Transporting guns in Illinois

[spoken]

http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2009/October/106367.pdf

People v Diggins (IL Supreme Court) has updated and clarified, in my opinion, a lot of the misconceptions on firearm transportation.

For "case" and "container" they used a common dictionary to show the common meaning of the words which are NOT defined. Case is defined in the wildlife code, but it is not applicable to transportation of firearms if you're not involved in activities under the wildlife code (most people are not).

Unloaded, in a container or case (common meanings), and have a valid FOID card (if an Illinois resident).

 

[isp2605]

You should talk to someone who knows before you start giving legal advice such as "Case is defined in the wildlife code, but it is not applicable to transportation of firearms if you're not involved in activities under the wildlife code (most people are not)." The courts and prosecutors disagree with your opinion.
The courts have been very clear on this issue. You do not have to be hunting to be covered by the section of the wildlife code. That's why the IL statutes are called the "compiled" statutes. All statutes apply. Nothing at all in the statutes say you have to be involved in wildlife events to only be covered by the wildlife code. Again, note the word "compiled". You're making the same erroneous assumption that many make who do not understand or have any training in the law.
Diggins was only about the charges filed which was Aggravated Unlawful Use of Weapons, a criminal cite. The UUW chapter only addresses case or container. The state's attorney in Diggins at no time entered in his argument anything about the statutory definition of case. The only argument before the court was the SA's opinion was a case had to be transportable and not a fixed container. What many SAs and AGs who were watching the case wondered is why the SA did not file anything concerning the statutory definition of firearm case. Many felt this was just one of many errors by the SA during Diggins. The general feeling is the initial charge was in error. For decades most SAs have not filed UUW charges for firearms carried in any type container in a vehicle simply because of the "container" wording in the statute. In such cases other statutes would have been more appropriate, such as 2.33(n) for uncased gun instead of UUW.
Diggins only addressed the UUW statute, nothing more. In Diggins the court clarified what nearly every SA had done for decades, agreed that to comply with UUW a firearm had to be in any kind of container. Diggins in no way eliminated the obligation to comply with any other statute. The requirement for a case as definited by a completely different statute which was not addressed by the court.
The fact remains that to comply with all IL statutes to transport a firearm the must be unloaded, in a case, and if an IL resident then possess a FOID.
Diggins only addressed the UUW statute. Other statutes concerning transportation in a case still apply.

 

[spoken]

First off, I don't give legal advice. I am not an attorney, and I'm sure you aren't either so you shouldn't be giving legal advice. If either of us were attorneys, it still wouldn't be a good idea to give legal advice on the net. With that said, let's clarify something for our readers.

The definition of case in the wildlife code does not apply to the UUW statutes. It's in a separate chapter and has no bearing on these statutes. I'm sure you know that, but I want to make sure everyone else understands that.

The argument that all statutes apply could be correct. Keep in mind that these statutes are most likely not constitutional to begin with. All statutes are presumed to be, but anyone with half a brain could see that Illinois' statutes regarding bearing arms are certainly not!!!

Do you know of any cases where someone was convicted under the wildlife code for transporting not in a "case" specifically designed for a firearm while not engaged in other activities under the code? If so, I would be very curious to see it. Frankly I don't believe such an argument holds much water, but you're welcome to try to convince us otherwise.

if you read the section in the code you're referring to (here is a link of the whole code) you will see the following (emphasis added for you)

http://web.extension.illinois.edu/wildlife/files/520_ILCS_5_wildlife_code.pdf

(n) It is unlawful for any person, except persons who
possess a permit to hunt from a vehicle as provided in this
Section and persons otherwise permitted by law, to have or
carry any gun in or on any vehicle, conveyance or aircraft,
unless such gun is unloaded and enclosed in a case, except
that at field trials authorized by Section 2.34 of this Act,
unloaded guns or guns loaded with blank cartridges only, may
be carried on horseback while not contained in a case, or to
have or carry any bow or arrow device in or on any vehicle
unless such bow or arrow device is unstrung or enclosed in a
case, or otherwise made inoperable.

"persons otherwise permitted by law" would certainly apply to FOID card holders who are carrying unloaded and enclosed in a container of some sort.


I'm very curious if you have anything to back up your claims, such as court cases like I described which resulted in a conviction under the wildlife code for carrying in a container that wasn't a "case" under the wildlife code while the person wasn't engaged in any wildlife activities. Any astute lawyer would be able to make some very good challenges to such a prosecution. So I'll say again I don't think this holds any water.

 

[isp2605]

It only took you nearly 6 months to figure out a response?

and I'm sure you aren't either so you shouldn't be giving legal advice.

First, you don't know my legal background.
Second, I'm not giving legal advice. I'm giving information based on years and years of experience of seeing and handling actual cases from all over the state, from court cases, and from the ILSC rulings. Also giving information from years and years of studying case law.
Yours? You're just guessing because you clearly don't have anything but what you think. And what you "think the law says" clearly isn't what case law and the ILSC says.
As far as my experience - The IL Supreme Court and the IL Legislature recognized my training and experiences as such to be considered an expert witness in criminal law cases. I taught criminal law. I testified as an expert witness in many cases. I sat at the prosecution table as advisor to prosecutors in criminal cases. You?

The definition of case in the wildlife code does not apply to the UUW statutes.

At least we will agree on that. And I never said it did.
Your comment shows you do not even have a basic understanding of the law. The UUW and the Uncased Gun statutes are 2 completely separate statutes. One can be charged with one or the other or both, depending on the elements of the crime and which statutes apply.
People like you who clearly do not understand the law think statutes are one and the same. They're not. 2 separate statutes that have 2 differently elements. I know it can be confusing to the uninformed which is why you should not try to explain something you clearly have no knowledge or understanding. In other words, don't embarrass yourself talking about something you don't know anything about.

The definition of case in the wildlife code does not apply to the UUW statutes. It's in a separate chapter and has no bearing on these statutes. I'm sure you know that, but I want to make sure everyone else understands that.

Your complete lack of legal knowledge is clearly showing. I guess you never heard of the "Illinois Compiled Statutes"? You do understand the significance of "compiled" statutes? No, I guess you don't or you wouldn't be spouting off what you think.
Do a bit more homework, or any homework, before you start spouting off "legal advice" of what statutes apply. They certainly do apply and the ILSC has ruled as such. Had you done any research or had a minimal amount of legal knowledge you would know that.

Do you know of any cases where someone was convicted under the wildlife code for transporting not in a "case" specifically designed for a firearm while not engaged in other activities under the code? If so, I would be very curious to see it. Frankly I don't believe such an argument holds much water, but you're welcome to try to convince us otherwise.

Again, if you had done any homework or had even a basic knowledge then you would know that such cites are very commonly written and prosecuted successfully. If you want to do a bit of research contact any county in IL. Again, it's a fairly common cite. And yes, common even when the subject is not engaged in activities under the wildlife code. The ILSC has upheld such cases. But then you would know that had you either a basic understanding of the law or bothered to do any research.
Again, quit giving legal advice since you clearly don't have even a basic understanding of the law.

Any astute lawyer would be able to make some very good challenges to such a prosecution. So I'll say again I don't think this holds any water.

Astute lawyers can argue whatever they want. Clearly, you are neither astute nor a lawyer nor have the simplest, even basic idea of what you are trying to argue.

Take your own advice from your very first line... "I don't give legal advice." Since that is what you're trying to do with no training, no background, no basis, and definitely no understanding of the law.

 

[chaplain tom]

When I was reading this thread I thought I had received an e-mail update from the NRA or some other gun rights orginization about changes to gun laws, recent court rulings etc. I'm sure some of you get some of those e-mail updates too. Well anyway, I thought I remembered reading that a court in Illinois had ruled that it considered a console in a car or truck as a "case" as defined by the law. I searched for the article and found this.

By ANDY KRAVETZ ([email protected])
Journal Star
Posted Oct 08, 2009 @ 01:51 PM
Last update Oct 08, 2009 @ 09:22 PM
PEORIA —
The Illinois Supreme Court ruled Thursday that citizens can have handguns in a car's console as long as the gun is unloaded and the case is closed.
The state's high court held that transporting a weapon in a car's center console falls under the definition of case according to Illinois law. As such, Michael Diggins, 38, who was arrested March 24, 2006, for having two unloaded handguns, a .357-caliber handgun and a .45-caliber semiautomatic, as well as ammunition in the car's center console, should get a new trial.
Victor Quilici, an attorney for the Illinois State Rifle Association, said the decision will mean people can carry unloaded handguns in a car console as long as it is closed. The attorney also noted that most consoles, which typically hold CDs, cassettes, coins or other small items, tend not to be big enough for anything larger than a handgun.

Here's a link to an article about the ruling. http://www.pjstar.com/news/x593076740/Supreme-Court-upholds-ruling-on-Peoria-gun-case

I don't know if there have been any ordinances enacted to try and thwart this ruling or not, I haven't found any yet, but there may be some. If anybody has more or better information about this case please post it here. It would be helpful for all those unfornunate enough to live in Illinois.

 

[05FLHT]

The IL Supreme Court ruled in Diggins that a vehicles center console meets the statutory definition of a "case." Keeping an unloaded firearm, with a loaded magazine (not inside the firearm), fully enclosed inside of a center console will exempt you from a charge of UUW.

The exemption to UUW, as laid out in the statute, is to have a firearm that is "not readily accessible," or "broken down into a non-functioning state," or "unloaded and fully enclosed in a case." The Illinois Wildlife Code does not use the same definition for a "case." Under the WC, a case is further required "to be designed to house a firearm."

There was legislation introduced to close this "deadly" loophole, but as of yet it has gone nowhere.

 

[isp2605]

When I was reading this thread I thought I had received an e-mail update from the NRA or some other gun rights orginization about changes to gun laws, recent court rulings etc. I'm sure some of you get some of those e-mail updates too. Well anyway, I thought I remembered reading that a court in Illinois had ruled that it considered a console in a car or truck as a "case" as defined by the law.

05FLHT is correct. The case Chaplain Tom is referring to is Diggins and it only applied to the UUW statute as that was the only issue before the court. Diggins did not rule the console was a case, it said the console could be a "container". I know that doesn't seem like much difference to the untrained but in legal terms that does make a difference.
Read my post above (#27 dated 02/06/10) where I explained the ruling.
The UUW statute and the uncased gun statute are 2 separate statutes each with their own elements. People who have no legal training don't understand the law which is why these type discussions continue. They read a statute, or part of a statute, don't understand the full wording, and don't realize that even tho another one statute may not cover something that another statute may. They think "uncased gun" means UUW. Not necessarily so. They could be charged with UUW, or uncased gun, or both. One charge is not exclusive to nor dependant upon the other. 2 separate statutes which either or both could be charged depending on the circumstances of the case.
I try to make it easy to understand for people. Use DUI and open liquor as an example. A person can have an open bottle of beer in their vehicle and not be charged with DUI because they don't meet the elements for the DUI. Or they can be charged with DUI if they meet the elements of that charge and not have open liquor. Or they could be charged with both DUI and open liquor. It all depends on what the specific circumstances are of each incident.

 

[chaplain tom]

The Illinois Supreme Court ruled Thursday that citizens can have handguns in a car's console as long as the gun is unloaded and the case is closed.

Does anyone have a link to find the actual Supreme Court ruling? From what the article says (and I know it's just an article) the supreme court clearly defined a console as a case. In fact an attorney for the ISRA is under that oppinion also as to what the supreme court defined as a case.

"Victor Quilici, an attorney for the Illinois State Rifle Association, said the decision will mean people can carry unloaded handguns in a car console as long as it is closed. The attorney also noted that most consoles, which typically hold CDs, cassettes, coins or other small items, tend not to be big enough for anything larger than a handgun."

I'd like to read the actual supreme court ruling in their words to see if they talk about a container or a case in the wording of their decision. If isp2605 is correct, then the ISRA and the newspaper that printed this story are spreading some very dangerous incorrect information that WILL send someone else to jail.

 

[chaplain tom]

I found the actual ruling. In the first paragraph it states:

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellant, v.
MICHAEL DIGGINS, Appellee.​

[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]

Opinion filed October 8, 2009.​

[/FONT]

JUSTICE BURKE delivered the judgment of the court, with
opinion.
Chief Justice Fitzgerald and Justices Freeman, Thomas, Kilbride,
Garman, and Karmeier concurred in the judgment and opinion.​

[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]

OPINION​

[/FONT]

Section 24–1.6(c)(iii) of the Criminal Code of 1961 provides that
a person is not guilty of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon if that
weapon is “unloaded and enclosed in a case, firearm carrying box,
shipping box, or other container by a person who has been issued a
currently valid Firearm Owner’s Identification Card.” 720 ILCS
5/24–1.6(c)(iii) (West 2006). In the case at bar, we are asked to
determine whether the center console of a vehicle is a “case” within
the meaning of this provision. For the reasons that follow, we​

conclude that it is.

http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2009/October/106367.pdf

 

[isp2605]

If you read the entire ruling the ILSC is specific in talking only of 26-1 which is the UUW statute.
The internet talk from some who don't understand the ruling and it's application and then start interjecting their own "opinion" is what is dangerous. The ILAG immediately after the Diggins ruling rendered the opinion that Diggins in no way affected the uncased gun statute and to be in full compliance with all the laws a gun still needed to be in a case as defined in the statutes. That opinion was sent out to all of the state's attorneys and LE agencies.
2.33 was not an issue before the courts. The ILSC was only addressing the UUW statute which is what Diggins was charged with. It's really not all that confusing except when people think "gun" and "case" and they don't understand court cases but they think it applies across the board to all statutes. Completely different statutes with completely different elements for each.
BTW, an uncased gun cite is a non-jailable offense.
The information I've provided are NOT my opinions. It has all been information provided from the IL AG and various state's attorneys. When people disagree with the information I've provided they start yelling that it's my opinion that I'm giving. It's not. It's what has been handed down as opinion from the courts and the AG. It's information that most of you probably don't get which we get on a daily basis. When someone says "what's a cop know about the law." Well, we get the opinions and rulings from the courts on a daily basis unlike most people who only get their information from the short squibs in the papers which are usually articles written by jounalism interns who barely understand speeding laws let alone any knowledge or training in court cases.

 

[Deanimator]

Stay out of Illinois.
Spend your money somewhere else.

Problem solved.

 

[chaplain tom]

What I'm concerned about is the ISRA attorney stating in print that "the decision will mean people can carry unloaded handguns in a car console as long as it is closed." I understand that you are clarifying that there are "2" separate statutes in play here. I'm just showing the statements made by people close to the case that DO NOT mention the "2" separate statutes when describing the decision in this case and the danger in following those statements as THE LAW concerning the transportation of a firearm in Illinois. I AM NOT GIVING OPINION ON ANYTHING HERE. BUT THE ATTORNEY FOR THE ISRA IS AND IT IS PROBABLY WRONG. Based on that, someone else will go to jail for this very same thing if arrested by the right law enforcement agency.

 

[05FLHT]

You can carry an unloaded firearm, inside of a vehicle center console that fully encloses the firearm, and are exempt from a charge of UUW (felony). As to whether or not you would be charged with a violation of the IL Wildlife Code (misdemeanor) is a good question. Can you be charged with violation of the WC, yes. Will the charge hold up in court, maybe. Do we have any volunteers to test this and find out?

IL laws regarding transportation are as clear as mud. "Inaccessible," so can I carry a loaded firearm in my trunk? How about "broken down into a non-functioning state," can I carry a handgun with the slide off, but with a loaded magazine in the frame, in my pocket? Even if you "transport" an unloaded firearm, fully enclosed in a case designed to house a firearm, and possess a valid FOID card there is no guarantee you will not be detained or arrested in IL.

 

[Phatty]

As mentioned above, if you don't keep your gun in a firearm-specific case, you could be given a citation (similar to a serious traffic violation) and will have to show up in court and pay a fine. The Diggins case simply removed the possibility of getting charged with a felony when you keep your unloaded gun in non-firearm-specific case.

For practical purposes, now that the risk of a felony conviction is off the table, many people will likely keep their unloaded guns in their center console or glove department. The remote possibility of being caught coupled with the relatively soft penalty if you do get caught will not scare many people into complying with the Wildlife Code. Just think of the huge number of people who risk the possibility of a traffic ticket by speeding -- and in those cases there's a much higher chance of getting caught because the violation is out in the open for all to see.

But, before everyone decides to run out and take this risk, there is something they should consider. There is a real possibility that in the future the state or federal government will pass a law prohibiting the possession of guns by people that have ever been convicted of any gun violation in the past. They will justify the law by saying that the 2nd Amendment only protects a right to keep and bear arms by responsible gun owners, and that a history of violating gun laws demonstrates that the person is not a responsibile gun owner. So, gun owners should be extra vigilent about complying with all gun laws because in the future it could determine whether or not they get to even own a gun.

 

[MisterMike]

Love zombie threads.

ISP, if you're still checking in on this thread and have the ability to communicate to the right folks within the agency, you might want to tell them that the decade-plus old pamphlet is still on the ISP server and comes up as the first hit when you do a web search on the topic.

You mentioned earlier--actually way earlier--that once something is one the web it's there forever. That's not actually what's going on in this instance . . . the reason that this old pamphlet continues to pop up is because the ISP webmaster has not deleted it from the publicly accessible files on your web server. I haven't taken a look to see if it's inconsistent with current laws, but if it is the ISP is doing the public a disservice by disseminating outdated information.

It's easily fixable if the right person can be convinced to fix it.

 

[spoken]

(720 ILCS 5/21-6) (from Ch. 38, par. 21-6)
Sec. 21-6. Unauthorized Possession or Storage of Weapons.
(a) Whoever possesses or stores any weapon enumerated in Section 33A-1 in any building or on land supported in whole or in part with public funds or in any building on such land without prior written permission from the chief security officer for such land or building commits a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) The chief security officer must grant any reasonable request for permission under paragraph (a).
(Source: P.A. 89-685, eff. 6-1-97.)

This statute could be (and has been - see People v Bruner) used to prosecute people who are "container carrying." One could be in compliance with the UUW and even the wildlife code statute that you keep bringing up, but still be prosecuted under the storage/possession statute above.

There is a reason this law is not used to prosecute in all situations that it could be (driving on any public road, walking on any public street, etc). The statute wouldn't hold water. Just because a law is on the books, doesn't mean the law will stand up in court. Just because someone may be in technical violation of it, doesn't mean the statute will hold up. We still have the Constitution, thankfully, and it seems that even the best-intentioned "legal beagles" forget.

I'm still interested in examples of people prosecuted under the wildlife statute while engaged in any activities that the wildlife code regulates. Throughout the years I've been involved in Illinois gun rights, I've never heard of this happening. I'm sure it's been tried, but I'm highly skeptical there is any established case law.

ISP, can we discuss this without the personal attacks, derogatory remarks, and posturing?

 

[razorback2003]

Is there even a misdemeanor charge for this carrying a weapon deal in Illinois or is it just a felony?

I find it hard to understand that people who have otherwise clean records that get caught with loaded pistols in their cars would be given felony convictions over that???? That is kind of silly considering there is no licensing system....no open carry...no nothing.....it would make more sense for just a fine and be on your way at worst...not a felony charge...that is NUTS! Are these weapons charges ever dropped down to misdemeanors....what is the common outcome for the avg joe up there who gets caught carrying illegally on his person or in his car????? In Tennessee it is a misdemeanor...generally a fine...people are often issued summons for loaded pistols in cars w/o license/permits and not arrested if they have an otherwise clean record.

 

[05FLHT]

Is there even a misdemeanor charge for this carrying a weapon deal in Illinois or is it just a felony?

Short answer is yes and no. See below.

I find it hard to understand that people who have otherwise clean records that get caught with loaded pistols in their cars would be given felony convictions over that???? That is kind of silly considering there is no licensing system....no open carry...no nothing.....it would make more sense for just a fine and be on your way at worst...not a felony charge...that is NUTS! Are these weapons charges ever dropped down to misdemeanors....what is the common outcome for the avg joe up there who gets caught carrying illegally on his person or in his car????? In Tennessee it is a misdemeanor...generally a fine...people are often issued summons for loaded pistols in cars w/o license/permits and not arrested if they have an otherwise clean record.

You must meet one of the exemptions listed in the statute in order to not be in violation of UUW. UUW of a weapon, a loaded firearm in a case, or an unloaded and uncased weapon that is accessible or not broken down into a non functioning state, is a felony. Openly carrying a loaded weapon is Ag UUW (another felony).

As to your question of what is a misdemeanor in Illinois? Being a gang member in Chicago, with a lengthy criminal record of violence, drugs and other crimes will get you charged with a felony for illegally possessing a handgun, but will be plea bargained down to a misdemeanor so you only have to spend three days in county jail. Yes, I am being sarcastic, but no, I am not joking.

 

[05FLHT]

This statute could be (and has been - see People v Bruner) used to prosecute people who are "container carrying." One could be in compliance with the UUW and even the wildlife code statute that you keep bringing up, but still be prosecuted under the storage/possession statute above.

There is a reason this law is not used to prosecute in all situations that it could be (driving on any public road, walking on any public street, etc). The statute wouldn't hold water. Just because a law is on the books, doesn't mean the law will stand up in court. Just because someone may be in technical violation of it, doesn't mean the statute will hold up. We still have the Constitution, thankfully, and it seems that even the best-intentioned "legal beagles" forget.

I'm still interested in examples of people prosecuted under the wildlife statute while engaged in any activities that the wildlife code regulates. Throughout the years I've been involved in Illinois gun rights, I've never heard of this happening. I'm sure it's been tried, but I'm highly skeptical there is any established case law.

I don't like the laws in Illinois, as they are written, any more than you do. They are confusing, contradicting and all around as clear as mud. However, there is both the UUW statute and the Wildlife Code to deal with in Illinois when transporting a firearm.

Both of these requirements have been dissected and discussed to death. To be in compliance with the UUW statute you have to meet one of the exemptions, being that the firearm must be unloaded and fully enclosed in a case, or inaccessible, or broken down into a non functioning state. The WC, as it is written, further defines a "case" to be designed to house a firearm.

That is just the way it is. Should a person be charged with a WC (misdemeanor) violation for transporting a firearm in a case not designed to house a firearm when not engaged in the act of hunting, no. Could they be, yes. That is the point. It is only a warning, and as such it is more than fair.

As far as people who transport a firearm, unloaded and fully enclosed in a case designed to house a firearm, being arrested for UUW, that would now appear to be cause for a 1983 civil rights violation suit. John Horstman got $50K from DuPage County for his trouble. My thought is the first local government to pay out $500K is going to open some eyes.

 

[Deanimator]

Should a person be charged with a WC (misdemeanor) violation for transporting a firearm in a case not designed to house a firearm when not engaged in the act of hunting, no.

How do you PROVE the case was "DESIGNED to house a firearm"?

Is it a crime to carry a firearm in a case designed to house a camera which is visually and functionally indistinguishable from one "designed to house a firearm"?

 

[snubbies]

Simple answer

Unload it and throw it in the locked trunk. If it required, and I believe it is, the ammunition be kept separate from the gun, what is the sense of keeping it in the console???

 

[razorback2003]

I'm sorry that you folks in Illinois with clean records are charged with felonies over a silly weapons charge when there is no way to have a pistol loaded in your car or on your person in public....that is stupid.....felony charges are very expensive to deal with compared to misdemeanors.

People in Tennessee are lucky enough that many times the loaded pistol is a Class C Misdemeanor (when not around people) max 500 dollar fine usually.....and confiscation of the pistol when they get caught without a permit for 'intent to go armed'.....not the greatest thing when you can go to Mississippi and Kentucky and have it loaded in the car and no fine....but a Class C Misdemeanor and fine is not the end of the world....they can still get a Handgun Carry Permit after the ordeal and buy guns......carrying of a handgun in public with intent to go armed is usually a Class A Misdemeanor....again a Fine usually for clean records....not good but not the end of the world.....Felonies are so much harder for a lawyer to plea bargain with than misdemeanors....sad very sad for the honest man who may make a mistake or just needs to protect himself when there is no licensing system.

I have known some older folks who, out of habit from Arkansas, TN, MS, when driving up in Illinois....still had their pistols loaded in their gloveboxes..as they normally do....elderly folks just going on their road trips...or the pistol loaded in a gun case like they do when they go anywhere else......a lot of old people do that when traveling....they don't have net access or know how to use the net......sad to think of an old timer charged with a felony over something we don't even think about in this area of the country.

 

[Deanimator]

I have known some older folks who, out of habit from Arkansas, TN, MS, when driving up in Illinois....still had their pistols loaded in their gloveboxes..as they normally do....elderly folks just going on their road trips...or the pistol loaded in a gun case like they do when they go anywhere else......a lot of old people do that when traveling....they don't have net access or know how to use the net......sad to think of an old timer charged with a felony over something we don't even think about in this area of the country.

The legislators (and indirectly the voters) of Illinois have made a conscious decision that it's better for those elderly people to be carjacked and murdered or for a woman to be beaten, raped and murdered than for them to be able to defend themselves outside of their homes. Chicago lawmakers decided that it was better for them to be slaughtered in their homes than to defend themselves.

Illinois is the way it is, because the Illinoisians WANT it that way. If they didn't, they'd have elected people who did something different.

 

[chaplain tom]

"Chicago/Daly/Obama" style politics means that the person who got the most votes isn't necessarily the one who ends up in office. And even more than in other states, even if the person who rightfully won the election actually ends up in office, that don't mean they will follow through on what they said (at least to the public) to get elected. There's a lot more to Illinois politics than meets the eye. Well that's kind of an oxymoron...What goes on in Illinois politics will never meet an eye if you know what I mean. I wouldn't be so quick to blame the people of Illinois for what the "elected" officials do.

 

[Deanimator]

I wouldn't be so quick to blame the people of Illinois for what the "elected" officials do.

I might agree if we were talking at the national level, but not that much even then.

I'm from Chicago and have relatives there. Daley doesn't have to rig the elections. There are enough people there who WILLINGLY vote for him, despite the post-apocalyptic, "Mad Max" nightmare into which he's turned the city.