Am I missing something regarding Legality

[Wakejefe]

I thought I covered this before in another post but maybe I am missing something.

I posted (in the Trading section)that I am looking to buy a .357 magnum (which I am).
I live in an area of Chicago that prohibits the possession of handguns, however, I am under the impression (from several sources) that I most certainly COULD have the gun delivered to my local gun shop for transfer to me.

Just because I cannot have it in my residence DOES NOT mean that I cannot own/purchase one.

I was accused of trying to insight a felonious transaction.

I AM MISSING SOMETHING?

Jefe

 

[Devonai]

I think most people are simply going to wonder where you're going to store the pistol if not at your residence.

 

[ARperson]

Gotta agree with Devonai on this one from a practicality standpoint. However, I guess from a technical standpoint, you would be correct.

But why on earth would you want to buy something you can't possess?

Second question, can't you just come over to evil Indiana since our lax guns laws make it so easy for you Illinois-ans (what do you call yourselves anyway?) to purchase them and then use them in crimes in Illinois?

Finally, would the FFL even agree to take the transfer knowing that you were not allowed to possess it in your residence? I would think that gunshops in areas where possession is prohibited wouldn't even want to participate in such "what-ifs."

Okay, sorry, one more question: why would you choose to LIVE in a place that denies you your most basic liberties?

 

[Standing Wolf]

I think most people are simply going to wonder where you're going to store the pistol if not at your residence.

I doubt it's anybody's business but the firearm owner's.

 

[eastwood44mag]

When you say you're in an area of Chicago, I'm assuming you mean the city itself.

If you try to buy a handgun with a Chicago address, the police will be at your door as soon as you get home, whether you have it with you or not, and they'll surely charge you with something--it's happened before.

When in doubt, the world is against you.

 

[Wakejefe]

Continued

AR, I hear what you are saying to a certain degree however there are many reasons why I would own a gun I cannot possess.

1. This will likely not be my permanent residence.

2. Neighboring cities do not have the same restriction as my own...therefore I can shoot my weapon there or anywhere else that doesnt have a similar ban (most of the country).

3. What Standing Wolf said.

4. In response to my living in IL; I have no good explanation other than.....well I dont have a good explanation.

Thanks for the insight fellas.
Jefe

 

[Molon Labe]

I am looking to buy a .357 magnum

The money would be better spent on a U-Haul rental.

 

[ARperson]

Given you answer to question 4, you should just move across the state line to the east and all the answers to the previous questions become moot.

Except that you didn't tell me what residents of Illinois call themselves.

I guess what I was trying to ask was why go through the hassle of owning a firearm you can't possess when a mere change of address eliminates the whole conundrum anyway. Even Oprah lived in Indiana at one point (though I'm pretty sure it wasn't because of our wonderful gun laws).

Oh, you neglected to mention that your FOID card address and your drivers license don't match your actual current address (I read your post in the other forum). I definitely wouldn't purchase the firearm with incorrect information on those two pieces of ID. Even in gun-friendly Indiana, I make sure my ID choices are accurate and current. That just goes without saying.

If you do choose to purchase a firearm living in an area that doesn't allow it, at least have your ID forms be accurate. Are you looking for trouble?

 

[Wakejefe]

indeed

AR:

If you must know I am going to begin professional school here in IL based on tution considerations.

"Illinoy-ans" is how you pronounce it.

I couldnt agree more and as I get older I find that leaving the state is becoming a more and more attractive idea. However, "Mere change of address" is a bit of an understatement. There are many factors that go into residence location including (but not limited to) family, investments in real estate, job market, and tuition concerns.

AR, said addresses have been updated accordingly and as you said, accurate IDs "go with out saying".

Jefe

 

[ARperson]

Well, I get the tuition-based decision. Been there myself before.

As far as that change of address: aside from tuition, which I presume to be a temporary thing, every other factor mentioned is affected very little if you just moved across the state line. Really. Your family is still within a day's driving distance. You can still have good job choices in the Chicago area (just one heck of a commute). And you can rent until the finances warrant a larger investment if you are not in a position to buy. (I assume you are renting now anyway?)

Not trying to argue at all. But moving really is easier than one might think once you decide it's the choice for you.

 

[HankB]

I grew up and went to school in Chicago.

I assure you, a great many Chicagoans routinely and repeatedly purchased guns in the suburbs in full 100% compliance with all the Federal, state, and local laws in effect in the jurisdiction where the purchase took place.

OF COURSE they all stored their guns outside the city limits.

 

[scout26]

wakejefe,

As I stated in the other thread, most/many/all FFL's in and around the Chicagoland area will NOT do a transfer to someone with a FOID having a "verbotten" address. Reason being is that once they make the call to the ISP for the NICS check, the JBT's from Daley's CAGE unit is going to be beating down the FFL's door to look at his bound book, then they'll be on their way to your house.

First Question from ISP and/or ATF agent to FFL :
"Why did you sell a handgun to someone who lives in a "Verbotten" village/town ??"
The "Interview" with the FFL will only go downhill from there. Oh, and then in couple of years when he goes to re-new his FFL (If he still has it).........


First the Party Line on CAGE:
http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/gun_violence/profile11.html

Now from the ISRA:

Confiscation of Registered Guns Begins in Illinois

Illinois State Rifle Association | September 8 2004

Photo: Chicago Anti Gun Enforcement (CAGE) unit. This elite squad, operated jointly by the Illinois State Police, the Chicago Police Department, and the Cook County State's Attorney's Office, supposedly exists to identify illegal gunrunners. However, information gained by the ISRA makes it clear that the CAGE unit is targeting law-abiding citizens, not criminal gunrunners.

The Chicago Police Department and the Illinois State Police have teamed up to make good on Mayor Daley's pledge that, if it were up to him, nobody would have a gun. Daley and his elite "CAGE" unit are apparently taking advantage of gun privacy loopholes to pinpoint certain individuals for inclusion in the confiscation program.

The ISRA is following up on leads in one case that has disturbing implications. An elderly first-generation Chicago resident was recently paid a visit by an Illinois State Police trooper. After asking to come inside the man's home, the trooper asked if the man owned a gun - to which he replied yes. The trooper then directed the individual to surrender the firearm. The man complied with the officer's demand and the trooper left with the gun. And the story gets better...

The gun in question was purchased legally by the man in the 1970s shortly after he became a U.S. citizen. When Chicago's infamous gun registration scheme went into effect in the early 1980s, the man registered the firearm as per the requirement. However, over the years, the fellow apparently forgot to re-register the firearm, and forgot to renew his Illinois FOID Card.

So...what does this all mean?

In the last edition of The Illinois Shooter, we reported on the activities of a shady taskforce known as the Chicago Anti Gun Enforcement (CAGE) unit. This elite squad, operated jointly by the Illinois State Police, the Chicago Police Department, and the Cook County State's Attorney's Office, supposedly exists to identify illegal gunrunners. However, information gained by the ISRA makes it clear that the CAGE unit is targeting law-abiding citizens, not criminal gunrunners.

Thanks to a ruling by a liberal federal judge, the CAGE unit now has the name of every single person in the United States who, since 1992, lawfully purchased more than one handgun in the period of a week. The CAGE unit also has all the makes, models and serial numbers of those guns. In essence, the Chicago Police Department is now registering guns and gun owners nationwide.

The ISRA has also learned that the CAGE unit has compiled a list of families where more than one person in that family holds a FOID card. Acting on that information, the CAGE unit is now contacting gun shops where those families have shopped, and is illegally registering all guns purchased by those families.

Now, it appears that the CAGE unit is scrubbing Chicago's gun registration list against the list of FOID card holders. Indications are that folks who have let their registrations and FOIDs lapse will have their guns confiscated. We have to wonder how long it will be until state troopers show up at the doors to confiscate the guns of non-Chicago residents who have let their FOIDs expire.

More later as this story develops.

 

[Wakejefe]

ouch

Scout:

Great information. That is enough to make one want to run away from this city. The more I learn about the whole situation the more it becomes a cascade of headaches.

I was erroneously under the impression that if you followed the rules then you werent going to get stepped on. ie.

Govt: "You cannot bring a handgun into the City of _____"

Me: "Sounds good "big brother", I will just use it somewhere else."


BOY WAS I WRONG.

Guess I need to re-evaluate the situation; whether or not exercising my Right is worth the hassles/fines/incarceration that may lie ahead.

AR:

I hear you on the moving situation. Something to consider.


Jefe

 

[fantacmet]

Speaking from a constitution standpoint, I would like to know by what grounds a city may ban firearms? If any city tried that crap here the state would shut it down with the first person arrested for firearms ownership. Last I heard NO MUNICIPALITY AT ALL, could override a right guaranteed by the constitution, and could not override federal law. Seems the little locals are above any law but their own now, and thats anywhere.

Rev. Michael

P.S. I would say screw them and own one anyway, sure I could sue the living hell out of the city if my family was murdered in a home invasion, but no amount of money is going to be any comfort for losing my family.

 

[Wakejefe]

clarify

To be clear; my city does not ban all firearms. I am allowed to be in possession of long guns. However, a city directly to my west bans possession of all firearms.

In response to your question; I have no idea how a municipality can "override" my state's and the US's Constitution.

According to my municipal code: "This chapter and the penalties prescribed for violation hereof, shall not supercede, but shall supplement all statutes of the state of IL or of the United States."

According to the IL state constitution: "the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Perhaps someone could enlighten the Rev. and me.

Jefe

 

[scout26]

According to the IL state constitution: "the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Wakejefe,

You forgot one little part, the part at the beginning, the whole thing reads:

"Subject to police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." [emphasis mine]

Then there's the Morton Grove decision. That fantacmet, et al, is how they can prohibit firearms in their little "violence free petting zoos".

Guess I need to re-evaluate the situation; whether or not exercising my Right is worth the hassles/fines/incarceration that may lie ahead.

With Apologies to Art's Granmaw...

BULLHOCKEY That's exactly what they are trying to do. They're making the task of exercising your rights so onerous that you choose not to. Then they win. Death by a Thousand Cuts. Find a town near where you want to live that does not have anti-gun laws, move there, and buy lots of guns.
Don't let the b@st@rds win.

Here's the list of towns/villages with firearm ordinances. Some are fairly minor (e.g. Wheaton requires FFL's to get a $5 business licence and their bound book can be examined by the Wheaton PD at anytime.) others make the Brady's smile.
http://www.isp.state.il.us/foid/ordinances.cfm

 

[deadin]

Find a town near where you want to live that does not have anti-gun laws, move there, and buy lots of guns. Don't let the b@st@rds win.

And they will still have won by driving you out so they can continue to have their little "Utopia"

 

[3rdpig]

And they will still have won by driving you out so they can continue to have their little "Utopia"

Which in some warped way can be perceived as a good thing. Criminals will flock to their little utopia knowing that they can prey on the inhabitants with little fear for their lives. Their crime rates will go up and up and up.

While nearby, in cities and states that don't prevent the inhabitants from owning the tools of self protection, there will be fewer criminals and those left will have to live in fear of their lives when they practice their trade.

Sooner or later everyone but the most dyed in the wool liberal is going to put two and two together. It's already happening, In Kansas their Democrat governor vetoed their new CCW law and got her backside handed to her with an over ride. The over ride had Democrat support against a democrate governor.

I say let the liberals have their isolated utopias where the citizens run scared and the criminals don't, and the rest of us will have a better life because of it.