Handguns in cars in Illinois

S

Soybomb

New member
Hey Illinois residents, I live in the southern part of the state. Generally a couple times a week I make rather long trips for work like 1.5-2 hour drives each way, sometimes late at night, it might be 12am-2am before I get home. I drive an older car thats fun to drive and cheap to run. However it also probably has an increased likelyhood of breaking down. I'm not too worried, most of southern Illinois is pretty friendly, but either way being stranded in the middle of no where late can put a person on edge when you don't know who is stopping.

Would my pistol in my closed arm rest console with the magazine sitting next to it count as enclosed, or an unzipped/unlatched but closed case on the passenger seat? I also sometimes travel with a large camera bag, does one of its pouches count for a case and legal carrying while unloaded or does it specifically have to be a gun case? And just out of curiosity if it was ever used for self defense is it still breaking any laws or are you legal since you had it stored properly and only loaded and fired in self defense?
 
Thanks for the link I was questioning the language of:
"unloaded and enclosed in a case, firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container, by the possessor of a valid Firearm Owners Identification Card." Other container isn't particular specific.

I also found this http://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/oi000702.html which led me to believe that only wildlife code was strict about what constituted a case and zipped requirements. But upon reading it again I note " The firearm possessed was uncased, unloaded and the ammunition for the weapon was immediately accessible at the time of the offense" as qualifier for felony. Sounds like zipped camera bag might still qualify as a case.

Seems like in a case and unloaded it is and just hope to never need it. If ISP stands for what my first guess would be, for a person with a hatch back whats the best place to put a case with the gun and magazines when I'm driving? Floorboard behind the passenger seat? Under the passenger seat? Cargo area is further back but then its a projectile in the event of a wreck and of course out of sight is prefered anyway. It doesn't sound like it matters, but the less hassle when getting pulled over the better for everyone. I was thinking about going into the ISP station at DuQuoin to ask my questions but man talk about convenience ;)
 
For hatchbacks, SUVs, pickups, etc that don't have a trunk then in a case, unloaded, and in the rear away from driver and passengers is a safe way to go. We all realize that in some of the smaller vehicles a driver could reach all areas within the vehicle. As long as a person is making a good faith effort to comply and not trying to play games with what they think will get by as an "interpretation" then you'll be good to go. I had one stopped once who was carrying a Mini-14 in a soft case in the front seat with him. He had a hole cut in the case so he could reach the trigger and had a hole cut so he could insert the magazine. He tried to say the gun was encased. Judge explained to the guy that he might try getting around the rules but he wasn't sharp enough to try it in that county. The guy was found guilty and lost the gun. It was obvious what the guy was trying to do and not being familar with the law he didn't realize "encased" meant the entire gun had to be enclosed. Cutting holes for the trigger and mag well no longer enclosed the gun.
24-1 says one of the ways is "or in a case". However, as you mentioned, going to the conservation code it says the gun must be in a case. So the "or" isn't a way around 24-1. Any LEO can also write the uncased gun under the conservation section, not just the DNR CPOs.
A person definitely doesn't want to get jammed up trying to skirt the definitions. Depending on where a person is located when stopped it could be a felony to be caught carrying the wrong way. And no one wants a felony conviction on their record.
 
Great thanks for the info! It sounds like case doesn't necessarily have to be a case made for a gun, but totally enclosed, out of reach, and takes some manipulation to open and I can probably be alright with the front zippered pouch of my camera bag as long as its closed and not sitting next to me or open.

I don't even plan on having it even noticeable but I'd still like to be sure its legal if I were to get the car searched or something. I'll just hope I don't break down because it sounds like in Illinois there isn't much you can do to have it reasonably accessable should you need it. :D
 
Soybomb- Illinois doesn't want you to have an accessible means of self protection. Apparently, if a BG is trying to get your car or valuables from you, you must have him wait until you can dial 911, then wait for the ISP to, um, pick up what's left of you. Makes sense to some, I guess. By the way- the Gov, and all members of both houses of the Illinois legislature, can legally carry. Makes you and me feel real pampered, eh?

Chuck
 
i can't remember whether the law's still around, but i think chicago aldermen can carry, too. the only civilians i've known to carry have or had mob ties, i've heard about some of them being caught, refusing a search and walking. never witnessed it myself though so i can't confirm or disprove. some other people might carry but they're quiet about it. regardless, i don't, and i really hate this state.
 
Actually I know there are some people that try to use the language of the law to carry with a fannypack and a magazine next to the gun or in their weak side pocket. I think 2 people have been arrested and I don't think anyone's been convicted, but I imagine its bound to get you hassled at best, and shelling some money out for an attorney eventually most likely. So you have may have precedent from Horstman v. Illinois, Haggerty v. Illinois, McDade v. Illinois, Bruner v. Illinois. But would you want to carry bad enough to know you still would stand a decent chance of being arrested and charged with a felony? I certainly wouldnt. But I know some people do it. Heres a forum on Illinois concealed carry http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showforum=3 The thing that bothers me is that it could be 2am and I'm 15 minutes from a town in either direction and my car dies. Not only can I not defend myself, I might have to even leave the safety of my car and walk defenseless for a good distance to get a cellphone signal. I do think it will change over time. I'm surprised it hasn't already, you'd think Chicago down would force it through.

Which I guess brings up a question of curiosity I've always had, people that have licenses to carry in missouri or indiana, how do you deal with that? Presumably you carry legally through Illinois, do you just pull over in Missouri and load and conceal your gun? I can't see doing it at a rest stop without drawing attention, even the side of the highway you'd probably want to be pretty discreet to not draw attention to yourself in a low car :D
 
unless you're in a tiny car with big windows you can easily manipulate a gun at a rest stop without unconcealing, i've done it before when i'm out of state. i'm actually already on illinois carry as well, i'd like to see the board grow though. in the 'burbs we've got concealed carry inc. at concealedcarry.org, they run a mailing list and a few other things... anyway... maybe some day. respect for the second amendment is really the only big thing giving me pause in terms of continuing my education in illinois or wisconsin - economically, they're the two best states, but i despise the notion of being stuck in these whiney blue states. i'd still like to go to the best school i can get into (one semester left in my undergrad and applying to law schools) but i'd be willing to pay more in tuition to another state i like the politics of more.
 
+2 on MountainJoe's comment as I already did. Come on over to Indiana, we understand the 2nd Amendment. Of course so does most of Illinois, its just our "comrades" in Chicago who are the problem. Until you do move, my advice is I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six.
 
So you have may have precedent from Horstman v. Illinois, Haggerty v. Illinois, McDade v. Illinois, Bruner v. Illinois. But would you want to carry bad enough to know you still would stand a decent chance of being arrested and charged with a felony?
Click to expand...
You're damn right I would. And I do carry in a fanny pack. As you mentioned, neither John nor Vana were convicted, but that doesn't tell the whole story. All charges against Vana were dropped before her trial began after she refused numerous offers to plead guilty. All charges against John were dropped before he went to trial and after he refused offers to plead guilty. John was then paid $50,000 by the Dupage SA to settle his wrongful arrest suit. Yes, you can be hassled, but you can be hassled for just about any reason. Now that seat belts are a primary enforcement issue, my wife has been pulled over for not wearing her seat belt twice. She was wearing the belt both times.
I recognize that not everyone is going to know the law, and some people may try to make life hard for me. That's OK. Nobody ever promised that having rights would make life easy!

ISP is trying to help, but I'm going to disagree with him here. There's a LOT of middle ground between having a gun out of reach (which is not in the law except as an alternative to encased transportation) and cutting holes in your gun case so it no longer encloses the gun. It's not one or the other. If the gun is encased or enclosed in a container (meaning a box, case, etc.--NOT part of your car) then the law has nothing to say about where in the vehicle it's located. In fact, the law does not mention a vehicle at all, which is precisely why fanny pack carry IS legal in Illinois.


Moreover, you are misinterpreting what is being said here:
Unless specifically exempted from UUW, a person commits a Class 4 Felony if he or she carries or possesses a firearm contrary to the aggravated UUW law of the Criminal Code (i.e., unlawfully carries on their person or illegally transports a firearm in a vehicle) and one or more of the following aggravating factors apply:

(1) The firearm possessed was uncased, loaded and immediately accessible at the time of the offense;

(2) The firearm possessed was uncased, unloaded and the ammunition for the weapon was immediately accessible at the time of the offense;
Click to expand...

Notice the key words "if," "contrary," (to the law) "unlawfully" and the big one, "and"! Also notice the highly important phrase "unless specifically exempted."

If you have a FOID card, your gun is unloaded, and your gun is enclosed in a case, then you are "specifically exempted" and the clause about accessibility does NOT apply to you. That is specifically listed only as an "aggravating factor." Aggravating factors are just that; they have no meaning whatsoever unless you've already committed a crime. They only increase the penalty for a crime you committed; they are NOT crimes in and of themselves.

If you read the McDade and Bruner decisions, you'll find that the court quoted from the original debate in the legislature back when the UUW statute was passed. One legislator stated that according to his reading of the bill, it would allow anyone with a FOID card to stick a gun in any case and "go walking down the street with it." He asked the sponsor whether that was correct, and the sponsor told him that it was. In the opinion of the court, that establishes that the intent of the legislature in passing the statute must have been to allow the transportation of guns by FOID holders as long as the guns are unloaded and encased.


(And just so we're clear, ISP2605 is an Illinois State Police officer. I am not an LEO or a lawyer. If that leads you to give more weight to his opinion than mine, I'll understand. I'm just telling you what I believe is correct; don't sue me if you get arrested.)
 
"(And just so we're clear, ISP2605 is an Illinois State Police officer. I am not an LEO or a lawyer. If that leads you to give more weight to his opinion than mine, I'll understand. I'm just telling you what I believe is correct; don't sue me if you get arrested.)"

And a senior command officer who has been at the job for a lot of years and has taught criminal law.
Not only not sue Don, but you can't even use his beliefs as your defense.
Here's where Don is giving out some very bad legal advice. The firearm has to be in a case or some other kind of container like box while being transported in a vehicle. There is no alternative to that. As I stated previously and provided the section, 24-1 gives alternatives. The conservation code does not. It's where internet attorneys get jammed up by not understanding the law and that just because one section doesn't cover something, another section might. They read something like 24-1 and suddenly they become internet legal experts. This is just such a case. You can have a firearm in the rear of a Suburban behind the furthest rear seat. That would be completely out of your reach as the driver. But if that gun is not encased, it's a violation, you can be charged, and the gun seized. So being encased is not an alternative.
So here's your choice. You can take the advice of someone who admittedly is not an LEO nor an attorney, but is an internet "expert" only based on his "beliefs" or you can take the advice of someone who not only has studied it, enforced it, has been sought out as someone who has more than a passing "belief" in the law, who has no ulterior motive but just doesn't want to see the regular Joe, law abiding citizen get jammed up. Your choice. I've given you the IL statutes where you can read the law yourself. I didn't give you "beliefs".
 
Not to be misunderstood, I agree and the fanny pack people are probably onto something. Legally defendable so far, but at this point the opinion of ISP, and other LEO's I would encounter actually mean more to me. I'm just out of undergrad and don't have the funds to defend myself appropriately, and try to keep myself out of any trouble since I'm considering law school. Right, wrong, or somewhere in between, they're the ones taking you for a ride heh.

To a lesser extent the same goes with placement. I agree I should be able to have a gun case with huge red letters on the passenger seat that says GUN INSIDE as long as I have my FOID, its in the closed case, and its unloaded. The flip side of the coin is if I stash it behind the passenger seat and get pulled over, I'm going to get a warning or ticket and be on my way in 15 minutes versus potentially a lot of waiting, being asked to ok a search, denying it, and at the very least for sure getting a ticket for whatever I was pulled over for. I pick my battles ;)

I would find some appeal to having a gun in a fanny pack when I have my head under my hood at 2:30 am in the middle of nowhere or am walking down the road to get a cell signal. I'm afraid I think its too much of an invitation to a hassle I can't have right now though. Hopefully in the next few years it wont be anything anyone will need to worry about in Illinois!

Above all else it just sounds like I'm screwed for quickly accessable car break down weapon unless I go with the fanny pack solution. And thank you all for the advice from all sides of course. Its off this topic but I have to admit I'm curious now that we have both sides in here..... Mr. LEO you for whatever reason are having a converation with Don outside his car or on the street or something and you notice his fanny pack, or perhaps even recognize a label or the model as one intended for conceal carry or for whatever reason have an idea he has a gun in it. Terry search? Arrest? The magazine is in his pocket. I've never heard from the other side on the fanny pack thing, seems interesting.
 
ISP, did you read the article from Outdoor Illinois linked by Soybomb? It was the text of a pamphlet created jointly by the Illinois State Police and the DNR. It clearly states that the Wildlife Code is more restrictive only in that it requires a case "specifically made to hold a firearm and which completely encloses the firearm," NOT in that it says anything about accessibility or ammunition. It also says that the Wildlife Code would come into play if you had an uncased or loaded gun as defined in the Code while engaged in actions covered under the Wildlife Code. That means hunting, fishing, target shooting--but does it apply to driving home from work late at night with a firearm that can't legally be used on any game under the Wildlife Code?

As you say, your experience with the law is greater than mine. Would you mind explaining to us why no one from Mcdade to Bruner to Horstman to Haggerty has been charged under the Widlife Code? Horstman and Haggerty were practically begged to plead guilty; Horstman was cynically called a sex offender at his arraignment simply because the officers who searched him had originally been called to the bike path because someone with a completely different description than John exposed himself to some walkers on the trail. It took months in each case to get to trial, and the SA's seemed, to my admittedly untrained mind, to be trying anything they could think of. Why didn't they simply charge these people under the Wildlife Code, go to trial and win an easy slam dunk? Why lean on Vana Haggerty for months with charges under a statute which even you say does not prohibit her actions, only to dismiss the charges literally in the final hour before the trial was to begin, when they had an easy way to convict her?
I understand you can't read their minds, but right or wrong, the idea that the Wildlife Code is a way around 24-1 seems to be widespread in both the legal and law enforcement community, so this is something I've been wondering about for quite awhile. Your thoughts?


On another matter, what did you think of my analysis of the "aggravating factors?" I notice you didn't comment on it. Was it correct, or did I miss something there too?
 
Soybomb, I'll get into more detail on the Wildlife Code when I get back from work, but for now I have to go. I will tell you that I understand your choices. When I don't have the fanny pack and I get pulled over with my admittedly large pocketknife in my waistband, the first thing I do is toss it under the passenger seat where no one could possibly think I'm reaching for it. Then my hands stay on the wheel until someone tells me differently.

I have every legal right to have that knife on my person, but I won't be needing it to get through a traffic stop, after all, and I prefer to dispute the finer points of Illinois law with cops on internet forums, not on the shoulder. ;)
 
"It also says that the Wildlife Code would come into play if you had an uncased or loaded gun as defined in the Code while engaged in actions covered under the Wildlife Code. That means hunting, fishing, target shooting--but does it apply to driving home from work late at night with a firearm that can't legally be used on any game under the Wildlife Code?

As you say, your experience with the law is greater than mine. Would you mind explaining to us why no one from Mcdade to Bruner to Horstman to Haggerty has been charged under the Widlife Code? "

Sorry but you're misunderstanding. They CAN and HAVE been charged under wildlife code for uncased guns. Happens all the time and people are found guilty of it. Does not have to be wildlife related. Do they HAVE to be charged? No, no more than any other charge. For just about any situaton not all the charges possible are filed. But they can be. Too many people think that ALL charges have to be filed. They don't. It's where the layman doesn't understand the legal system. They read a bit here, a bit there, then they think they know it all.
Why they weren't filed in the ref cases is up to the SA. But the absence of charges doesn't mean they couldn't be nor should it be inferred. That's the way the legal system really works.
 
"On another matter, what did you think of my analysis of the "aggravating factors?" I notice you didn't comment on it. Was it correct, or did I miss something there too?"

Don't know what your point is.
24-1.6 just specifies what brings the level from a Class A misd to a Class 4 Felony.
24-1.6 says is if you're carrying an uncased, loaded firearm immediately accessible, or unloaded firearm with the ammo was immediately accessible, on any street, public land within an incorporated town. There are also 7 other specified actions which also enhance the penalty to a Class 4.
 
ISP 2605, I'm not sure you and I communicating clearly.

1. OK, people do get charged under the Wildlife Code--that's obvious. But do people get convicted under the Wildlife Code even when they're transporting unloaded guns in cases with valid FOID cards? That's what we're discussing here (well, I am--I wonder now if we haven't gotten crossthreaded along the way) Can you point me to any cases? What I was asking was, why not these specific people I mentioned? Horstman, Haggerty, Mcdade, Bruner? You say they could have been charged under the Wildlife Code and it would have been a clear conviction, so why weren't they? You also say that charging them under 24-1 was wrong, at least tacitly, when you tell me that I'm right about 24-1 but I must have missed the Wildlife Code. Fine, but then why weren't those people charged that way? My point is that I don't think Joe Birkett or the SA in Marion County share your firm conviction that the Wildlife Code makes 24-1 irrelevant, don't you agree? Even when Birkett came out and conceded his mistake in charging John Horstman, he did NOT say "But don't any of the rest of you follow his example because I'll just charge you under the Wildlife Code instead."
What he said was that he was now of the opinion that Illinois law allows fanny pack carry as practiced by Horstman (unloaded pistol in "day planner-style" gun case, loaded magazine on the belt) and that he hoped the legislature would amend the law to remove what he called a "loophole."

If your argument is, as you imply, blindingly obvious to an experienced professional like yourself, and my argument is the folly of rank amateurs like myself, then why didn't Joe Birkett, professional lawyer and State's Attorney for Dupage County, apply it and avoid paying a $50,000 settlement to his defendant? Is he a rank amateur, too? Is the SA of Marion County not a professional with experience in the law? (His name escapes me.)



2. My point about the Aggravating Factors listed was that Soybomb said that since having ammunition accessible or having the gun accessible was listed as an aggravating factor, you shouldn't have even an unloaded, legally-encased gun in an accessible location, nor should the ammunition be accessible. My point was that this is NOT a crime because having it accessible only aggravates the actual crime, having the gun loaded or not legally encased. If the gun is unloaded, legally cased, and you have a FOID, you're not committing UUW and aggravating factors are totally irrelevant. Simple.



3. I'm not sure that you and I have made it clear to each other what we're discussing. At various points in this thread you've given advice on issues ranging from uncased guns, to guns in unzipped cases, to guns in cut-up cases, to guns in glove compartments, consoles, boxes and bags. For the record, I agree that the first three methods are illegal in Illinois, particularly with loaded guns. The last two are not illegal under the UUW statute but are illegal under the Wildlife Code as far as it applies (I'm still not totally convinced that the WC applies to firearms not used for hunting in Illinois, and the ISP's own booklet on the law says it only applies when "engaged in activities covered by the wildlife code" which would seem to exclude driving home from work.) It's less important to me personally, though, because I use gun-specific cases exclusively. No generic boxes or bags. In my family it is an old tradition to carry several cheap gun cases in the trunk or behind the truck seat, just in case you run across some irresistable deal. :D

Now, with all that said, let's be clear. I am talking about transporting an unloaded gun in a case designed to hold a gun (my fanny pack has a separate compartment for the gun, which has a removable holster insert inside, a loop for the magazine or a flashlight, and was made by a company that manufactures gun cases) while in possession of a valid FOID card. Is it your contention that this is illegal under the Wildlife Code, or have we been talking past each other a bit?

The Wildlife Code's definition of a "case" is this:
(520 ILCS 5/1.2b‑1) (from Ch. 61, par. 1.2b‑1)
Sec. 1.2b‑1. Case. Case means a container specifically designed for the purpose of housing a gun or bow and arrow device which completely encloses such gun or bow and arrow device by being zipped, snapped, buckled, tied or otherwise fastened with no portion of the gun or bow and arrow device exposed.
(Source: P.A. 84‑150.)
Click to expand...
My fanny pack clearly meets these criteria.

The article published by DNR and the Illinois State Police jointly, which refers the reader to the Illinois State Police for further information, has this to say about conforming with the three codes:
Question: How can I legally transport a firearm on my person or in my vehicle?

Answer: Three statutory codes regulate the possession, transfer, and transportation of firearms—the Criminal Code, the Wildlife Code, and the Firearm Owner's Identification Act. Under Unlawful Use of Weapons (UUW) in the Criminal Code, persons who have been issued a valid FOID card may transport a firearm anywhere in their vehicle or on their person as long as the firearm is unloaded and enclosed in a case, firearm carrying box, shipping box or other container. Firearms that are not immediately accessible or are broken down in a non-functioning state may also be carried or transported under the Criminal Code. The Wildlife Code, however, is more restrictive. It requires that all firearms transported in or on any vehicle be unloaded and in a case.

Because of this, it is recommended that, in order to be in compliance with all statutes, all firearms be transported unloaded and enclosed in a case and by persons who have a valid FOID card.
Click to expand...
I DO transport my firearms unloaded and enclosed in a case and I DO have a valid FOID card, and that is EXACTLY what I advised Soybomb that he could do if he so chose. The official position of the Illinois State Police and the Department of Natural Resources is exactly the same as my position. You seem to be the only one still saying any different, which makes me suspect that either I misunderstood you or you misunderstood me. If this post has not clarified my position, I'll be glad to provide more detail.
If my position is clear and you still believe that what I advise (and am doing) is illegal, then please cite the relevant statute. I'm having great difficulty finding the section of the Wildlife Code that deals with transportation, although the section defining a "case" pops right up when I search for "firearm," "case," "transport," etc. I've got to sign off now to get some home repair done before I go to a job interview this afternoon, but I'll check in this evening to see if anyone has clarified this. I'm genuinely interested in what you have to say. I don't want to break the law.
But I'm not going to refuse to exercise a right simply because someone comes along with an appeal to authority and says "trust me, I'm a professional and I'm here to help." If the Wildlife Code prohibits what I do in some way, you should be able to cite the specific part of the statute that does so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top