Illegal concealed carry in Illinois

[Jeff White]

goblues said;

I heard a story not too long ago about a Missouri state trooper carrying off duty in IL due to HR 218 its legal to carry in 50 states for him. Anyways he stopped to assist a motorist in a crash, and when the Illinois State police got therer they arrested him still for carrying a gun, DESPITE federal law passed where LEO officers can legally carry.

Do you have some documentation to prove this? I find it a little hard to believe. Or is this one of those stories told across the table at the gunshow?

As far as the original question of how much trouble will you get into if you use an illegally carried firearm to defend yourself; You're putting yourself totally at the mercy of the states attorney in the county the incident happens in.

The criminal law instructor I had stated that the tool you use to defend yourself has no bearing on the self defense case. But that doesn't mean that a good shoot under the law will keep you from being charged with and convicted of felony UUW. It just means that the fact you carried a firearm illegally will have no bearing on if your use of it to defend yourself was justified.

I would imagine that every states attorney looks at the issue differently. The former states attorney here sent a letter to each police department in the county when the law was changed to make every UUW involving a firearm a felony. The letter asked the officers to use discretion on the street and stated he didn't want to see businessmen on their way to the night deposit or battered spouses facing felony convictions. However, that same states attorney prosecuted a woman (VAnna Haggerty that Don mentioned in his earlier post) for fanny pack carry a few years later.

Basically if you carry a firearm illegally here, you are throwing yourself on the mercy of the states attorney. If your use of that firearm is such that there would be great public outcry if you were charged with UUW, then you might escape being charged. That's a big chance to take. Felony UUW, even if you get probation means you've lost your RKBA for life.

You also need to think of all the ways you could be discovered carrying illegally. You could be in an automobile accident or be injured in public and the EMTs find your weapon. You could inadvertantly expose your weapon to someone. These scenarios will get you a felony UUW conviction and you won't have any public outcry about how you used your weapon to save yourself or someone else.

Jeff

 

[goblues]

Regarding the subject at hand a few months ago here in Stl a cab driver was being robbed, inner city black kid came up to his door with a shotgun, and the cab driver happend to shoot him just in time. Anyways turns out the cab driver was a convicted Felon, but the state didn't press any charges against him due to the fact it was self defense. Although they did state he could face federal charges, but so far I havent heard anything about the feds pressing charges.

 

[ajax]

I still think if we could just split Ill. at about madison county we could have ccw in no time flat. Oh well I can dream. Then we could add another star to the flag and call the 51st state Southern Illinois and call the northern part The Peoples Republic of Chicago.

 

[sctman800]

What about carrying unloaded in a fanny pack or in my case in a pistol case that just fits a S&W "J" frame, then into an inside pocket of a levi jacket. I have found myself to be faster to uncase the firearm and load it from this arrangement than from a fanny pack. It is very obvious that it is made for a firearm and not in plain sight as is a fanny pack.
Now, bad guy attacks, you pull out gun, load and shoot said bad guy with a gun that by all that I can understand is a legally carried firearm, unloaded untill the threat appeared. Anyone have any ideas on how this would play out? Jim.

 

[isp2605]

"I heard a story not too long ago..."

And that's exactly what it is, just a story.
The ISP was one of the first agencies in the nation to get their retirees qualified under LEOSA. The day the bill was passed, even before it was signed, the info went out to every sworn officer in the state and we had people attend the bill signing.

"Everyone knows Chicago controls the entire state of IL."

What "everyone knows" is nothing but what "someone wants to believe" which means they are stories told by those whose aluminum foil hats are just a bit too tight.

 

[bogie]

Hey, Gwinch - Here in St. Louis a few years ago, a guy I know was in a bad bike wreck... Bambulance, everything, then time in traction. When he got out of the hospital (St. Mary's), they returned the .38 Davis Derringer he'd had in his pocket.

 

[isp2605]

Here's a true story for you. A car with 3 people were driving down the street when another car pulls up along side and open fire. The 1st car pull their guns, return fire, and kill 2 who were shooting at them. Clear case of self defense. Except there's is more to the story. All in the 1st car have lengthy records, altho only 1 who wasn't doing the shooting had felonies. The 2nd car were all known gang members with lengthy records. So who gets charged? The people in the 2nd car who starts the shooting. No one in the 1st car is charged, even tho they were gang bangers and had lengthy records. The prosecutor said it was a clear case of self defense and one he would not prosecute. What state? IL.

 

[isp2605]

"I still think if we could just split Ill. at about madison county we could have ccw in no time flat."

Actually you don't have to cut off that much. North of I-80 and east of I-39.
Don't be so sure about your metro east area. Look at the election results going back several decades and you'll see the area is predominantly democratic in both state and national elections and has been for years. In fact, election results show that south of I-70 is predominantly democratic and, altho a different type of Democrat than Chicago Democrat, that area still usually votes the democratic party.

 

[goblues]

If thats the case why does IL have the stupid FOID card? Its like the whole FOID system is a case of entrapment. So someone moves to IL they have to wait for their FOID card and just having a box of shells, and their guns commiting a felony.

 

[Jeff White]

goblues asked;

If thats the case why does IL have the stupid FOID card? Its like the whole FOID system is a case of entrapment.

Why does Missouri require you to get permission from the sheriff for each and every handgun you buy? Why does Michigan require you to take your handguns to the police station for a safety inspection? Isn't that defacto registration? You'll find stupid, worthless gun laws that infringe on your rights in more states then you'd think.

That said, what does any of that have to do with illegal concealed carry in Illinois?

Jeff

 

[ajax]

isp2605 I believe you'll find southern Ill. Democrats are more moderate than northern Ill Democrats due to the large number of gun owning constituents. I don't believe Chicago controlls the entire state but I believe their influence stretchs alot further than any other city ,or cities in Ill. Daly's managed to make Blago look like his b**ch on more than one occasion and god knows,and everybody else you don't win any elections unless you win Chicago and the Collar Counties If your running for Gov.

 

[isp2605]

"isp2605 I believe you'll find southern Ill. Democrats are more moderate than northern Ill Democrats due to the large number of gun owning constituents."

If you re-read my post you'll note I included 'altho a different type of Democrat than Chicago Democrat'. There are actually 4 political parties in IL. Northern Democrats, Southern Democrats, Northern Republicans, and Southern Republicans. They are distinctly different in their beliefs and make for some interesting coalitions at times.
However, the fact remains, regardless of the southern IL Democrats differences with the Chicagoland Democrats, southern IL still votes democratic which gives that party the power to carry the state. Even now, check the polls and you'll see the current governor will carry the traditionally southern IL democratic counties, even tho Democrats in those counties grouse about the governor not doing anything for them. It just shows those kinds of people do not vote the person, they only vote the party, and then complain about who was voted in.

 

[NukemJim]

isp2065, a question please regarding

No one in the 1st car is charged, even tho they were gang bangers and had lengthy records. The prosecutor said it was a clear case of self defense and one he would not prosecute. What state? IL.

Were all of the FOID/transport/record keeping laws being followed by the people in the 1st car? ( I am sorry, this sounds very dumb but I know nothing about how gang bangers actualy live as opposed to TV, I freely admit my ignorance. )

NukemJim

 

[isp2605]

No one in either car was anywhere near legal carrying their guns. With their records none of them could have gotten a FOID even if they had applied. They had loaded guns in the car. Don't have a clue where the guns came from but at least they didn't come up in the computer as stolen. Not saying they couldn't have been stolen, but if they were then probably the true owner either didn't report them or didn't have the serial numbers.
They were just a couple of rival gangs. One was the Gangster Disciples. The other was a local rival. My personal feeling is they all should have gone to jail, even those who were returning fire in justified self defense. They were all scum and had a long history of causing problems for the good people in their neighborhoods. If we knew the full story those who were firing in self defense that day had probably been shooting at the other gang previously. Just a long running gun battle over a period of days, weeks, and sometimes months.

 

[Don Gwinn]

ISP, was that in Springfield? If it's the case I'm thinking of, it was truly bizarre.

 

[isp2605]

Yup, it's the one from Springfield. There's been some grumbling with the family of late again questioning why the SA wouldn't charge the shooters. Don't see anything coming out of the grumbling but something is stirring up the family again to come out public.

 

[Autolycus]

I would say that it is not worth getting caught carrying in IL. I am hoping to move because I do not feel comfy in my own home down in Southern Illinois. I am hoping to move to a gun friendlier area when possible.

 

[Gary]

Originally posted by ISP2605

I do believe when the Unlawful Use of Weapon laws were passed the legislature didn't envision something like the fanny pack loophole. Since the legislature has been so consistent in not passing CCW for IL I believe their intent with the current UUW was not to permit something like the fanny pack carry. They just didn't conceive of the loophole when they wrote the law.

I have read your posts ISP and they are very reasoned and you have given some very good advice. The quote of one of your posts above, though, is just wrong.

In the appeals case People vs Brunner the court actually included in the decision a portion of the legislative debate regarding the question of transporting/carrying an unloaded weapon. Below you will find that portion of the decison for you perusal.

The State contends "transport" means to take an object to a specific
destination. The language of the exemption includes not only the act of
transporting but also carrying or possession of a weapon, the common
definitions of which would not be limited to taking the weapon to a specific
destination. Other than the portion of the legislative debate cited above,
the only other discussion during the legislative debate which deals with this
point occurred between Representatives Koehler and Cullerton:
"Koehler: 'Perhaps I heard you incorrectly, but I thought you said that
you can..you have to have a..an unloaded gun in a case now when you carry it
on the street. Is that correct?'

Cullerton: 'That's correct. In a city.'

Koehler: 'In a city.'

Cullerton: 'Right, that's what the law would do. In another [sic] words,
say you're going out to hunt. You put your gun in a..unloaded, you'd unload
it, you'd put it in any kind of a container or case and put it in the car.'

Koehler: 'Okay, and this...and..but what about carrying it on the street?'

Cullerton: 'It has to be in a...'

Koehler: 'It has to be in a case.'

Cullerton: '..case. Right. Only if it's in the city. If you're out in
the..outside of an corporated area, you can have it in the open. Okay? But if
you're on the street, walking down the street with a gun unloaded, it would
be against the law.'" 82d Ill. Gen. Assem., House Proceedings, May 16, 1981,
at 5-6 (statements of Representatives Koehler and Cullerton).

We include the portions of the legislative debate not because we believe they
are determinative, but simply to demonstrate the legislature was considering
the assorted applications of the exemption. The best indication of
legislative intent is the language of the exemption as adopted. Even allowing
for the strict construction of the exemption provided in section 24-2(i), the
legislature intended the exemption to apply not only to transporting a gun,
as in the situation {*44} of purchasing a gun and transporting it home or
transporting a hunting rifle to the location of the hunt, but to also apply
to the carrying and possession of a gun while simply walking down the street.
We agree with the trial court the exemption "may allow for mischief."
However, it clearly applies to defendant because her pistol was unloaded, in
a case and she had a valid FOID card. The exemption did not require her to be
transporting the pistol to a specific location in order to hunt or target
shoot or take a recently purchased weapon to her residence. The State
suggests this exemption, as interpreted by defendant, would actually provide
a "concealed carry" law. We note "concealed carry" laws deal with the
concealed possession of a weapon in a holster and do not provide the weapon
must be unloaded. See Fla. Stat. Ann. § 790.06 (West Supp. 1996); Tex. Rev.
Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 4413(29ee) (West Supp. 1997). The exemption here
specifically provides the weapon must be unloaded and in a case.

 

[Don Gwinn]

An Alderman--Frank Edwards? That doesn't sound right--brought it up on WMAY with Jim Leach when they were discussing the new profiling accusations, too. Be interesting to find out what the logic there was.
Honestly, it makes you wonder whether there was some huge goof in the investigation that ruined the case.

 

[Gary]

Originally posted by ISP2605
No one in either car was anywhere near legal carrying their guns. With their records none of them could have gotten a FOID even if they had applied. They had loaded guns in the car. Don't have a clue where the guns came from but at least they didn't come up in the computer as stolen. Not saying they couldn't have been stolen, but if they were then probably the true owner either didn't report them or didn't have the serial numbers.
They were just a couple of rival gangs. One was the Gangster Disciples. The other was a local rival. My personal feeling is they all should have gone to jail, even those who were returning fire in justified self defense. They were all scum and had a long history of causing problems for the good people in their neighborhoods. If we knew the full story those who were firing in self defense that day had probably been shooting at the other gang previously. Just a long running gun battle over a period of days, weeks, and sometimes months.

This is not the first time that I have heard of this type of situation. I am dumbfounded! It is like we are living in a "parallel universe". Known "bad guys" doing everything wrong (illegal) and there is officer and prosecutorial discretion all over the place. Then you get a guy like John Horstman that is doing nothing more than riding his bicycle with an unloaded 9mm and in a case in his backpack, and there is everything but a swat team involved. He had never been in trouble with the law and he was held on a $250,000 bond. I don't get it.

 

[isp2605]

Gary,
Concerning your post re Cullerton and Koehler. You have to look at what they were discussing. It was not about fanny pack carry. The discussion concerned transporting a firearm in a city, which would include carrying to and from a building or elsewhere. They were not envisioning the fanny pack. When the fanny pack issue became realized there was discussion with some legislators how to close that "loophole". After some discussions with various legislators it was determined there was no way to close the loophole without causing more restrictions which none of the legislators wanted to step in that mud hole.
When reading their transcript you'll notice Cullerton is talking about in the city and makes a distinction about it being different than outside corporate limits. That is what they are talking about, trying to make sure a person can transport a firearm from their house, on the street to their vehicle, and then to wherever they are traveling. As far as carrying a firearm in IL corporate limits don't matter as far as 24-1 or wildlife code.
BTW, I was very involved in these issues in my past life.

 

[isp2605]

"An Alderman--Frank Edwards? That doesn't sound right--brought it up on WMAY with Jim Leach when they were discussing the new profiling accusations, too. Be interesting to find out what the logic there was.
Honestly, it makes you wonder whether there was some huge goof in the investigation that ruined the case."

Frank Edwards was the former fire chief. Frank McNeil probably since it would have been his Ward. Didn't hear him tho on the radio. Mom and family of a dead kid has been trying to get charges filed since the shooting but the SA won't go for it. Every now and then she gets a bit more public play then it dies down some until she gets another forum. McNeil is probably bringing it up again given some of the things going on at the PD and city hiring.

 

[Gary]

ISP2605, I am sure that you have been involved with this subject for a long time. Even I can figure out what your duties were in "your past life". But the legislators were discussing cases and containers. And they were discussing the legality of being able to walk down the street with the firearm in a container. This is a situation where they either knew or should have known that a "container" could and probably would be defined in many different ways. In many cases, ambiguity is the hallmark of legislation. It is good for fund raising.
It is true, also, that there were some who saw this as a "loophole" in recent years that needed to be "fixed". But they didn't. The statute and the court cases are what they are. Until changed, the States Attorney in many counties are ready and willing to provide a windfall to some other "John Horstman" out there. Of course, he had all his ducks in a row, whereas Vana Haggerty did not.

BTW, I am not trying to start a fight with you. As I said, you have very reasoned posts and have given some very good advice. The fact, that the "fanny pack" was not specifically mentioned doesn't mean too much. neither was terms like "gun rug",modified cases, homemade case, tupper ware, etc. etc. The point is, all of these things are "containers" and if there were a law passed that would specificly outlaw "fanny packs" as long as there was wording that provided for "containers" the "gun nuts" (of which I am one) would not skip a beat. Fanny packs are insignificant in that sense.

 

[isp2605]

Gary,
My point is, the legislators when discussing these "containers", did not envision a fanny pack worn around a waist as a "container". Their thought was the gun rug, gun box, gun case, etc being physically carried in a hand where a person could take their firearm to a dealer, gun range, shop, etc without getting arrested. They weren't trying to secretly weasle in a bill that would permit a pseudo-CCW for IL. They were just trying to keep a normal legal citizen from getting jammed up when transporting a firearm from point A to point B. After the fanny pack "loophole" became public 5-6 yrs ago there was some talk how to close the fanny pack "loophole". If their intent all along had been to allow this "loophole" then they sure wouldn't have been having all the phone calls and discussions on how to close the "loophole" without causing more restrictions. That is when we contacted the IL AG and eventually all the SAs to get their read on how they were going to handle it. The resulting concensus was to just let it go the way it was and not make a big deal out of it. Read that - it was a political no win to stir the pot.

 

[Gary]

What they did or did not envision is not my problem. (I still think some just choose not to envision in order to get the bill passed, but I digress.) The law is the law. Even police officers and states attorneys can not make up the law to suit their own preferences.

Like you, 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.

Just to be clear, I do not transport a firearm in any kind of container unless it is for the purpose of moving it from point A to point B. The reason is that I fear that I might have to use it. (Isn't that sad?) The danger of having to use it is worse than the danger that the "bad guy" might represent. Although, on particular occassions and for limited time, I have "fanny packed" just to irritate those who knew what I was carrying. (Locally, my views are fairly widely known. Somewhat like Don Gwinn in Virden.

It is really sad, though. I have a Florida permit and do carry (more or less just because I have the right to carry) in other states. I own property in a neighboring state. Hmmmmm!!!! I don't know. I think I will stay in the game in Illinois. It is never dull, that is for sure.

By the way Don, I spent three years in Virden one week.