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.
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.