Interesting question about Il carry and hotels in Chicago

Illinois hotel/motel ROOM is considered a temporary domicile and you are entitled to protect it.
As for the rest of that, Not sure if they have past the reciprocacy laws yet.
They are a coming.
What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas once they do.
What the hotel doesn't know won't hurt you and security cannot do stop and frisk.

I don't think Illinois will ever grant reciprocity to out-of-state CCL holders, the legislature is controlled by anti-gun politicians and it is not going to happen, unless it is somehow mandated by a court.

That being said, a hotel or motel guest does have a right under Illinois law to keep a firearm with them in their hotel room, it is their domicile.

What gets tricky is transporting your firearm.

Know the FOID act:

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1657&ChapterID=39

(430 ILCS 65/2) (from Ch. 38, par. 83-2)
Sec. 2. Firearm Owner's Identification Card required; exceptions.
(a) (1) No person may acquire or possess any firearm,
stun gun, or taser within this State without having in his or her possession a Firearm Owner's Identification Card previously issued in his or her name by the Department of State Police under the provisions of this Act.
(2) No person may acquire or possess firearm ammunition within this State without having in his or her possession a Firearm Owner's Identification Card previously issued in his or her name by the Department of State Police under the provisions of this Act.
(b) The provisions of this Section regarding the possession of firearms, firearm ammunition, stun guns, and tasers do not apply to:

(9) Nonresidents whose firearms are unloaded and enclosed in a case;

Click to expand...

It is not real clear just what some of the stuff means. The Firearms Concealed Carry Act says this.

Section 70
(a-10) The owner of private real property of any type may prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms on the property under his or her control. The owner must post a sign in accordance with subsection (d) of this Section indicating that firearms are prohibited on the property, unless the property is a private residence.

Click to expand...

Note that the term "concealed firearms" is used in the first sentence. That term is defined in the act to mean concealed handgun.

In the second sentence it only says firearms.

Some people are claiming that it is not "carrying" a firearm if it is unloaded and in some kind of case, which they have taken to calling "transporting" as distinguished from "carrying". This is no where in the law, but it has become an article of faith among a few despite the fact the the law itself refers to this activity as "carrying".

In general there is no UUW issue with having a firearm in a hotel (other than in the bar). That does not make it legal, especially if it has been posted.

There is no special rule in IL regarding some right to keep a gun in your home. The vague language of the Heller decision says it is, but the breadth of that decision is unclear.

unless the property is a private residence.

Click to expand...

And that's the kicker. Does the state consider a hotel/motel/inn room a "private residence" of any persons paying to stay there? That, if addressed, would likely be in some other section of state law.

MedWheeler; hotel rooms, campsites, campers, etc all fall under the legal definition of "Dwelling" in Illinois.

CCW Illionios

I though Illinois CCW for out of state was not effective until June of 2014. Is this right or wrong?

"sometime around June", and maybe.

If you have an out of state CCW you can legally carry a loaded firearm in your car. You have to disarm when getting out of your vehicle.

No matter what, though, in state, out of state, CCW or no CCW, you can keep a loaded firearm in your "dwelling", even if said dwelling is temporary in nature.

So if you have a resident Indiana permit, you could drive to downtown Chicago wearing a loaded firearm. Disarm to exit your vehicle in the parking deck - making sure that it is unloaded and in a case - check in, then re-arm yourself once you are in your room.

MedWheeler said:

And that's the kicker. Does the state consider a hotel/motel/inn room a "private residence" of any persons paying to stay there? That, if addressed, would likely be in some other section of state law.

Click to expand...

the "unless the private property is a residence" applies to the requirement to post the sign, and nothing else. read it carefully.

Trent said:

"sometime around June", and maybe.

If you have an out of state CCW you can legally carry a loaded firearm in your car. You have to disarm when getting out of your vehicle.

No matter what, though, in state, out of state, CCW or no CCW, you can keep a loaded firearm in your "dwelling", even if said dwelling is temporary in nature.

So if you have a resident Indiana permit, you could drive to downtown Chicago wearing a loaded firearm. Disarm to exit your vehicle in the parking deck - making sure that it is unloaded and in a case - check in, then re-arm yourself once you are in your room.

Click to expand...

i think this is generally true although it's unclear to me just what the FCCA posting of signs actually does legally. It is so badly written that it might mean all kinds of things. In the end, that might mean it means nothing. At this point, it has not been looked at by the courts so I would be inclined to obey the wishes of private property owners and not bring your firearms on their property. I'd be inclined to obey their wishes just on general principles any way. It is their property, they get to make the rules.

ilbob, I wasn't addressing the requirement to post a sign. I was addressing the concept of a hotel room as being a "private residence" of anyone paying to stay there. That question has been answered, and it appears that one would have to be permitted to keep a firearm within one's "private residence", even if same is a hotel room.

Now, getting it to the room through the hotel's "common" property, if the establishment is indeed posted, would be the tricky part.

ilbob said:

i think this is generally true although it's unclear to me just what the FCCA posting of signs actually does legally. It is so badly written that it might mean all kinds of things. In the end, that might mean it means nothing. At this point, it has not been looked at by the courts so I would be inclined to obey the wishes of private property owners and not bring your firearms on their property. I'd be inclined to obey their wishes just on general principles any way. It is their property, they get to make the rules.

Click to expand...

Yeah that's the kicker, ILBob.

Sec. 65. Prohibited areas.
(a) A licensee under this Act shall not knowingly carry a firearm on or into:

Click to expand...

Says nothing about loaded/unloaded, doesn't specify handgun/rifle/shotgun, or concealed/not concealed.

If we look at the plain language used... it's dicey at best on whether you can even have an unloaded, cased *shotgun* on the property (e.g. you are travelling to hunt and don't want to leave the expensive shotgun in the car).

If the law were to read:

(a) A licensee under this Act shall not knowingly carry a concealed, loaded handgun on or into:

It would have been more clear than mud, at least.

With this being said the law ONLY affects "licensee" so YOU and *I* have to deal with this BUT an out of state visitor doesn't. They default strictly to *Unlawful Use of Weapons* and *Aggravated Unlawful Use of Weapons* AND POSTED SIGNS DO NOT APPLY TO THEM.

Trent said:

Yeah that's the kicker, ILBob.

...

With this being said the law ONLY affects "licensee" so YOU and *I* have to deal with this BUT an out of state visitor doesn't. They default strictly to *Unlawful Use of Weapons* and *Aggravated Unlawful Use of Weapons* AND POSTED SIGNS DO NOT APPLY TO THEM.

Click to expand...

I am not yet a licensee. Like a lot of people who might otherwise be interested, the prospect of getting a license that basically allows me to keep a loaded gun in my car does not thrill me.

I probably will eventually get around to taking the class and getting one, but I am in no real hurry. It is $300-500 I would rather spend on ammo.

Sec. 65. Prohibited areas.
(a) A licensee under this Act shall not knowingly carry a firearm on or into:

Click to expand...

Says nothing about loaded/unloaded, doesn't specify handgun/rifle/shotgun, or concealed/not concealed.

If we look at the plain language used... it's dicey at best on whether you can even have an unloaded, cased *shotgun* on the property (e.g. you are travelling to hunt and don't want to leave the expensive shotgun in the car).

Click to expand...

Yes, and since the law is so clumsily worded, we can focus on the fact that the prohibition is only on carrying firearms into such places. Put it in your rolling luggage and it's no longer being "carried".

ETA: You could also get your non-licensee spouse to carry your unloaded cased firearm in for you.

The Firearm Concealed Carry Act allows persons with a Firearm Concealed Carry License to carry a loaded or unloaded, concealed handgun when not on their own property.
Someone from out of state isn't going to be able to do that as of now, if ever.
Those people will need to transport their firearm, not necessarily a handgun, in accordance with Article 24, section 24-1. It will need to be unloaded and in a case.
Where signs are posted per the FCCA, this applies to people carrying a loaded or unloaded, concealed handgun.
The FCCA does not apply, and no FCCL is required, to transport a unloaded, cased firearm.
The above mention of the provision in the FCCA in regard to private property owners states that the property owner "may prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms on the property under his or her control."
The part where it says: "The owner must post a sign in accordance with subsection (d) of this Section indicating that firearms are prohibited on the property, unless the property is a private residence." means that IF the owner want to prohibit the carry of concealed firearms on the property they had better put up the sign.
The FCCA only allows the owner to prohibit concealed carry. Too much is being read into the second sentence. It is poorly worded, but the first sentence is the controlling, limiting sentence. The second sentence is the conditions under which the owner conveys this legal notice to the public.
If someone is going to be charged with transporting a unloaded, cased firearm in the private, posted location, the charge has to point to the specific words that demonstrate the law was broken. It is clear that only concealed handguns are allowed to be banned in the location. The statute does not say the owner "may prohibit the presence of firearms on the property under is or her control", it says only concealed firearms. And of course, in IL, only handguns are ever allowed to be concealed.
In summary, it is my opinion and my interpretation that:
1. The entire law is poorly written, this seems to be a trademark of IL legislation.
2. Only concealed handguns can be prohibited by a property owner.
3. The transportation of a unloaded, cased firearm into a posted private property, regardless of any posted sign, is not a violation of the FCCA or the UUW laws of the State of IL.

If someone is going to be charged with transporting a unloaded, cased firearm in the private, posted location, the charge has to point to the specific words that demonstrate the law was broken. It is clear that only concealed handguns are allowed to be banned in the location. The statute does not say the owner "may prohibit the presence of firearms on the property under is or her control", it says only concealed firearms. And of course, in IL, only handguns are ever allowed to be concealed.
In summary, it is my opinion and my interpretation that:
1. The entire law is poorly written, this seems to be a trademark of IL legislation.
2. Only concealed handguns can be prohibited by a property owner.
3. The transportation of a unloaded, cased firearm into a posted private property, regardless of any posted sign, is not a violation of the FCCA or the UUW laws of the State of IL.

Click to expand...

The wording is screwy, but the FCCA does say that "no licensee under this act shall carry a firearm" on or into these areas. No mention of concealed/unconcealed, loaded or unloaded. So it would seem that you could be charged under FCCA if you bring your unloaded cased firearm into a posted area, provided you have a CCL license. An unlicensed person could not be so charged.

Do you have a FCCL? please read the back of it.
This is where the endless loop starts about gotcha laws in IL.
Where there are 2 laws, one says the penalty is x and the other says the penalty is y, you are entitled to the penalty that is the lesser.
This is the basis of why the IL AUUW law was found to be unconstitutional for anyone who holds a FOID card. In that case, you could have been charged for carrying a loaded, uncased gun under the AUUW law, a felony, or you could have been charged under the UUW law, a misdemeanor. The ILSC says the UUW law was the only appropriate charge because the lesser must apply.
In this case, we have one law that says, according to you, that it's a crime to carry a cased, unloaded firearm into a posted location while you hold a FOID card and an FCCL. On the other hand, we have another law that says that a FOID holder is specifically exempt from the UUW law, and of course the FCCA wouldn't apply because the person doesn't have a FCCL, and they are not carrying an uncased firearm. The lesser charge is ------ nothing. You would be entitled to no charges because of the exemption in section 24-2 (I) under article 24. You can't penalize someone because they have obtained a license that allows them to do something more than what someone who hasn't obtained the license can do.
That is called an absurd outcome.

You can't penalize someone because they have obtained a license that allows them to do something more than what someone who hasn't obtained the license can do.
That is called an absurd outcome.

Click to expand...

We live in an absurd state.

Over on another forum site, an example scenario was given as to what a judge/jury would do to decide if what you are worried about was actually what the law means.
I am adapting this to the subject at discussion here.

Mrs. FOID Jones and Mr. FCCL Jones are entering the same Hotel. The Hotel has a IL compliant "no concealed firearms' sign conspicuously posted at all entrances.
It is the policy of the Hotel that no guns are allowed on premises.
Mrs. FOID Jones and Mr. FCCL Jones are both in possession of handguns. The guns are both unloaded and inside their overnight bags they have brought with them to the Hotel. The ammunition for their handguns is also inside the same overnight bags.

The Hotel somehow discovers that these people are both in possession of handguns in their overnight bags. The Hotel manager calls the police, the police come and interview both Mrs. and Mr. Jones. They freely admit that they are both in possession of handguns that are currently unloaded and in a "case", further that Mrs. Jones has a valid FOID card and Mr. FCCL Jones has not only a valid FOID card, he also has a valid FCCL.

The police arrest both of them because they have guns in their possession while on property that has a IL compliant "no concealed carry" sign and that the hotel policy is no guns allowed. The police decide "to arrest them all and let the Judge sort it out". The Police charge both of them with violating the FCCA, specifically 430 ILCS 66/10 where it states under paragraph 10 (g) and 430 ILCS 66/65 (a-10) which is where private property owners must post a sign to prohibit concealed firearms:

(g) A licensee shall possess a license at all times the licensee carries a concealed firearm except:
(1) when the licensee is carrying or possessing a concealed firearm 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;
(2) when the person is authorized to carry a firearm under Section 24-2 of the Criminal Code of 2012, except subsection (a-5) of that Section; or
(3) when the handgun is broken down in a non-functioning state, is not immediately accessible, or is unloaded and enclosed in a case.

Click to expand...

The cases go to trial. At trial, the Judge examines the evidence both for and against Mrs. FOID Jones.
First, he dismisses the case against Mrs. FOID Jones; the charges cannot possibly apply to her as she does not possess a FCCL, he also finds that she was possessing the firearm in accordance with Section 24-2 (I) of the UUW law, which states that nothing in the Article prevents someone with a valid FOID card from possessing a firearm as long as it is unloaded and in a case.
Second, with respect to Mr. FCCL Jones's case, he notes that he just ruled that someone who is possessing an unloaded, cased firearm who has a valid FOID card was just found not guilty . He further notes that the FCCA, under Paragraph 10 (g) specifically notes that when in possession of a firearm that is not concealed, if it is being carried in accordance with section 24-2, possession of the license is not required. He also notes that the firearm was not being carried concealed or loaded or uncased, therefore there is no violation of the FCCA act. He reads the back of the FCCL and notices that the aforementioned paragraph 10 (g) is already printed on there and that the police could have read that at the time they were preparing to arrest Mr. Jones.
He also notes that all people must be treated equally under our laws per our Constitution. He adds that it would be absurd to convict one person and find the other guilty where both people have exactly the same circumstances.

After that comes the 1983 suits.

10(g) has absolutely nothing to do with any of what is being claimed here. It ONLY says when you do not have to have the license in your physical possession while carrying a concealed firearm. Any other time you are carrying a concealed firearm the license has to be in your physical possession.

ilbob said:

10(g) ........It ONLY says when you do not have to have the license in your physical possession while carrying a concealed firearm. Any other time you are carrying a concealed firearm the license has to be in your physical possession.

Click to expand...

Possibly you have screwed up that first sentence? You always need the license in your possession when carrying a concealed handgun. When not carrying a concealed handgun, the license is not required, and 24-2 exemptions, among a couple of others, apply.

wildbilll said:

Possibly you have screwed up that first sentence? You always need the license in your possession when carrying a concealed handgun. When not carrying a concealed handgun, the license is not required, and 24-2 exemptions, among a couple of others, apply.

Click to expand...

That is not what section 10(g) says. It tells you when you can carry without having the license in your physical possession. Nothing else. Read it carefully.

(g) A licensee shall possess a license at all times the licensee carries a concealed firearm except:

Click to expand...

It is pretty unambiguous.

Then it lists situations in which a licensee can carry a concealed firearm without having the license in his physical possession.

"sometime around June", and maybe.

If you have an out of state CCW you can legally carry a loaded firearm in your car. You have to disarm when getting out of your vehicle.

No matter what, though, in state, out of state, CCW or no CCW, you can keep a loaded firearm in your "dwelling", even if said dwelling is temporary in nature.

So if you have a resident Indiana permit, you could drive to downtown Chicago wearing a loaded firearm. Disarm to exit your vehicle in the parking deck - making sure that it is unloaded and in a case - check in, then re-arm yourself once you are in your room.

Click to expand...

So Trent, are you saying that later this year I can drive out to IL and keep my CCW pistol with me now as long as I am in the vehicle? Good to know if I'm out your way. I hear those IL peppers can be dangerous and one should be armed.

No, Jeff, I'm saying you can do that RIGHT NOW. You've been able to "carry" in IL longer than any IL resident have. Starting the moment it was signed in to law, ALL out of state permits were honored *but only in the vehicle*.

You need an IL non-resident permit (not currently available yet), to be able to carry "in general".