Illegal concealed carry in Illinois

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fair enough, ISP, but there are two problems with that:

1. It only really makes any difference if you start from the assumption that a so-called "fanny pack" is a different item from a so-called "case." You make that distinction, but the law doesn't. And since they're discussing the UUW code there, not the Wildlife Code, there's even less substance to that objection since they acknowledge that it doesn't even have to be a case, fanny-pack or otherwise. It could be a gunny sack or (as in the case cited) a purse, and it would still be legal.

2. Gary didn't just pull that from nowhere--those are the words of the Appellate Court judges who decided Bruner v. Illinois--the ones who ruled that an unloaded gun in a purse was legal. If you can name a substantive difference between a purse and a fanny pack I'll eat my hat. The closest I believe anyone could come would be to mention the buckle that allows the fanny pack's strap to be opened and closed around the waist. Other than that, it's just a pouch on a strap, just like most women's purses.


I realize you're more than half playing devil's advocate here. That's OK; I'd argue with the Devil or pretty much anyone else. :)
 
Is there any way to try to get a definitive ruling from the Attorney General on this issue? My guess is that Ms. Madigan would be very antagonistic to the "fanny pack exeption" but it would be helpful to know, and her office's guidance probably does influence local State's Attorney offices.
 
"What they did or did not envision is not my problem."

Nor mine. I think you think I am making a distinction. I'm not. All I have been saying is the legislature didn't think of fanny packs when they tought of cases. The end result was fanny packs had to be included as a case. There was no wink and a nudge by the legislators to write any law to intentionally allow a pseudo-CCW. They were not intending that at all, but that was what unintentionally resulted.


"I had several conversations with a man named Green. His first name escapes me now, (Mark I think)"

Marty. I know him very well. He's a very good friend of mine. I've known him for several years.


" I thought that there ought to be an official "Opinion" issued from the Attorney General. "

So did we which is why we contacted them. We wanted an official opinion so there would be no confusion about what was legal and to keep the good old Joe Citizen from getting tricked up when good ole Joe thought he was doing the right thing. The AG's office would not give an opinion because as I said previously, no one wanted to touch the topic and go on record. The AG's office took the way out by leaving it up to the individual SAs to decide. When we contacted the SAs we got the full range of answers and opinion which basically wasn't any more helpful to the citizens and created a patchwork even more confusing.
 
"It only really makes any difference if you start from the assumption that a so-called "fanny pack" is a different item from a so-called "case." You make that distinction, but the law doesn't. "

Here's the deal. I'm not making a distinction. You're reading way too much into what I'm saying.
I fully understand the law doesn't make the distinction. When fanny pack issue came up a few years ago there were several legislators who suddenly realized that the law didn't make the distinction. That's when the phone calls and meeting started.
You seem to think I'm against fanny pack carry. That's not now, nor ever has been, my position. The way the law is now, my opinion, it's legal. My entire point all along has been tho that the legislature didn't intend for it. My point has also always been, if you are going to fanny pack carry then check with your local SA before doing it. And once again, when this became a public topic a few years ago, every state's attorney in the state was contacted and some said they would prosecute. Whether they would win or not is irrelevant if you're the guy who has to go to jail, pay the bond, take time off work, and pay the legal fees. My purpose all along is if a person is going to do it, be careful and don't assume it will be universally accepted across the state.
I'm not playing devil's advocate as I haven't taken a position until recently which has been in support of it. My posts all along have only been for one purpose, which if you relax and re-read and not assume I have been against, has been very clear to warn people to be very careful if you do fanny pack carry. I have some knowledge of it as it's something I was involved in researching as an agency and privately.
From the very beginning of this some time ago you seem to have jumped to the conclusion that I have been against fanny pack carry. That is not the case and in no way reflective of any of my posts. It has always been informational so Joe Citizen has what info we have in order to stay out of trouble. Joe Citizen does not have the resources, or the ability to get his foot in the door a lot of times, to research these. All I've ever done is pass on info that we have in order for Joe to stay out of trouble. Don't read any more into my posts than that.
 
As I said, I did not intend to start a fight with you. If I made assumptions that were not appropriate, I apologize.
I guess, that my argument is with the LEO's and prosecutors that have a problem with their reading skillls. They don't have to like it, but it says what it says. Failing to be able to read has cost DuPage county a lot of money and I am convinced that it cost the SA in Marion county his job. (I would like to think so anyway--He decided not to run again.)
You were also very correct in your statement on how easy it is to commit a felony, inadvertently, because of the section on "Prohibited Places".
It just really astounds me though, that gangbangers are treated with discretion while "Joe Sixpack" is given no slack whatsoever. I don't get it!
 
"As I said, I did not intend to start a fight "

Nor I. My ONLY intent was to get the info out there that we tried to get a statewide ruling on how the IL AG and all 102 SAs were going to view the issue so we don't have people getting tricked up by a wide range of opinions. Very few would go on record with an opinion. My message has been from the very start, long before this thread, is to be very careful as not every SA across the state has interpreted the law favorably for fanny pack carry. Some have jumped to the conclusion that my bringing this info forward somehow makes me anti-fanny pack. That has never been the case. The purpose all along has been to show there have been attempts at official levels to get a statewide concensus, one way or the other, so people don't have this patchwork of opinions from various counties. Unfortunately, the opinions of Joe Citizen don't really matter. It's the opinion of the SAs who decide if they are going to attempt prosecution of any case that we need a response from.
 
It seems that our argument is in essence "a distinction without a difference." It seems that we have independently tried to solve this problem. There should be a ruling by the AG. I think the problem is that the ruling would not be of the liking of the AG if it were made with strict legal underpinnings. Therefore, rather than make a ruling that is not to the liking of the AG, then a ruling is not made. Very unprofessional--unless you are a professional politician. That is the point, I presume.

And to be clear, it is good to know that someone other than me was trying to accomplish the same goal. You had a much better chance of getting a ruling than I did, but we both tried.

In reading postings on Illinois web sites, it is clear that the people who truly believe in the "right to self defense" saw this ridiculous situation as a "call to arms", so to speak, in a county by county battle. There are many who are willing to take the legal and financial risks that exist. But this game is for those who are well versed in the situation and understand the risks involved.
 
"Therefore, rather than make a ruling that is not to the liking of the AG, then a ruling is not made. Very unprofessional--unless you are a professional politician. That is the point, I presume."

Exactly. Not only the AG but nearly every one of the state's attorneys too. It was rare to get any of them to go on record as to what they would do. They just didn't want to touch the topic. The almost universal response was "bring us each incident and we'll decide on an individual basis." Now, imagine you're the cop working midnights, the direction from your SA is call him on each case, and then you get someone carrying fanny pack style. Do you think you would get an opinion at 2 AM? So what are the cops suppose to do? Most likely what everyone else does. He's going to think if the SA won't go on record then as a cop I'm not going to mess with it either.
It's a topic that no matter which way the SA, AG, or legislator goes he knows it's going to cost him votes from one side or the other. Therefore, in order to not alienate either side, their position is to take no public position. That's politics.
 
IIRC This subject was brought up in the legislature last year during discussion of the bill SB2463 the governor vetoed and sustained about state wide transportation laws of firearms. This included Limetis Nargelenis (sorry if I mispelled your name) who at the time was acting as a ISP spokesman, and some anti- gun legislators, I believe Cullerton was one of them. Nargelenis basicly said fanny pack carry was legal but ammo should not be in the case with the firearm, which is not what the statutes say. The anti's argument for keeping the law that allows certain cities to have their own more restrictive transportation laws was so these cities could continue to ban fanny pack carry, even tho it is technicly legal in the state. Jim.
 
No, I've been reading what you write for awhile now and I don't believe at all that you're against fanny pack carry, nor do I think you wouldn't celebrate if the legislature decided to man up and pass real concealed carry legislation.

I believe you're worried that fanny pack advocates are getting people worked up and some people are going to jump into it without considering all aspects, then wonder who will come and save them if things do go wrong and they end up arrested or worse.

I believe you have a deep and abiding faith that There Ain't No Such Thing as a Free Lunch and if something seems too good to be true, it probably is.

I also believe you're a stickler for accuracy and it bothers you to think that a lot of people have been given the impression that fanny pack carry, specifically, has at least the tacit approval of the legislature--which is enough to save them if they're arrested practicing it.

Am I pretty close? This is what I mean by Devil's Advocate. You would like everyone to be able to carry a concealed handgun in Illinois, but you feel duty-bound to bring up every reason not to do it, if for no other reason than to inspire thoughtful caution in people with good intentions.
We can both relax. I know who my enemies are. I also know who's on my side.
 
Interesting discussion. Thanks for keeping it on-point.

Another question: Does the law make a distinction between Illinois residents and out-of-state visitors?
 
The anti's argument for keeping the law that allows certain cities to have their own more restrictive transportation laws was so these cities could continue to ban fanny pack carry, even tho it is technicly legal in the state.
Click to expand...

That's an important point. However, I'm going to go ahead and make ISP2605's point for him because he's been working hard and he deserves it:
That has just about as much force of law as that spokesman's declaration that you can't have ammo in the case--zero. It doesn't mean anything to a court of law. It MIGHT mean something to a police officer if you personally bring it up to him and convince him it's important. Maybe.

Even so, I get what you're saying. The powers that be are tacitly admitting that fanny pack carry is legal. But I carry that way secure in the knowledge that somewhere, probably in my own county, there are cops who might arrest me for it anyway, and I place no faith in the promises of princes. The powers that be are notorious for "tacitly admitting" something, only to deny it when they think the wind has shifted enough.
 
"you feel duty-bound to bring up every reason not to do it, if for no other reason than to inspire thoughtful caution in people with good intentions."

I have never said "not to do it". I have always said, if you do it, just be aware there are pitfalls out there that could get someone in a major legal bind. You bet I'm a stickler for accuracy. A person has to be a stickler for accuracy when dealing with legal issues. There's too much at risk not be a stickler. There is so much inaccurate, incorrect, and incomplete info tossed out on the internet which could get someone into some serious legal trouble. Anyone who has been on these forums any time at all has read these knucklehead's statements of "just do it and go to court." I'm a stickler because I realize that is where the real tragedy would be when good citizen Joe gets in trouble thinking he was doing right. There is so much inaccurate BS put out on the internet that some poor Joe could read what is completely wrong, and thinking he was doing right because someone who didn't have a clue told him wrong info, and guess who ends up having to fight the legal battle? It's not the guy putting out the BS. It will be poor ole Joe who thought he was doing right but took info from some internet "expert" who didn't have a clue and was talking what he thought the way things should be instead of the way things really are. You have to be a stickler for accuracy when dealing with legal matters. If not, you'll end up in front of a judge who is a stickler, and that gets expensive, in more ways than financial. Wouldn't you, and most honest folks, feel terrible if they gave an opinion which resulted in some other honest person needlessly getting in legal trouble? The whole thought is to try to help people stay out of trouble.
 
Yes, there is a difference between Illinois residents and out-of-state visitors--only because people from other states can not, as a rule, have a FOID card. Therefore, in order to be legal as a visitor from another state, a person with a firearm would have to go to those exceptions that do NOT include having a FOID card. I have heard some people fix in their minds that because they are not allowed to get a FOID card, then the requirement to have one does not apply to them. They are wrong!

I understand exactly what ISP is saying. I have had conversations with those in neighboring states that have heard about fanny pack carry and, of course, since they are used to having CCW they just can't imagine having to stop at the border to unload, case, and place in trunk. Either that or disassemble the firearm and place in trunk. (If someone tells me that my statements are not "letter of law" accurate, I will agree, but I think this is the best way to stay on time to your destination if you are from out-of-state and feel like you must travel with a firearm.) I hear the cliche's like "to be judged by 12 rather than carried by six" or "concealed is concealed". No matter how I have tried to explain the mindset and the law in Illinois, I have thought of myself as having been beating my head against a wall.

The point that ISP was making, is a good one. There are people in Illinois with FOID cards that don't understand the ramifications of the act of "fanny pack" carry nor how easy it is to be technically legal in one location and be committing a felony in another. Not only that, even if you are technically legal, the fact is that you may have to go to court to prove it. That would include a few nights in jail perhaps, a large bond, and legal expenses. Fanny pack carry is not for the ill informed or the faint of heart.
 
Good discussion guys. Very informative and interesting, even for those who have no interest in attempting to carry in Illinois.
 
I don't think that Judy Baar-Topinka would sign a CCW bill even if it got passed by the assembly and we will not get one passed with an assembly that looks anything like the one we have now. However, we do have some Democrats that are serving in conservative districts and I just wonder if we could apply enough pressure to get a bill passed that would make the penalty for having in your possession an unloaded firearm (with or without a case) a petit offense if you have a FOID card. Better yet, what would be our chances of getting that same penalty for having an encased but loaded weapon?

This might placate some anti's because it is remaining illegal.

We could present the stats of FOID cardholders and the crime rate. This change in the statute would allow the courts and law enforcement to concentrate on people that are more likely to commit crime. Etc. Etc.

Incrementalism is how we got here! That may be our only way back!!!!
The situation is that we are the good guys and we are being treated as if we are the problem.

That needs to change!

Police officers are respected because they respond to criminal acts that are involving others. We should be respected because we respond to criminal acts that involve us. The first responder to any crime is always the victim.
The statistics from the other states as it pertains to CCW and the statistics from Illinois as it pertains to FOID cardholders are unambiguous---we are not the ones committing the crimes.

I think that a case could be made that forbidding the use of the tools that we need to protect ourselves is a form of "Prior Restraint". As individuals we have done nothing to have our rights restricted. As a group, we have evidence that we are, indeed, trustworthy.

We need to come to a consensus on a nice tight short-term goal. If we fail to agree or fail to a put forward an easily articulated legislative desire, we will be doomed to remain disarmed. Sadly, we may just be doomed!!!
 
Just to give people an idea of the teeth on it, when John Horstman was arrested and charged with uuw for fanny pack carry his bond was set at $250,000 (he did $25,000 cash). He got to spend a night in jail. He got to be strip searched. He got to have his guns seized by the sheriff. The states attorney dropped the charges. He didn't even have to go to court to prove his actions were within the law. But you have to ask yourself if you're willing to go through an ordeal like that to carry in a fanny pack.
 
"you feel duty-bound to bring up every reason not to do it, if for no other reason than to inspire thoughtful caution in people with good intentions."

I have never said "not to do it". I have always said, if you do it, just be aware there are pitfalls out there that could get someone in a major legal bind. You bet I'm a stickler for accuracy.
Click to expand...

I tell you in the spirit of frankness and good will, sir, that I see very little difference in those two statements. ;)


Soybomb, you're right. It was that bad and worse. The reason he was originally given for why he was stopped was that a young girl had reported a pervert exposing himself to people along the bike trail. John was in no way connected to those actions, nor did he turn out to fit the description the girl later gave of her assailant.

However, the officers who stopped John apparently didn't have the description in hand yet, and when they stopped him they found the pistol. Fair enough; they apparently thought in good faith that he was breaking the law.

When he was arraigned, though, part of the reason his bond was set so high was that the prosecutor told the judge that John was a pervert who'd been exposing himself to girls on the trail. The prosecutor had the description available to him and knew that what he was saying was false, but he was apparently determined to put pressure on John.

This is the thing you have to keep in mind as you decide how far you're willing to go in Illinois. Beyond the letter of the law, our elected officials and our law enforcement civil servants have the power to make you miserable at least for a time. They WILL make you suffer if they decide to do so.
 
Acording to isp2605, the AG of Illinois has never and will not give an official opinion on the fanny pack legality thus leaving it up to each county's SA. At least that is the way I understand it. So, if I as a private citizen would contact the SA would they have any obligation to furnish me with an offical opinion? I live in Vermilion county and travel to Champaign county a few times a month so would for all practical purposes just need to know about these two. I wounder what would be the best way to approach this and would appreciate any advice. Thanks, Jim.
 
So, if I as a private citizen would contact the SA would they have any obligation to furnish me with an offical opinion?
Click to expand...

From my limited understanding the answer would be no.

NukemJim
 
My experience is that the SA's and the AG are not only unwilling to provide legal advice to a private citizen, but they're pretty worried about what might happen if they did. I don't know that I can blame them for that. I don't pretend to understand the intricacies of liability they're facing.

When I had a question about knife carry several years back, I was lucky enough to get an answer from a sympathetic lawyer in the AG's office. She told me that it was absolutely out of the question for the AG's office to advise me in any way, "but." But she would be glad to point me toward information I could study. That amounted to four pages. ;)
She more or less told me what I wanted to know while protesting that she couldn't tell me anything. If I had tried to tell some officer that I'd been told by the AG's office that such and so was legal, however, I'm sure she would have forgotten that we'd ever corresponded.
 
Originally posted by sctman800
At least that is the way I understand it. So, if I as a private citizen would contact the SA would they have any obligation to furnish me with an offical opinion?
Click to expand...

From the "Been there-Done that" file you can read post #50 in this thread.
Originally posted by Gary
I spent some time with the AG's office. Jim Ryan was the AG at the time and I had several conversations with a man named Green. His first name escapes me now, (Mark I think) but he was not completely forthcoming and did not like discussing the subject---apparently. I thought that there ought to be an official "Opinion" issued from the Attorney General. I was evidently naive.
Click to expand...
 
.
.
.
The Supreme Court has ruled that law enforcement has no duty to protect any individual but only serve as a generalized barrier to crime.

There may be a crack in that decision! Perhaps some legislation from the feds that would cover the willingness of an individual to protect himself but could not because of barriers created by governmental bodies would be worthwhile.

The article below shows that the idea that “We can’t be sued”, may be in jeopardy at least when it comes to the “Illinois Domestic Violence Act”. I think that we should lobby for the “Citizens Violence Act” ---or some such, that would cover people who were victimized even though they had shown a willingness to seek protection from criminals.





http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...sponse,1,2772563.story?coll=chi-newsap_il-hed

Chicago pays $4.25 million to settle lawsuit over police response

By DON BABWIN
Associated Press Writer
Published June 28, 2006, 5:09 PM CDT

The City Council on Wednesday approved a $4.25 million settlement of a lawsuit that alleged police officers took far too long to respond to 911 calls from a woman minutes before she was shot to death by her estranged husband.

The May 3, 2002, incident made headlines when police revealed that officers did not arrive at the South Side home of Ronyale White for more than 17 minutes after the 31-year-old woman's first of four calls to the 911 operator and about 15 minutes after the first officers were dispatched.

At the trial of White's estranged husband, Louis Drexel, jurors heard a tape from a cassette recorder that White had hidden in her jacket in which the woman, obviously in a panic, asked the operator: "Where are you? Where are you? My husband has a gun. He's trying to kill me!" Drexel was subsequently convicted of first-degree murder.

A department investigation determined that officers Donald Cornelius and Christopher Green were the first to be dispatched to the scene but arrived after officers who were dispatched later. In fact, according to attorneys for the family, had Green and Cornelius responded promptly, they would have arrived before White made her last call -- a call on which a struggle could be heard.

When police did get there they found a crime scene that suggested Drexel had kicked down two doors in the house as he pursued White and that the two had struggled, the family's attorneys said.

Jennifer Hoyle, a spokeswoman for the city's law department, said the trip should have taken Green and Cornelius no more than a few minutes. She said the city never determined exactly why it took the officers so long to get to the woman's home.

But attorneys for the family said Cornelius spent two minutes checking messages on his cell phone and talking on the phone with his brother. "He did that while he should have been answering the 911 call," said Thomas Marszewski, one of the family's attorneys.

Cornelius and Green were suspended without pay for 15 days. Then-police Superintendent Terry Hillard moved to get them fired, but he was overruled by an arbitrator, Hoyle said.

In the lawsuit, the family alleged that the officers had violated the Illinois Domestic Violence Act, causing the slaying of White, a mother of three children. The city argued that it could not be sued under the act, but in April the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that police can sometimes be sued for violating the act.

The city then reached a tentative settlement and on Wednesday the full City Council approved it, according to Jodi Kawada, spokeswoman for Mayor Richard M. Daley.

Both Green and Cornelius remain with the police department. Spokesman Pat Camden said they could not comment on the settlement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
Illegally Conceal Carry
Replies
7
Views
668
Mal H
Mal H
jawman
  • Locked
Illinois Concealed Carry HB 183 passes
Replies
8
Views
914
Blue .45
B
J
  • Locked
Illinois is likely to remain one of four states banning concealed weapons
2
Replies
31
Views
1K
Huntzman
H
J
  • Locked
Concealed carry in IL
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
3K
ajax
A
D
  • Locked
Americans Safer in Florida Than in Illinois, Gun Group Says
Replies
1
Views
373
SB88LX
S
Back
Top