More than 5 rds CCW = intent?

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

milemaker13

Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
1,389
Location
Chicago suburbs
A coworker just finished his Illinois CCW class. We were talking and he said they told him in class he shouldn't carry more than 5 rounds per magazine because it could show 'intent'. He could carry multiple magazines, but no more than 5 per.

Has anyone heard of this? Its along the same lines of suggesting not to carry hand loads, a modified gun or zombie grips... that a lawyer could claim you had intent....
 
If one is in court from the use of their handgun, the lawyer will call you every thing but a good citizen. I suspect the number of unused cartridges left in the magazine, or not, would not make a difference.

Unless one had a thirty three round magazine, that was empty, because one shot some body else, thirty three times, in the back. That may be intent.:D

So the trainers tell the students to carry only five in a magazine, in Illinois? If one had a sixgun should they only load five? Very strange.
 
I took my CCW class from a Cook County Deputy who I've known for 30 years and a retired Chicago PD detective who is now a criminal defense attorney. They never mentioned this as it's complete malarkey, but did tell me that the number of unqualified instructors teaching CCW classes was concerning to them. I'm guessing the instructor your coworker had is one of those.
 
Sounds like where someone read too many Louis Lamour books.

Back in the late 1800's cowboys used to load their revolvers with 5 rds instead of 6 just in case the revolver fell while cow punching and discharged accidentally. There were no drop safeties back then.

Then when they needed more rds (to defend the honor of that soiled dove) they'd load up the extra chamber if they got a chance.

News flash: It's not 1889 anymore.
 
I’m curious what class and who taught it. You know, so everyone knows where not to go.
 
Most of these stories, which usually center around reloaded "killer" ammo, are hogwash.

A justifiable homicide is just that--justified. And it can't make one iota of difference what weapon, type of ammo, or any other peripheral factor is introduced as "evidence." If the trouble came to you, not the other way around, you're justified.
 
I've been around these type of firearm "experts" most of my adult life. I gave up being amazed at what kind of garbage comes out of their mouths a long time ago. I would have loved to be in on that conversation to ask what the heck he was talking about. And this guys an instructor of some type? To quote Jed Clampett "Pitiful, just plain pitiful."
 
Last edited:
cp1969 said:
A justifiable homicide is just that--justified. And it can't make one iota of difference what weapon, type of ammo, or any other peripheral factor is introduced as "evidence." If the trouble came to you, not the other way around, you're justified.
Click to expand...

Philosophically, yes. Here in the real world, you're wrong.

Massad Ayoob has written of at least one case in which reloads introduced enough confusion into a homicide trial that the defendant went to prison, wrongly in Ayoob's opinion.

It is easily within the realm of possibility that a prosecutor's characterization of the use of reloads could result in a conviction; unlikely, and probably unjust, but definitely possible.
 
It has to be an isolated case. I've never heard of such drivel during my class, or in any of the other classes I've heard of from friends.

I mean, I know it's IL, but come on where does that stuff come from?
 
edwardware said:
Philosophically, yes. Here in the real world, you're wrong.

Massad Ayoob has written of at least one case in which reloads introduced enough confusion into a homicide trial that the defendant went to prison, wrongly in Ayoob's opinion.

It is easily within the realm of possibility that a prosecutor's characterization of the use of reloads could result in a conviction; unlikely, and probably unjust, but definitely possible.
Click to expand...
I can see the reasoning behind the " don't carry hand loads" theory... But this isn't the case here.

But you hit the nail on the head. These things are not said to be against the law, but a lawyer could use them against you in court. Just as the hand load case you speak of... It confused the jury.

I agree with what you all say, I'm almost tempted to go and ask about it. Its a new range /store/ classroom near work. I go frequently to shoot using the monthly pass they offer.

Also, I think most instructors rent class room space, but this is a big corporate place (many chain locations) so its possible the instructor is employed by the range/store.
 
That makes no sense. I will concede that I carry "stock" pistols commonly used by law enforcement (Glock, S&W) and I use factory ammunition from American companies (Federal, Remington). If the question of my equipment should come up in a court case, they would find that I was using the same type pistol and ammo as MOST law enforcement professionals, and likely similar to what the deputies in the courtroom are carrying.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

mcmurry
  • Locked
CCW question -- AR law
Replies
24
Views
1K
Sam1911
S
John Ross
  • Locked
Idiot police in N. St. Louis County
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
bill2
B
C
  • Locked
CA CCW app. with problems
Replies
23
Views
1K
mekender
M
D
  • Locked
Americans Safer in Florida Than in Illinois, Gun Group Says
Replies
1
Views
365
SB88LX
S
S
  • Locked
Reasons for concealed carry
Replies
7
Views
1K
WonderNine
W
Back
Top