocates for gun control say the ruling spotlights the need for thelegislature to close a legal loophole.

An activist for looser gun control in Illinois, Kranish interprets currentstate law to mean that he can carry his unloaded weapon in a holster as longas it’s completely covered. The law allows unloaded weapons to be transportedin containers but doesn’t mention holsters.

Though there have been cases over the years where gun owners have beenarrested for carrying unloaded weapons in fanny packs or other containers,people on both sides of gun control in Illinois say Kranish’s use of arecognizable holster – while walking through a mall – is sure to ignite anew round of debate.

“I don’t carry a gun as a statement,” said the computer technician duringan interview in his parents’ basement, where he lives. “I carry a gun forprotection. I think of a gun like a seat belt.”

Cherry Valley Police Chief Gary Maitland disagrees with the judge’s ruling.

“This is not the Old West,” he said. “I’m not advocating banning handguns.But I’m not aware of any police officer who would advocate more handguns onthe street. When they start taking their weapons out of their home and walkingaround with them strapped to their hip, bad things can happen.”

Winnebago County Assistant State’s Atty. Erin Haefner said she plans to askJudge Steven Vecchio to reconsider his ruling. But some say the legislatureneeds to re-examine the law.

Specifically, it allows the transport of weapons as long as they are”unloaded and enclosed in a case, firearm-carrying box, shipping box or othercontainer by a person who has been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner’sIdentification Card.”

“We need to truly clarify the intent of this state law,” said Thom Mannard,executive director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence. “I thinkthe legislature intends for the law to be that people cannot carry weapons ontheir person, whether loaded or unloaded, and especially not in a public placelike a mall.”

John Birch headed the now-defunct Concealed Carry Inc. in Illinois and oncesuggested that people carry unloaded guns in fanny packs to the Taste ofChicago. He applauded Vecchio’s ruling.

“This has been the law of the land in Illinois for years, but convincingpolice and state’s attorneys has been an uphill battle,” he said.

Kranish said he became interested in guns when he was 18 and operated a24-hour Internet cafe in Rockford.

“I had to be concerned with not only my own safety but the safety of mycustomers,” he said.

Kranish dropped out of high school, but later earned a General EducationDevelopment diploma. He said he enjoys doing research and began examining gunlaws in Illinois.

“I couldn’t believe they were so strict,” he said.

Illinois and Wisconsin are the only states where it is illegal for aprivate citizen to carry concealed weapons. Many states issue permits forconcealed weapons if the owner takes a class and passes a background check.

Alaska and Vermont don’t require a permit for carrying a concealed weapon.

Kranish got the FOID card required in Illinois. He said he has spent about70 hours in handgun-training classes.

The certificates hang on the wall of his office in his parents’ basement.He earned the highest level possible in the 40-hour “tactical pistoltraining” course: expert and combat expert.

He later began iCarry.org and writes on the Web site, “We will forciblytake back our trampled-on rights in Illinois by growing in number andpetitioning our state representatives. The right to carry by permit will bethe minimum we will accept.”

By October 2005, when he was enrolled at Rock Valley College, Kranish hadstarted wearing his holster without the handgun because the college handbooksays firearms are prohibited.

He went to speak to campus security about the no-gun policy, wearing ajacket with the iCarry logo and the holster. Police confiscated the holsterand charged him with disorderly conduct, according to Kranish and his lawyer,Walter Maksym of Chicago.

The charge eventually was dismissed, according to court records. Maksymsaid a federal lawsuit against the college, which Kranish no longer attends,is pending.

Kranish resents police questioning what’s in his holster, which he modifiedso that no portion of his handgun protrudes. He declined to say during aninterview how many other weapons he owns, calling it personal business.

“They really don’t want anyone to own or carry a gun at all,” Kranish saidof police. “And secondly, they really would like for people to depend on thegovernment for defense. They want a monopoly on force.”

- - -

Opposing viewpoints of concealed-weapons issue

*Shaun Kranish, who runs a pro-gun Web site and is an activist for loosergun control in Illinois: “I don’t carry a gun as a statement. I carry a gunfor protection. I think of a gun like a seat belt.”

*Gary Maitland, Cherry Valley police chief: “This is not the Old West. I’mnot advocating banning handguns. But I’m not aware of any police officer who would advocate more handguns on the street.”

isp2605
June 8, 2009, 08:34 PM
I know this is not case law, but here is a ruling where the DA went against a guy and lost:
I'm well aware of the case and it doesn't mean a thing. It has no bearing whatsoever on the fanny pack carry.
Kranish is definitely not a person one would one to hang their hat on as a case if they think that will keep them out of trouble.

Birdmang
July 4, 2009, 12:48 AM
Can I have my magazines loaded up and in an ammo box or backpack, but have the guns in a separate case?

Is that legal?

isp2605
July 4, 2009, 07:53 AM
Mags can be loaded and in the same case as the firearm. Loaded mags cannot be inserted in the firearm. Empty mags can be in the firearm.
The definition of case is set by statute:
"a container specifically designed for the purpose of housing a gun or bow and arrow device which completely encloses such gun or bow and arrow device by being zipped, snapped, buckled, tied, or otherwise fastened with no portion of the gun or bow and arrow device exposed."

danbrew
July 4, 2009, 08:39 AM
Relying upon a flyer published by the state police (or internet postings) to keep yourself out of jail, and away from a felony conviction, is just stupid.

Read the statues. Seek competent legal advice. isp2605 has it right - most state's attorneys will decide on a case by case basis. The ******bag in the story above? The 21 year old that has mastered combat shooting in 40 hours? And lives in his parent's basement? He's getting charges filed. The 70 year old pastor? He may get a pass.

I'm the first to agree that we have some whacked out laws in Illinois, yet us not liking them is not a pass when we get to court. The idea of an accessible firearm when you're driving or walking down the road, despite its unloaded state, is just asking for a ****ing in this state.

Honestly, I can't wait to move. But I traded the ability to exercise some of my rights when I decided to move here. I did that for all the usual reasons - family, jobs, money, economy, education, etc. But I'm counting the days until I can move on.

For the record, I do not believe there is a legitimate way to carry in Illinois. The closest you can come is to have a firearm in the trunk of your car with some ready magazines. And if I have to run to my car to get my gun and then lock n' load, it's probably not going to be viewed as self defense when I pop somebody. For that matter, it would unlikely be viewed by a jury with a half-decent prosecutor as self defense if you were carrying an unloaded gun in a fanny pack and had the time to present the firearm, load it, aim it, and shoot. The mere introduction of your firearm is an escalation of force and all sorts of bad things (legally-speaking) happen when YOU are the person that caused the escalation of force. Granted, perhaps a moot point if Joe the bad guy had drawn down on you and clearly escalated the situation. Yet most of us would probably decide not to quick draw McGraw on Joe in such a situation.

I. can't. wait. to. move. away. from. this. nutty. state.

Birdmang
July 4, 2009, 08:43 AM
Sorry, I didn't clarify that. I meant if I was driving to the range, could I have my magazines loaded and all in one case, then have the guns unloaded in another case, of course both cases in my trunk?

kingpin008
July 4, 2009, 11:30 AM
Birdmang - Yes, you can have the mags loaded, just as ISP stated. They just can't be inserted in the pistol.

That means that you can have them anywhere you want - in the case with the gun, in a seperate case completely seperate from the gun, jammed into a Big Gulp cup from 7-11, it doesn't really matter.

Rmeju
July 5, 2009, 05:59 PM
There are two state laws governing the transport of weapons in IL. One of them does not require that you transport in the trunk, the other one does.

If you are a resident, you need a FOID card. If you are not, you should be able to show that you are not (a driver's license is fine).

The other posters are right. Weapons cannot be loaded but there are few other legal restrictions on where the ammunition can be.

That all said, I have found that because of several factors including a lack of state preemption (local municipalities can and do have varying laws), and varying levels of knowledge of firearms laws by individual police officers, I believe that if you are just trying to travel without incident, the best bet is to keep everything:

-Cased
-In the trunk
-Ammo separated from the weapons
-Locked (if you want to be 'safe')
-Do not bring up or admit that you have weapons in the trunk for any reason and don't let anyone seach your trunk.

No, this is not all required, but may help you avoid hassle by the police.

By way of example, I was once dragged down to the police station by a cop who was determined to "run a trace on my hi-cap mags to make sure they were pre-ban". No, I'm not bashing cops, they are mostly nice people, but you should be aware that there is some ignorance out there.

Also, you should check out the ISP website here (http://www.isp.state.il.us/foid/firearms.cfm). This will get you all the info you are looking for from the horse's mouth. If you click on "firearm ordinances" in the upper right hand corner, you can also see the local ordinance information. Be careful, because although local municipalities are legally required to forward their laws for publication by the state, their failure to do so does not protect you in any way if you are in violation, and I know for a fact that not all of them have complied.

isp2605
July 5, 2009, 08:50 PM
There are two state laws governing the transport of weapons in IL. One of them does not require that you transport in the trunk, the other one does.

Nope, there is no requirement in IL statutes that you have to transport in the trunk. Unloaded and in a case will meet the legal requirements.
There are 2 sections dealing with transporting. 24-1 stipulates:
"Unloaded, and Enclosed in a case, and Not immediately accessible or broken down in a nonfunctioning state."
Section 2.33n requires the firearm to be in a case.

Weapons cannot be loaded but there are few other legal restrictions on where the ammunition can be.

The ammo can be anywhere as long as it's not in the firearm. It can be in the same case as the firearm. It can be in the mags as long as the mags are not in the firearm. It doesn't even have to be in a case.

Phatty
July 6, 2009, 10:34 AM
Why that brochure keeps popping up on the internet is a mystery. Neither the ISP nor DNR has put that pub out for a long time.
The ISP is still publishing that brochure by making it available on its website. There's no mystery that it keeps popping up on the internet when anyone can go to the ISP website and download that brochure. If it's outdated, then the ISP should remove it.

The definition of case is set by statute:
"a container specifically designed for the purpose of housing a gun or bow and arrow device which completely encloses such gun or bow and arrow device by being zipped, snapped, buckled, tied, or otherwise fastened with no portion of the gun or bow and arrow device exposed."
When the Illinois Supreme Court releases its opinion in People v. Diggins, it will probably provide clarification as to the proper interpretation of the transportation/case requirements. The prosecution in that case tried to convince the court that it should apply the Wildlife Code definition (that you cited) instead of the less specific definition in the Criminal Code. During oral argument, the supreme court seemed to reject the prosecution's argument. Either way, clarification would be nice.

As far as carrying an unloaded gun in a fanny pack I can only caution a person to be aware that could land one in jail facing felony charges.
This will probably still be true even with clarification from the supreme court. Yes, you will likely beat the charges in the end, but you'll have to go through a lot of hassle to get there. Besides, do you really want to wear a fanny-pack? If I was that concerned for my own safety, I'd rather hole myself up in my house than go walking around in public while wearing a fanny pack.

The closest you can come is to have a firearm in the trunk of your car with some ready magazines.
No, the closest you can come is to have your pistol case sitting on your lap with a pistol and loaded mags (not inserted in the pistol) enclosed. It would probably take all of 2 seconds to open the case, grab the pistol and pop a loaded mag into the pistol.

isp2605
July 6, 2009, 11:12 AM
The ISP is still publishing that brochure by making it available on its website.
No the ISP is not still publishing that brochure and hasn't published it in quite a few years. There's a new brochure that's replaced it.
That old brochure is an old link on the internet. It's not current and if you called the ISP asking them to send you that brochure you wouldn't get it as it's no longer in publication. People keep pulling it up off an old link. It's 11 yrs old and has been updated at least twice that I recall.

When the Illinois Supreme Court releases its opinion in People v. Diggins, it will probably provide clarification as to the proper interpretation of the transportation/case requirements. The prosecution in that case tried to convince the court that it should apply the Wildlife Code definition (that you cited) instead of the less specific definition in the Criminal Code. During oral argument, the supreme court seemed to reject the prosecution's argument. Either way, clarification would be nice.
The statute defining a case is pretty clear. The Wildlife Code is applicable because it's contained in the "Illinois Compiled Statutes". Note the word "Compiled".

but you'll have to go through a lot of hassle to get there.
"hassle" is just part of it. Think dollars. Win, lose, or draw it's going to cost someone money to pay for an attorney and resulting costs. Those are costs that aren't reimbursed if the charges are dropped or found not guilty. They're still out of pocket which could be considerable, particularly if a person goes into appeals.

Phatty
July 6, 2009, 11:44 AM
No the ISP is not still publishing that brochure and hasn't published it in quite a few years.
If there is a newer brochure(s) that was meant to replace the old one, the ISP should remove the old brochure from its website. Better yet, anyone trying to access the old link, should be automatically redirected to the current brochure.

The statute defining a case is pretty clear. The Wildlife Code is applicable because it's contained in the "Illinois Compiled Statutes". Note the word "Compiled".
I didn't intend to start a legal argument. My point was that this very issue is likely to be conclusively decided in the next several months (probably September).

"hassle" is just part of it. Think dollars.
My use of "hassle" was meant to encompass everything you mentioned, including the cost of legal representation. Perhaps I should have used a stronger term. I definitely did not intend to downplay the repercussions of having to defend yourself against a felony charge.

isp2605
July 6, 2009, 12:00 PM
If there is a newer brochure(s) that was meant to replace the old one, the ISP should remove the old brochure from its website. Better yet, anyone trying to access the old link, should be automatically redirected to the current brochure.
It's an old link on the internet. Once on the internet it's on the internet.
Go to the ISP website. Here's listing for the most commonly requested brochures. http://www.isp.state.il.us/media/forms.cfm
You'll see that old brochure is not listed.
Here's the new brochure. http://www.isp.state.il.us/docs/1-154.pdf

alex10-4
July 13, 2009, 09:55 PM
I am from out of state and I was wondering if it is legal to carry a loaded gun in a locked compartment in my car in Illinois? Can the police search my car and force me to unlock the compartment? The reason is I have often driven through Illinois like this thinking it was legal and now that I read these posts I have to wonder if I should just leave it unloaded. If there are any IL LE on here that can give some perspective that would be great.

isp2605
July 13, 2009, 11:58 PM
I was wondering if it is legal to carry a loaded gun in a locked compartment in my car in Illinois?
No. IL law requires firearms to be unloaded and in a case.

Can the police search my car and force me to unlock the compartment?
Possibly. It will depend on the totality of the circumstances during the stop.

If there are any IL LE on here that can give some perspective that would be great.
35 yrs state and federal in IL, retiring as a senior command with the ISP. I answered similar questions on almost a daily basis.

sarge83
July 14, 2009, 10:38 AM
I have to go to this hole of a state this coming weekend and disarm on the IL line.

Hi-power goes to the enclosed case in the back under luggage unloaded. Perhaps I can use harsh language on a potential perp until I get get it, load it and use it if need be, then again I could just wait for the police to show up and save me, mmm-huh:rolleyes:

Deanimator
July 14, 2009, 12:24 PM
I have to go to this hole of a state this coming weekend and disarm on the IL line.

Hi-power goes to the enclosed case in the back under luggage unloaded. Perhaps I can use harsh language on a potential perp until I get get it, load it and use it if need be, then again I could just wait for the police to show up and save me, mmm-huh
My best friend and I went hunting on his family's farm in Catawissa, Missouri last year. I carried all the way from Cleveland, across Indiana, then had to stop and disarm. Even though I apparently didn't need to, I unloaded the magazines as well. They'd have done me no good anyway. Once we got to Missouri, I loaded magazines and gun again and went about my business. When we came back, I reversed the process.

We spent NO money in Illinois. Let your money do your talking.

ThePunisher'sArmory
July 14, 2009, 12:39 PM
Ive always carried my guns in one case and ammo in another, mags not loaded when going to the range. As far as carrying a weapon for defense in illinois its out of the question. Simply put illinois lawmakers would rather have you dead, mugged, or raped than to defend yourself. After all thats what the cops are for you should be able to call them in times of emergency and they will be there promptly, well within 15min to an hour, to assist you.:rolleyes: I loath this state and also cant wait to move.

spoken
February 6, 2010, 11:53 AM
http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2009/October/106367.pdf

People v Diggins (IL Supreme Court) has updated and clarified, in my opinion, a lot of the misconceptions on firearm transportation.

For "case" and "container" they used a common dictionary to show the common meaning of the words which are NOT defined. Case is defined in the wildlife code, but it is not applicable to transportation of firearms if you're not involved in activities under the wildlife code (most people are not).

Unloaded, in a container or case (common meanings), and have a valid FOID card (if an Illinois resident).

isp2605
February 6, 2010, 01:31 PM
You should talk to someone who knows before you start giving legal advice such as "Case is defined in the wildlife code, but it is not applicable to transportation of firearms if you're not involved in activities under the wildlife code (most people are not)." The courts and prosecutors disagree with your opinion.
The courts have been very clear on this issue. You do not have to be hunting to be covered by the section of the wildlife code. That's why the IL statutes are called the "compiled" statutes. All statutes apply. Nothing at all in the statutes say you have to be involved in wildlife events to only be covered by the wildlife code. Again, note the word "compiled". You're making the same erroneous assumption that many make who do not understand or have any training in the law.
Diggins was only about the charges filed which was Aggravated Unlawful Use of Weapons, a criminal cite. The UUW chapter only addresses case or container. The state's attorney in Diggins at no time entered in his argument anything about the statutory definition of case. The only argument before the court was the SA's opinion was a case had to be transportable and not a fixed container. What many SAs and AGs who were watching the case wondered is why the SA did not file anything concerning the statutory definition of firearm case. Many felt this was just one of many errors by the SA during Diggins. The general feeling is the initial charge was in error. For decades most SAs have not filed UUW charges for firearms carried in any type container in a vehicle simply because of the "container" wording in the statute. In such cases other statutes would have been more appropriate, such as 2.33(n) for uncased gun instead of UUW.
Diggins only addressed the UUW statute, nothing more. In Diggins the court clarified what nearly every SA had done for decades, agreed that to comply with UUW a firearm had to be in any kind of container. Diggins in no way eliminated the obligation to comply with any other statute. The requirement for a case as definited by a completely different statute which was not addressed by the court.
The fact remains that to comply with all IL statutes to transport a firearm the must be unloaded, in a case, and if an IL resident then possess a FOID.
Diggins only addressed the UUW statute. Other statutes concerning transportation in a case still apply.

spoken
July 26, 2010, 10:32 PM
First off, I don't give legal advice. I am not an attorney, and I'm sure you aren't either so you shouldn't be giving legal advice. If either of us were attorneys, it still wouldn't be a good idea to give legal advice on the net. With that said, let's clarify something for our readers.

The definition of case in the wildlife code does not apply to the UUW statutes. It's in a separate chapter and has no bearing on these statutes. I'm sure you know that, but I want to make sure everyone else understands that.

The argument that all statutes apply could be correct. Keep in mind that these statutes are most likely not constitutional to begin with. All statutes are presumed to be, but anyone with half a brain could see that Illinois' statutes regarding bearing arms are certainly not!!!

Do you know of any cases where someone was convicted under the wildlife code for transporting not in a "case" specifically designed for a firearm while not engaged in other activities under the code? If so, I would be very curious to see it. Frankly I don't believe such an argument holds much water, but you're welcome to try to convince us otherwise.

if you read the section in the code you're referring to (here is a link of the whole code) you will see the following (emphasis added for you)

http://web.extension.illinois.edu/wildlife/files/520_ILCS_5_wildlife_code.pdf

(n) It is unlawful for any person, except persons who
possess a permit to hunt from a vehicle as provided in this
Section and persons otherwise permitted by law, to have or
carry any gun in or on any vehicle, conveyance or aircraft,
unless such gun is unloaded and enclosed in a case, except
that at field trials authorized by Section 2.34 of this Act,
unloaded guns or guns loaded with blank cartridges only, may
be carried on horseback while not contained in a case, or to
have or carry any bow or arrow device in or on any vehicle
unless such bow or arrow device is unstrung or enclosed in a
case, or otherwise made inoperable.

"persons otherwise permitted by law" would certainly apply to FOID card holders who are carrying unloaded and enclosed in a container of some sort.


I'm very curious if you have anything to back up your claims, such as court cases like I described which resulted in a conviction under the wildlife code for carrying in a container that wasn't a "case" under the wildlife code while the person wasn't engaged in any wildlife activities. Any astute lawyer would be able to make some very good challenges to such a prosecution. So I'll say again I don't think this holds any water.

isp2605
July 26, 2010, 11:02 PM
It only took you nearly 6 months to figure out a response? :rolleyes:

and I'm sure you aren't either so you shouldn't be giving legal advice.
First, you don't know my legal background.
Second, I'm not giving legal advice. I'm giving information based on years and years of experience of seeing and handling actual cases from all over the state, from court cases, and from the ILSC rulings. Also giving information from years and years of studying case law.
Yours? You're just guessing because you clearly don't have anything but what you think. And what you "think the law says" clearly isn't what case law and the ILSC says.
As far as my experience - The IL Supreme Court and the IL Legislature recognized my training and experiences as such to be considered an expert witness in criminal law cases. I taught criminal law. I testified as an expert witness in many cases. I sat at the prosecution table as advisor to prosecutors in criminal cases. You?

The definition of case in the wildlife code does not apply to the UUW statutes.
At least we will agree on that. And I never said it did.
Your comment shows you do not even have a basic understanding of the law. The UUW and the Uncased Gun statutes are 2 completely separate statutes. One can be charged with one or the other or both, depending on the elements of the crime and which statutes apply.
People like you who clearly do not understand the law think statutes are one and the same. They're not. 2 separate statutes that have 2 differently elements. I know it can be confusing to the uninformed which is why you should not try to explain something you clearly have no knowledge or understanding. In other words, don't embarrass yourself talking about something you don't know anything about.

The definition of case in the wildlife code does not apply to the UUW statutes. It's in a separate chapter and has no bearing on these statutes. I'm sure you know that, but I want to make sure everyone else understands that.

Your complete lack of legal knowledge is clearly showing. I guess you never heard of the "Illinois Compiled Statutes"? You do understand the significance of "compiled" statutes? No, I guess you don't or you wouldn't be spouting off what you think.
Do a bit more homework, or any homework, before you start spouting off "legal advice" of what statutes apply. They certainly do apply and the ILSC has ruled as such. Had you done any research or had a minimal amount of legal knowledge you would know that.

Do you know of any cases where someone was convicted under the wildlife code for transporting not in a "case" specifically designed for a firearm while not engaged in other activities under the code? If so, I would be very curious to see it. Frankly I don't believe such an argument holds much water, but you're welcome to try to convince us otherwise.
Again, if you had done any homework or had even a basic knowledge then you would know that such cites are very commonly written and prosecuted successfully. If you want to do a bit of research contact any county in IL. Again, it's a fairly common cite. And yes, common even when the subject is not engaged in activities under the wildlife code. The ILSC has upheld such cases. But then you would know that had you either a basic understanding of the law or bothered to do any research.
Again, quit giving legal advice since you clearly don't have even a basic understanding of the law.

Any astute lawyer would be able to make some very good challenges to such a prosecution. So I'll say again I don't think this holds any water.
Astute lawyers can argue whatever they want. Clearly, you are neither astute nor a lawyer nor have the simplest, even basic idea of what you are trying to argue.

Take your own advice from your very first line... "I don't give legal advice." Since that is what you're trying to do with no training, no background, no basis, and definitely no understanding of the law.

chaplain tom
July 28, 2010, 02:38 AM
When I was reading this thread I thought I had received an e-mail update from the NRA or some other gun rights orginization about changes to gun laws, recent court rulings etc. I'm sure some of you get some of those e-mail updates too. Well anyway, I thought I remembered reading that a court in Illinois had ruled that it considered a console in a car or truck as a "case" as defined by the law. I searched for the article and found this.

By ANDY KRAVETZ (akravetz@pjstar.com) (akravetz@pjstar.com)
Journal Star (http://www.pjstar.com/)
Posted Oct 08, 2009 @ 01:51 PM
Last update Oct 08, 2009 @ 09:22 PM
PEORIA —
The Illinois Supreme Court ruled Thursday that citizens can have handguns in a car's console as long as the gun is unloaded and the case is closed.
The state's high court held that transporting a weapon in a car's center console falls under the definition of case according to Illinois law. As such, Michael Diggins, 38, who was arrested March 24, 2006, for having two unloaded handguns, a .357-caliber handgun and a .45-caliber semiautomatic, as well as ammunition in the car's center console, should get a new trial.
Victor Quilici, an attorney for the Illinois State Rifle Association, said the decision will mean people can carry unloaded handguns in a car console as long as it is closed. The attorney also noted that most consoles, which typically hold CDs, cassettes, coins or other small items, tend not to be big enough for anything larger than a handgun.

Here's a link to an article about the ruling. http://www.pjstar.com/news/x593076740/Supreme-Court-upholds-ruling-on-Peoria-gun-case

I don't know if there have been any ordinances enacted to try and thwart this ruling or not, I haven't found any yet, but there may be some. If anybody has more or better information about this case please post it here. It would be helpful for all those unfornunate enough to live in Illinois.

05FLHT
July 28, 2010, 07:37 AM
The IL Supreme Court ruled in Diggins that a vehicles center console meets the statutory definition of a "case." Keeping an unloaded firearm, with a loaded magazine (not inside the firearm), fully enclosed inside of a center console will exempt you from a charge of UUW.

The exemption to UUW, as laid out in the statute, is to have a firearm that is "not readily accessible," or "broken down into a non-functioning state," or "unloaded and fully enclosed in a case." The Illinois Wildlife Code does not use the same definition for a "case." Under the WC, a case is further required "to be designed to house a firearm."

There was legislation introduced to close this "deadly" loophole, but as of yet it has gone nowhere.

isp2605
July 28, 2010, 08:30 AM
When I was reading this thread I thought I had received an e-mail update from the NRA or some other gun rights orginization about changes to gun laws, recent court rulings etc. I'm sure some of you get some of those e-mail updates too. Well anyway, I thought I remembered reading that a court in Illinois had ruled that it considered a console in a car or truck as a "case" as defined by the law.
05FLHT is correct. The case Chaplain Tom is referring to is Diggins and it only applied to the UUW statute as that was the only issue before the court. Diggins did not rule the console was a case, it said the console could be a "container". I know that doesn't seem like much difference to the untrained but in legal terms that does make a difference.
Read my post above (#27 dated 02/06/10) where I explained the ruling.
The UUW statute and the uncased gun statute are 2 separate statutes each with their own elements. People who have no legal training don't understand the law which is why these type discussions continue. They read a statute, or part of a statute, don't understand the full wording, and don't realize that even tho another one statute may not cover something that another statute may. They think "uncased gun" means UUW. Not necessarily so. They could be charged with UUW, or uncased gun, or both. One charge is not exclusive to nor dependant upon the other. 2 separate statutes which either or both could be charged depending on the circumstances of the case.
I try to make it easy to understand for people. Use DUI and open liquor as an example. A person can have an open bottle of beer in their vehicle and not be charged with DUI because they don't meet the elements for the DUI. Or they can be charged with DUI if they meet the elements of that charge and not have open liquor. Or they could be charged with both DUI and open liquor. It all depends on what the specific circumstances are of each incident.

chaplain tom
July 28, 2010, 08:57 AM
The Illinois Supreme Court ruled Thursday that citizens can have handguns in a car's console as long as the gun is unloaded and the case is closed.

Does anyone have a link to find the actual Supreme Court ruling? From what the article says (and I know it's just an article) the supreme court clearly defined a console as a case. In fact an attorney for the ISRA is under that oppinion also as to what the supreme court defined as a case.

"Victor Quilici, an attorney for the Illinois State Rifle Association, said the decision will mean people can carry unloaded handguns in a car console as long as it is closed. The attorney also noted that most consoles, which typically hold CDs, cassettes, coins or other small items, tend not to be big enough for anything larger than a handgun."

I'd like to read the actual supreme court ruling in their words to see if they talk about a container or a case in the wording of their decision. If isp2605 is correct, then the ISRA and the newspaper that printed this story are spreading some very dangerous incorrect information that WILL send someone else to jail.

chaplain tom
July 28, 2010, 09:06 AM
I found the actual ruling. In the first paragraph it states:

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellant, v.
MICHAEL DIGGINS, Appellee.
Opinion filed October 8, 2009.
JUSTICE BURKE delivered the judgment of the court, with
opinion.
Chief Justice Fitzgerald and Justices Freeman, Thomas, Kilbride,
Garman, and Karmeier concurred in the judgment and opinion.
OPINION
Section 24–1.6(c)(iii) of the Criminal Code of 1961 provides that
a person is not guilty of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon if that
weapon is “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.” 720 ILCS
5/24–1.6(c)(iii) (West 2006). In the case at bar, we are asked to
determine whether the center console of a vehicle is a “case” within
the meaning of this provision. For the reasons that follow, we
conclude that it is.

http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2009/October/106367.pdf

isp2605
July 28, 2010, 09:22 AM
If you read the entire ruling the ILSC is specific in talking only of 26-1 which is the UUW statute.
The internet talk from some who don't understand the ruling and it's application and then start interjecting their own "opinion" is what is dangerous. The ILAG immediately after the Diggins ruling rendered the opinion that Diggins in no way affected the uncased gun statute and to be in full compliance with all the laws a gun still needed to be in a case as defined in the statutes. That opinion was sent out to all of the state's attorneys and LE agencies.
2.33 was not an issue before the courts. The ILSC was only addressing the UUW statute which is what Diggins was charged with. It's really not all that confusing except when people think "gun" and "case" and they don't understand court cases but they think it applies across the board to all statutes. Completely different statutes with completely different elements for each.
BTW, an uncased gun cite is a non-jailable offense.
The information I've provided are NOT my opinions. It has all been information provided from the IL AG and various state's attorneys. When people disagree with the information I've provided they start yelling that it's my opinion that I'm giving. It's not. It's what has been handed down as opinion from the courts and the AG. It's information that most of you probably don't get which we get on a daily basis. When someone says "what's a cop know about the law." Well, we get the opinions and rulings from the courts on a daily basis unlike most people who only get their information from the short squibs in the papers which are usually articles written by jounalism interns who barely understand speeding laws let alone any knowledge or training in court cases.

Deanimator
July 28, 2010, 09:41 AM
Stay out of Illinois.
Spend your money somewhere else.

Problem solved.

chaplain tom
July 28, 2010, 09:50 AM
What I'm concerned about is the ISRA attorney stating in print that "the decision will mean people can carry unloaded handguns in a car console as long as it is closed." I understand that you are clarifying that there are "2" separate statutes in play here. I'm just showing the statements made by people close to the case that DO NOT mention the "2" separate statutes when describing the decision in this case and the danger in following those statements as THE LAW concerning the transportation of a firearm in Illinois. I AM NOT GIVING OPINION ON ANYTHING HERE. BUT THE ATTORNEY FOR THE ISRA IS AND IT IS PROBABLY WRONG. Based on that, someone else will go to jail for this very same thing if arrested by the right law enforcement agency.

05FLHT
July 28, 2010, 10:30 AM
You can carry an unloaded firearm, inside of a vehicle center console that fully encloses the firearm, and are exempt from a charge of UUW (felony). As to whether or not you would be charged with a violation of the IL Wildlife Code (misdemeanor) is a good question. Can you be charged with violation of the WC, yes. Will the charge hold up in court, maybe. Do we have any volunteers to test this and find out?

IL laws regarding transportation are as clear as mud. "Inaccessible," so can I carry a loaded firearm in my trunk? How about "broken down into a non-functioning state," can I carry a handgun with the slide off, but with a loaded magazine in the frame, in my pocket? Even if you "transport" an unloaded firearm, fully enclosed in a case designed to house a firearm, and possess a valid FOID card there is no guarantee you will not be detained or arrested in IL.

Phatty
July 28, 2010, 10:33 AM
As mentioned above, if you don't keep your gun in a firearm-specific case, you could be given a citation (similar to a serious traffic violation) and will have to show up in court and pay a fine. The Diggins case simply removed the possibility of getting charged with a felony when you keep your unloaded gun in non-firearm-specific case.

For practical purposes, now that the risk of a felony conviction is off the table, many people will likely keep their unloaded guns in their center console or glove department. The remote possibility of being caught coupled with the relatively soft penalty if you do get caught will not scare many people into complying with the Wildlife Code. Just think of the huge number of people who risk the possibility of a traffic ticket by speeding -- and in those cases there's a much higher chance of getting caught because the violation is out in the open for all to see.

But, before everyone decides to run out and take this risk, there is something they should consider. There is a real possibility that in the future the state or federal government will pass a law prohibiting the possession of guns by people that have ever been convicted of any gun violation in the past. They will justify the law by saying that the 2nd Amendment only protects a right to keep and bear arms by responsible gun owners, and that a history of violating gun laws demonstrates that the person is not a responsibile gun owner. So, gun owners should be extra vigilent about complying with all gun laws because in the future it could determine whether or not they get to even own a gun.

MisterMike
July 28, 2010, 03:01 PM
Love zombie threads. ;)

ISP, if you're still checking in on this thread and have the ability to communicate to the right folks within the agency, you might want to tell them that the decade-plus old pamphlet is still on the ISP server and comes up as the first hit when you do a web search on the topic.

You mentioned earlier--actually way earlier--that once something is one the web it's there forever. That's not actually what's going on in this instance . . . the reason that this old pamphlet continues to pop up is because the ISP webmaster has not deleted it from the publicly accessible files on your web server. I haven't taken a look to see if it's inconsistent with current laws, but if it is the ISP is doing the public a disservice by disseminating outdated information.

It's easily fixable if the right person can be convinced to fix it.

spoken
July 29, 2010, 12:28 AM
(720 ILCS 5/21-6) (from Ch. 38, par. 21-6)
Sec. 21-6. Unauthorized Possession or Storage of Weapons.
(a) Whoever possesses or stores any weapon enumerated in Section 33A-1 in any building or on land supported in whole or in part with public funds or in any building on such land without prior written permission from the chief security officer for such land or building commits a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) The chief security officer must grant any reasonable request for permission under paragraph (a).
(Source: P.A. 89-685, eff. 6-1-97.)

This statute could be (and has been - see People v Bruner) used to prosecute people who are "container carrying." One could be in compliance with the UUW and even the wildlife code statute that you keep bringing up, but still be prosecuted under the storage/possession statute above.

There is a reason this law is not used to prosecute in all situations that it could be (driving on any public road, walking on any public street, etc). The statute wouldn't hold water. Just because a law is on the books, doesn't mean the law will stand up in court. Just because someone may be in technical violation of it, doesn't mean the statute will hold up. We still have the Constitution, thankfully, and it seems that even the best-intentioned "legal beagles" forget.

I'm still interested in examples of people prosecuted under the wildlife statute while engaged in any activities that the wildlife code regulates. Throughout the years I've been involved in Illinois gun rights, I've never heard of this happening. I'm sure it's been tried, but I'm highly skeptical there is any established case law.

ISP, can we discuss this without the personal attacks, derogatory remarks, and posturing?

razorback2003
July 29, 2010, 01:42 AM
Is there even a misdemeanor charge for this carrying a weapon deal in Illinois or is it just a felony?

I find it hard to understand that people who have otherwise clean records that get caught with loaded pistols in their cars would be given felony convictions over that???? That is kind of silly considering there is no licensing system....no open carry...no nothing.....it would make more sense for just a fine and be on your way at worst...not a felony charge...that is NUTS! Are these weapons charges ever dropped down to misdemeanors....what is the common outcome for the avg joe up there who gets caught carrying illegally on his person or in his car????? In Tennessee it is a misdemeanor...generally a fine...people are often issued summons for loaded pistols in cars w/o license/permits and not arrested if they have an otherwise clean record.

05FLHT
July 29, 2010, 08:55 AM
Is there even a misdemeanor charge for this carrying a weapon deal in Illinois or is it just a felony?

Short answer is yes and no. See below.

I find it hard to understand that people who have otherwise clean records that get caught with loaded pistols in their cars would be given felony convictions over that???? That is kind of silly considering there is no licensing system....no open carry...no nothing.....it would make more sense for just a fine and be on your way at worst...not a felony charge...that is NUTS! Are these weapons charges ever dropped down to misdemeanors....what is the common outcome for the avg joe up there who gets caught carrying illegally on his person or in his car????? In Tennessee it is a misdemeanor...generally a fine...people are often issued summons for loaded pistols in cars w/o license/permits and not arrested if they have an otherwise clean record.

You must meet one of the exemptions listed in the statute in order to not be in violation of UUW. UUW of a weapon, a loaded firearm in a case, or an unloaded and uncased weapon that is accessible or not broken down into a non functioning state, is a felony. Openly carrying a loaded weapon is Ag UUW (another felony).

As to your question of what is a misdemeanor in Illinois? Being a gang member in Chicago, with a lengthy criminal record of violence, drugs and other crimes will get you charged with a felony for illegally possessing a handgun, but will be plea bargained down to a misdemeanor so you only have to spend three days in county jail. Yes, I am being sarcastic, but no, I am not joking.

05FLHT
July 29, 2010, 09:21 AM
This statute could be (and has been - see People v Bruner) used to prosecute people who are "container carrying." One could be in compliance with the UUW and even the wildlife code statute that you keep bringing up, but still be prosecuted under the storage/possession statute above.

There is a reason this law is not used to prosecute in all situations that it could be (driving on any public road, walking on any public street, etc). The statute wouldn't hold water. Just because a law is on the books, doesn't mean the law will stand up in court. Just because someone may be in technical violation of it, doesn't mean the statute will hold up. We still have the Constitution, thankfully, and it seems that even the best-intentioned "legal beagles" forget.

I'm still interested in examples of people prosecuted under the wildlife statute while engaged in any activities that the wildlife code regulates. Throughout the years I've been involved in Illinois gun rights, I've never heard of this happening. I'm sure it's been tried, but I'm highly skeptical there is any established case law.

I don't like the laws in Illinois, as they are written, any more than you do. They are confusing, contradicting and all around as clear as mud. However, there is both the UUW statute and the Wildlife Code to deal with in Illinois when transporting a firearm.

Both of these requirements have been dissected and discussed to death. To be in compliance with the UUW statute you have to meet one of the exemptions, being that the firearm must be unloaded and fully enclosed in a case, or inaccessible, or broken down into a non functioning state. The WC, as it is written, further defines a "case" to be designed to house a firearm.

That is just the way it is. Should a person be charged with a WC (misdemeanor) violation for transporting a firearm in a case not designed to house a firearm when not engaged in the act of hunting, no. Could they be, yes. That is the point. It is only a warning, and as such it is more than fair.

As far as people who transport a firearm, unloaded and fully enclosed in a case designed to house a firearm, being arrested for UUW, that would now appear to be cause for a 1983 civil rights violation suit. John Horstman got $50K from DuPage County for his trouble. My thought is the first local government to pay out $500K is going to open some eyes.

Deanimator
July 29, 2010, 10:36 AM
Should a person be charged with a WC (misdemeanor) violation for transporting a firearm in a case not designed to house a firearm when not engaged in the act of hunting, no.
How do you PROVE the case was "DESIGNED to house a firearm"?

Is it a crime to carry a firearm in a case designed to house a camera which is visually and functionally indistinguishable from one "designed to house a firearm"?

snubbies
July 29, 2010, 11:02 AM
Unload it and throw it in the locked trunk. If it required, and I believe it is, the ammunition be kept separate from the gun, what is the sense of keeping it in the console???

razorback2003
July 29, 2010, 11:24 AM
I'm sorry that you folks in Illinois with clean records are charged with felonies over a silly weapons charge when there is no way to have a pistol loaded in your car or on your person in public....that is stupid.....felony charges are very expensive to deal with compared to misdemeanors.

People in Tennessee are lucky enough that many times the loaded pistol is a Class C Misdemeanor (when not around people) max 500 dollar fine usually.....and confiscation of the pistol when they get caught without a permit for 'intent to go armed'.....not the greatest thing when you can go to Mississippi and Kentucky and have it loaded in the car and no fine....but a Class C Misdemeanor and fine is not the end of the world....they can still get a Handgun Carry Permit after the ordeal and buy guns......carrying of a handgun in public with intent to go armed is usually a Class A Misdemeanor....again a Fine usually for clean records....not good but not the end of the world.....Felonies are so much harder for a lawyer to plea bargain with than misdemeanors....sad very sad for the honest man who may make a mistake or just needs to protect himself when there is no licensing system.

I have known some older folks who, out of habit from Arkansas, TN, MS, when driving up in Illinois....still had their pistols loaded in their gloveboxes..as they normally do....elderly folks just going on their road trips...or the pistol loaded in a gun case like they do when they go anywhere else......a lot of old people do that when traveling....they don't have net access or know how to use the net......sad to think of an old timer charged with a felony over something we don't even think about in this area of the country.

Deanimator
July 29, 2010, 11:50 AM
I have known some older folks who, out of habit from Arkansas, TN, MS, when driving up in Illinois....still had their pistols loaded in their gloveboxes..as they normally do....elderly folks just going on their road trips...or the pistol loaded in a gun case like they do when they go anywhere else......a lot of old people do that when traveling....they don't have net access or know how to use the net......sad to think of an old timer charged with a felony over something we don't even think about in this area of the country.
The legislators (and indirectly the voters) of Illinois have made a conscious decision that it's better for those elderly people to be carjacked and murdered or for a woman to be beaten, raped and murdered than for them to be able to defend themselves outside of their homes. Chicago lawmakers decided that it was better for them to be slaughtered in their homes than to defend themselves.

Illinois is the way it is, because the Illinoisians WANT it that way. If they didn't, they'd have elected people who did something different.

chaplain tom
July 29, 2010, 12:21 PM
"Chicago/Daly/Obama" style politics means that the person who got the most votes isn't necessarily the one who ends up in office. And even more than in other states, even if the person who rightfully won the election actually ends up in office, that don't mean they will follow through on what they said (at least to the public) to get elected. There's a lot more to Illinois politics than meets the eye. Well that's kind of an oxymoron...What goes on in Illinois politics will never meet an eye if you know what I mean. I wouldn't be so quick to blame the people of Illinois for what the "elected" officials do.

Deanimator
July 29, 2010, 01:40 PM
I wouldn't be so quick to blame the people of Illinois for what the "elected" officials do.
I might agree if we were talking at the national level, but not that much even then.

I'm from Chicago and have relatives there. Daley doesn't have to rig the elections. There are enough people there who WILLINGLY vote for him, despite the post-apocalyptic, "Mad Max" nightmare into which he's turned the city.

snubbies
July 29, 2010, 01:44 PM
http://www.isp.state.il.us/media/docdetails.cfm?DocID=75

05FLHT
July 29, 2010, 03:05 PM
How do you PROVE the case was "DESIGNED to house a firearm"?

Is it a crime to carry a firearm in a case designed to house a camera which is visually and functionally indistinguishable from one "designed to house a firearm"?

I would only transport an unloaded firearm, along with a loaded magazine, fully enclosed in a case designed to house a firearm such as a Tommygun fannypack or Maxpedition Versi pack. In other words, a commercially designed unit listed for sale as a "case" that is designed to house a firearm.

As to your question/point in regards to the camera case, yes, it is a WC violation (misdemeanor) to transport in a case not designed to house a firearm. To avoid the confusion, buy the one for the firearm, not the camera.

05FLHT
July 29, 2010, 03:15 PM
Simple answer
Unload it and throw it in the locked trunk. If it required, and I believe it is, the ammunition be kept separate from the gun, what is the sense of keeping it in the console???

There is no statutory requirement that the ammunition must be "kept separate" from the firearm, only that the firearm can not be loaded or not easily accessible. It is arguable that a loaded firearm may be kept locked in the trunk of a vehicle, where it is not easily accessible.

The reason some people would keep a firearm in the console is to have ready access incase of situation arrises that a firearm would be needed (defense of self/others, if the perp is committing a forceable felony). I do not like the idea of keeping a firearm inside of the center console, as if you ajar the console, you are committing UUW. Furthermore, if you made a stop at a location you are not legally allowed to open the console, you must leave the weapon unattended inside of the vehicle. I would rather keep the firearm with me.

snubbies
July 29, 2010, 07:32 PM
http://www.isp.state.il.us/docs/transgun0-000.pdf

Blackbeard
July 29, 2010, 07:56 PM
Can't believe this has dragged on for three pages. Look, bottom line in IL is -- unload it, put it in a case, and keep it out of reach -- usually the trunk is your best bet.

Maybe someone could argue that the law doesn't require the trunk, or the case, or whatever, but if it's going to be unloaded you're not carrying for self-defense anyway. So why risk it? Unloaded, cased, and in the trunk is always safe. If you feel like being a test case for our courts, feel free to try your own interpretation.

05FLHT
July 29, 2010, 09:14 PM
Can't believe this has dragged on for three pages. Look, bottom line in IL is -- unload it, put it in a case, and keep it out of reach -- usually the trunk is your best bet.

Maybe someone could argue that the law doesn't require the trunk, or the case, or whatever, but if it's going to be unloaded you're not carrying for self-defense anyway. So why risk it? Unloaded, cased, and in the trunk is always safe. If you feel like being a test case for our courts, feel free to try your own interpretation.

There is no statutory requirement to keep an unloaded firearm, which is fully enclosed in a case, inaccessible.

The firearm must be inaccessible, or broken down into a non functioning state, or unloaded and enclosed in a case (case designed to house a firearm to meet the WC definition). This is IL State law, other locations may vary. With the new Chicago ordinance the firearm must be unloaded, fully encased AND broken down into a non functioning state.

Some people, myself included, do transport a firearm for self defense. Is it the most effective means of self defense, no. Is it better than needing it and not having one, I think so...

snubbies
July 29, 2010, 09:23 PM
Look up the Statute put your own interpretation on it and we will see you on visitors day

05FLHT
July 30, 2010, 09:20 AM
(720 ILCS 5/24-1) 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, 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, danger- ous 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 contain- ing 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
3
(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 li- censed 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 on 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, 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 con- tact 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
4
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).
(b) Sentence. A person convicted of a violation of subsection 24-1(a)(1) through (5), subsection 24-1(a)(10), or subsection 24-1(a)(11) commits a Class A misdemeanor. A person convicted of a violation of subsection 24- 1(a)(8), 24-1(a)(9), or 24-1(a)(10) 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, 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)(9), or 24-1(a)(10) commits a Class 3 felony.
(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 and managed by a public housing agency, 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 and managed by a public housing agency, 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, or on any public way within 1,000 feet of the real property comprising any school, public park, courthouse, or residential property owned, operated, and managed by a public housing agency commits a Class 2 felony.
(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, and managed by a public housing agency, 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, and managed by a public housing agency, 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, or on any public way within 1,000 feet of the real property comprising any school, public park, courthouse, or residential property owned, operated, and managed by a public housing agency commits a Class 3 felony.
(2) A person who violates subsection 24-1(a)(1) or 24-1(a)(3) in any school, regardless of the time of day or the time of year, in residential property owned, operated and managed by a public housing agency, 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 and managed by a public housing agency, 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, or on any public way within 1,000 feet of the real property comprising any school, public park, courthouse, or residential property owned, operated, and managed by a public housing agency 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.
(d) The 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.

Blackbeard
July 30, 2010, 01:12 PM
There is no statutory requirement that the ammunition must be "kept separate" from the firearm, only that the firearm can not be loaded or not easily accessible. It is arguable that a loaded firearm may be kept locked in the trunk of a vehicle, where it is not easily accessible.

Theoretically true, but, as soon as you open the trunk to retrieve it, it becomes immediately accessible and you've just committed a felony. I'm absolutely sure you'd be arrested if the police were to find a loaded gun in your trunk. It may be legal to transport that way, but you'll get to argue your theory in court.

razorback2003
July 30, 2010, 06:14 PM
From my reading above...it looks like carrying a loaded handgun is a Class A Misdemeanor...not a felony charge in Illinois if someone otherwise has a clean record..say found with a loaded pistol in the glovebox...am I reading that wrong???? Thanks

05FLHT
July 30, 2010, 09:58 PM
so Class A Misdemeanor?
From my reading above...it looks like carrying a loaded handgun is a Class A Misdemeanor...not a felony charge in Illinois if someone otherwise has a clean record..say found with a loaded pistol in the glovebox...am I reading that wrong???? Thanks

Ag UUW is a class 4 felony, with the same exemptions as UUW.

(720 ILCS 5/24‑1.6)
Sec. 24‑1.6. Aggravated unlawful use of a weapon.
(a) A person commits the offense of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon when he or she knowingly:
(1) Carries on or about his or her person or in any

vehicle or concealed on or about his or her person except when on his or her land or in his or her abode, legal dwelling, or fixed place of business, or on the land or in the legal dwelling of another person as an invitee with that person's permission, any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm; or
(2) Carries or possesses on or about his or her

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 or her own land or in his or her own abode, legal dwelling, or fixed place of business, or on the land or in the legal dwelling of another person as an invitee with that person's permission, any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm; and
(3) One of the following factors is present:
(A) the firearm possessed was uncased, loaded and

immediately accessible at the time of the offense; or
(B) the firearm possessed was uncased, unloaded

and the ammunition for the weapon was immediately accessible at the time of the offense; or
(C) the person possessing the firearm has not

been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card; or
(D) the person possessing the weapon was

previously adjudicated a delinquent minor under the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 for an act that if committed by an adult would be a felony; or
(E) the person possessing the weapon was engaged

in a misdemeanor violation of the Cannabis Control Act, in a misdemeanor violation of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act, or in a misdemeanor violation of the Methamphetamine Control and Community Protection Act; or
(F) (blank); or
(G) the person possessing the weapon had a order

of protection issued against him or her within the previous 2 years; or
(H) the person possessing the weapon was engaged

in the commission or attempted commission of a misdemeanor involving the use or threat of violence against the person or property of another; or
(I) the person possessing the weapon was under 21

years of age and in possession of a handgun as defined in Section 24‑3, unless the person under 21 is engaged in lawful activities under the Wildlife Code or described in subsection 24‑2(b)(1), (b)(3), or 24‑2(f).
(b) "Stun gun or taser" as used in this Section has the same definition given to it in Section 24‑1 of this Code.
(c) This Section does not apply to or affect the transportation or possession of weapons that:
(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.
(d) Sentence.
(1) Aggravated unlawful use of a weapon is a Class 4

felony; a second or subsequent offense is a Class 2 felony for which the person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 3 years and not more than 7 years.

05FLHT
July 30, 2010, 10:05 PM
Theoretically true, but, as soon as you open the trunk to retrieve it, it becomes immediately accessible and you've just committed a felony. I'm absolutely sure you'd be arrested if the police were to find a loaded gun in your trunk. It may be legal to transport that way, but you'll get to argue your theory in court.


I am not advocating carrying a loaded firearm in a trunk, I am merely saying due to the ambiguity of the statute it is arguable to legally do so.

In your example, you have pointed out the big issue with transporting a firearm, in that if you do open the container (glove box, camera bag, Tommygun fanny pack, ect..) you have just committed a felony. Illinois does have some pretty good self defense laws, but if you do transport a firearm and find you need to violate one of the exemptions you are taking a risk.

razorback2003
August 1, 2010, 01:37 AM
Thanks for the information from all the Illinois natives.

It looks like i'll be in the clear to legally have my handgun in the trunk, in a case, and unloaded..apart from ammo...I know that sounds a little extra...but I like to avoid any problems as an out of stater. I did read some other Illinois laws and my TN Handgun Carry Permit seems to be a substitute for your IL firearms ID card while I am in Illinois...so that helps too..esepcially if I want to buy ammo and visit a range...should some odd reason I am found to be in possession of my handgun...such as during a traffic accident (most likely way to be found in possession of a handgun). I would put the unloaded handgun in a case in one piece of luggage...and put the luggage in the trunk...avoids hotel folks seeing my gun case..and also car accidents usually just your luggage is taken out of the car.

chaplain tom
August 1, 2010, 03:33 AM
I might agree if we were talking at the national level, but not that much even then.

I'm from Chicago and have relatives there. Daley doesn't have to rig the elections. There are enough people there who WILLINGLY vote for him, despite the post-apocalyptic, "Mad Max" nightmare into which he's turned the city.
He don't get votes from down state, but down state politicians are afraid to go against him...I wonder why that is? I have relatives who live in the west side burbs and many more who live down state, (that's where I orginitated) and the down state people are always griping about having to live by Chicago law. Again, Why is that?

Deanimator
August 1, 2010, 09:55 AM
He don't get votes from down state, but down state politicians are afraid to go against him...I wonder why that is? I have relatives who live in the west side burbs and many more who live down state, (that's where I orginitated) and the down state people are always griping about having to live by Chicago law. Again, Why is that?
Chicago money buys elections that get Chicago Democrats into important positions. Those Chicago Democrats support Daley's agenda. They call it the "combine".

chaplain tom
August 1, 2010, 10:41 AM
It also seems like they work to get Democrats elected down state as well. Then those Democrats are beholden to the guys up north. The people from down state are mostly rural types and small towns people. Their values are different, (not necessarily better, just different) but the politicians elected don't seem to uphold those values. And it never seems to change. They can be voted out, but the next guy in is just as beholden to the Chicago guys as their predecessors. It just never seems to end in Illinois.

Deanimator
August 1, 2010, 11:39 AM
It just never seems to end in Illinois.
It ended for me in 1986.

chaplain tom
August 1, 2010, 11:43 AM
It ended for me when I joined the Navy back in the early seventies. My family members and some old friends still have to deal with it though.

Art Eatman
August 1, 2010, 12:11 PM
And all this politics ended the thread...

If you enjoyed reading about "Transporting guns in Illinois" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!