Autolycus
Member
I am not talking about communist/socialist police officers. I am just saying that they could start exercising their discretion and not arresting anyone for carrying a firearm.
I don't see where the OP's friend committed a felony unless you can stretch "immediately accessible" to something in a closed suitcase. Perhaps if the suitcase was sitting on the seat next to him.They could have charged the OP's friend with a felony, but instead issued him a (misdemeanor) ticket.
No, it's not even close no matter how you slice it. Just how long do you think any LEO would last "ginning" up charges? All of those charges have to be filed with and prosecuted by a state's attorney. "Ginned" up charges wouldn't last very long and neither would any LEO participating in such an exercise. Have you ever heard of Official Misconduct, Class 2 Felony? That's what a LEO faces for "ginning" up charges. Would you risk your career and freedom facing a Class 2 felony just to write a piece of paper which even you admit "they really don't care much one way or the other". Of that you are correct. LEOs don't care one way or the other. It's nothing personal and that is what many of you don't seem to understand. If there is a violation then that's what the court is for.it is not entirely correct, but it is close enough
Cynical? Nope, just wrong. You pay too much attention to the internet and campfire stories and don't have the facts.I admit this is a cynical view of the way things work
Actually, the law is written at the 8th grade reading comprehension level. Unfortunately, in the US the average reading comprehension level is the 3rd grade. So it's not that the law is written in gibberish it's that the average person doesn't have the comprehension abilities to understand what is written.The state legislature got us into this mess with a whole series of badly written laws that are almost complete gibberish to even lawyers
There are people who have been picked on by LEOs. The bartender in Chicago comes to mind.Originally posted by ISP2605: If I had a nickle for everytime someone said when I arrested them "you're picking no me" then I'd have a truck load of nickles. There are about 14 million people in IL and over 320 million people in the US. Why would any LEO single out anyone to "pick on". There's plenty of violations where, if a person is stupid enough to bring themselves to the attention of LE then they deserve getting arrested.
Let's put this in the proper prospective. The incident you are referring to did not occur as the result of his employment with CPD. He was off duty drinking in the bar as a regular citizen. The actions he took were not under color of law.There are people who have been picked on by LEOs. The bartender in Chicago comes to mind.
Look at the facts again. No one has been put to death in IL who was shown to be innocent. Also, if you look at some of the cases the people at the link refer to quite a few of their "saves" did not involve proving anyone innocent. They simply went back many years later after witnesses had died and evidence had been destroyed and then proclaimed because there are no witnesses therefore the person must be innocent. Don't believe everything they, college professors, and George Ryan said about all those innocent people on death row. By law every single person on death row has had numerous reviews of their cases, a lot more than any other person in prison. I've never talked to a person on death row or in a murder case who didn't proclaim they were innocent and framed by the government.Many people have also been framed and Illinois has tried (and probably succeeded) at putting many innocent people to death. Need we look further than the Innocence Project for proof of this?
Death penalty cases go thru the entire legal appeals system. That is not the situation with any other case. Every aspect of the legal system is open to them at no cost to the defendant. When you see a case in the news and you hear about a state's attorney deciding whether to ask for the death penalty there's a reason why the SA is taking a long time to decide. If they decide it's going to be a death penalty case then a whole host of legal things kick into play which are expensive, time consuming and bogs down the process. That's why you'll often hear of an SA not going with the death penalty even tho the subject was caught in the act, has a lengthy record of violent crimes and the homicide was particularly violent. The end result for the SA can be to put the person in jail for life which if going with a death penalty case results in long drawn out appeals.Fair enough but how many cases are reviewed after the defendant was put to death? If they reviewed it and found that the man/woman was innocent the state would probably be sued and they have no interest in reviewing these cases.
Again, you need to look at the circumstances of that particular case. If that's the case I'm thinking of it was a raid on the wrong house, the woman pulled a gun, and was shot by the SWAT team. That was an unfortunate situation but not the same as an intentional act targeting that woman. Not at all the same kind of situation. What you seem to be alleging is premeditated murder and no one has ever claimed that was the situation in that case. Wrong house and an unfortunate set of unfolding events but not intentional.For example the elderly woman in Atlanta being gunned down by LEOs in her own home. They did that under color of law.
With regards to transporting firearms I don't think we have it that bad. Several states of course do have concealed carry and that can make it easier if you have a permit, but many states require people transporting guns without permits to have them unloaded and seperated from the ammo, the guns in the trunk or a locked container, etc. I'd love concealed carry here but past that I can have a gun and a loaded mag in a gun rug on my passenger seat. As far as state laws go, thats not bad.but the draconian laws Illinois has regarding firearms
Is that completely fair though? If I'm traveling from out of state and decide to check and see whats legal and hit the ilga.gov site and find my way to 720 ILCS 5/Art. 24 and read all about UUW isn't it possible I wouldn't ever think to look at the wildlife code?Actually, the law is written at the 8th grade reading comprehension level. Unfortunately, in the US the average reading comprehension level is the 3rd grade. So it's not that the law is written in gibberish it's that the average person doesn't have the comprehension abilities to understand what is written.
One corrupt governor in prison, next pleaseGeorge Ryan
Actually, the law is written at the 8th grade reading comprehension level. Unfortunately, in the US the average reading comprehension level is the 3rd grade. So it's not that the law is written in gibberish it's that the average person doesn't have the comprehension abilities to understand what is written.[/QUOTE]
IIRC inn prior posts you have mentioned that the fanny pack carry may or may not be legal in Illinois. IIRC you proviously stated that the ISP asked all the States Attorneys in Ill how they would interpet Fanny Pack Carry and that none of them would give the ISP an answer (with the exception of the Cook and DuPage county SA's stating that they would prosecute)
So howcome if the law is written at a 8th grade level how come the SA's could not answer the question? All of them have not only an 8th grade education but also college and law school. Or if they chose not to answer then it would appear to me that they are purposely not letting the average citizen (let alone the LEOs of Illinois ) what the law is.
From my perspective trying to obey the law when the people who enforce the law and the people who prosecute those who break the law are not sure of the law is EXTREMELY difficult.
I am NOT coming down on Ill LEOs. As stated LEOs did not make the law. But I must admit I do not understand how the state gov expects Ill LEOS to enforce the law and private citizens to obey the law when the SA's will not tell you what is legal and what is not.
NukemJim
If you
So how come if the law is written at a 8th grade level how come the SA's could not answer the question? All of them have not only an 8th grade education but also college and law school. Or if they chose not to answer then it would appear to me that they are purposely not letting the average citizen (let alone the LEOs of Illinois ) what the law is.
The one thing you don't want to do either is lie when asked questions. That is one of the indicators. You lie and don't expect for the stop to be of short duration. Honest people don't lie because they have nothing to hide. If a person is caught lying about one thing then what else are they lying about. That's what police work is all about. People whine and snivel because "the police aren't out there catching real crooks." That's exactly what the police are trying to do and when someone is caught in a lie then they have just given the indication the same as the crook. Until the police find out who are the crooks and who is just a liar it's going to take a bit longer.
According to the Wildlife Code, one must have a plug, limiting a shotgun to 3 shells TOTAL, in a HD-only shotgun - better hope that there's less than 3 home invaders or the sound of racking it scares 'em.
(j) It is unlawful to use any shotgun larger than 10 gauge while taking or attempting to take any of the species protected by this Act.
(k) It is unlawful to use or possess in the field any shotgun shell loaded with a shot size larger than lead BB or steel T (.20 diameter) when taking or attempting to take any species of wild game mammals (excluding white‑tailed deer), wild game birds, migratory waterfowl or migratory game birds protected by this Act, except white‑tailed deer as provided for in Section 2.26 and other species as provided for by subsection (l) or administrative rule.
(l) It is unlawful to take any species of wild game, except white‑tailed deer, with a shotgun loaded with slugs unless otherwise provided for by administrative rule.
(m) It is unlawful to use any shotgun capable of holding more than 3 shells in the magazine or chamber combined, except on game breeding and hunting preserve areas licensed under Section 3.27 and except as permitted by the Code of Federal Regulations for the taking of waterfowl. If the shotgun is capable of holding more than 3 shells, it shall, while being used on an area other than a game breeding and shooting preserve area licensed pursuant to Section 3.27, be fitted with a one piece plug that is irremovable without dismantling the shotgun or otherwise altered to render it incapable of holding more than 3 shells in the magazine and chamber, combined.
Lack of doing indepth research does not equate to reading comprehension levels. Both 24-1 and 520 5/2.33(n) are both easily found in the book and clearly written.Is that completely fair though? If I'm traveling from out of state and decide to check and see whats legal and hit the ilga.gov site and find my way to 720 ILCS 5/Art. 24 and read all about UUW isn't it possible I wouldn't ever think to look at the wildlife code?
All this for having antique vehicle plates on your car that the computer showed coming back to another vehicle?Result: Backup arrives, I'm in cuffs, drug dog tears my newly recovered seat while officer laughs, I'm taken to jail for suspition of illeagal drugs(TicTacs in the original box), resisting arrest(saying no to pat down), and assaulting an officer(false,thank god for video). My truck is towed(cost $150), had to call grandpa at 0130(embarressing) to bail me out, suffered the indignity of booking.
You are both 100% correct and I apologize I was not trying to push for fanny pack carry. That was an example. I am sorry If I was unclear.Fanny pack carry as a means of self defense is stupid anyway.
ISP2605Actually, the law is written at the 8th grade reading comprehension level. Unfortunately, in the US the average reading comprehension level is the 3rd grade. So it's not that the law is written in gibberish it's that the average person doesn't have the comprehension abilities to understand what is written.
Jeff WhiteThe law means what the courts interpret it to mean and often that's somewhat different then what the law says.
ISP2605Jeff pretty well answered NukemJim's question as to the "why" so I won't repeat his points.
. Without getting arresting, charged and brought before a judge how do I find out what the law means.The law means what the courts interpret it to mean
We haven't been real clear on explaining what the courts say as law. They still base their decisions on the written laws. Take for an example something completely unrelated to guns as guns is an emotional issue for a lot of people and their emotions cloud their thinking when trying to discuss the topic. So let's use something like speeding. A judge may not agree that heavy trucks are limited to 55 mph on the interstates. A judge can't rule in court that he's throwing out the 55 mph limit because he thinks trucks should be able to drive 65 mph. The judge does not have that authority and can be, and some have been, removed from the bench for misfeasance of his job. A judge's job is to rule based on the facts of the case as it applies to the statute.From the point of view of the average persone who is not a lawyer or a LEO how do you know what is the law?
It's not easy for LEOs either. Ask any LEO who has been at the job any length of time and who has made some criminal arrests. The arrest was made in complete compliance with the statute yet the SA will refuse to file charges. That's what people outside the system don't see or understand. Refusing to file charges has nothing to do with the arrest being 100% legal and in compliance with the law. It's a SA's decision whether they want to proceed with a particular case. To give an example, many yrs ago on a traffic stop I arrested a guy who was carrying a loaded gun, a S&W Model 15. The guy was a bar owner and we were also working him for dealing coke out of the bar. The ASA refused to file the gun charges telling me the guy was a businessman and therefore the ASA thought businessmen should be able to carry guns as they often carry cash. Was that the real reason? As we progressed with our drug investigation it turned out the ASA and the businessman were long time friends since childhood and the ASA was just doing a buddy a favor by not charging him. It didn't change the fact the bar owner had violated the law or that he was till dealing coke, it was just one of those deals I mentioned that were cut behind closed doors. Would you or any other person have gotten the same deal? Not at all likely. Still didn't change what the statute said and still didn't change future arrests and charges. However, for those with their own agenda they would point at the case and say the SA believes the law doesn't mean you can't have a loaded gun on your person while driving down the road. But if they knew the real story they'd know the ASA's actions had nothing at all to do with what the law actually said.Without getting arresting, charged and brought before a judge how do I find out what the law means.
Now this one really doesn't meet the smell test. The FBI and OK DPS have no authority to ban any agency from doing anything.The problem was with two local PD who were investigated by the FBI and Oklahoma Department of Safety for misconduct and banned from patroling I40 and Hwy64.