Handguns in cars in Illinois

Fellas,
thanks for having this conversation. I'm trying to learn as much as possible as well.

My biggest question has to do with what is actually covered by the wildlife code. When does it's more restrictive stipulations apply?

While hunting & fishing? I'm guessing probably so. (though I've never seen it explained anywhere.)

While shooting/plinking on the back 40? What if I'm on the way to go plinking at the farm? What if I'll go plinking later on after work, but I'm not actually heading there right now? What if I'm going hunting later, but am on my way to work now? Does it matter if we're plinking at a dump vs. in the woods? What if a deer runs by downrange? (assuming we don't actually shoot it here)
edit- This is relevant to me. A couple weeks ago, a bunch of us all got together to do some plinking and target shooting at the farm. I don't own enough cases to transport all of my guns at once, so some of them I just disassembled and put in the trunk, in a "good faith" effort to comply. We did not have to drive on any public roads to get back there. The criminal code says I could have had all of the guns fully loaded and ready to rock since we were on our own property, but does the wildlife code get involved with target practice?

While I'm driving home from work? What if I drive through a heavily wooded area? Can they just assume I'm poaching because I'm near a woods with a gun in the car? And/or arrest me under the wildlife code if the gun is in some other kind of container?

How about this one- which is a real scenario here:
We have come across evidence of a meth lab/pot growers in our woods, and want to be armed while scouting the area for more. So I'm walking around our woods with a loaded gun. (you can carry any way you please on your own property according to the criminal code; this whole post is about when the wildlife code applies) Is that poaching? Even if I say I'm carrying for defense? Could someone who gets caught while genuinely poaching get off scott free by just saying he was carrying for defense? If it's deer season and I have a deer permit, does this mean I can no longer carry for defense on my own property? I.E., no matter what I'm doing with a gun I'll be assumed to be either hunting (or I guess poaching if it's not an approved gun) or on the way to hunt?

I'm not asking for specific answers to each of the above questions; I'm just trying to get my gist across about the types of situations I'm concerned with. And, how much of this stuff is actually spelled out somewhere, vs. relying on the Judge's telepathic abilities to discern your intent?
 
Last edited:
"But do people get convicted under the Wildlife Code even when they're transporting unloaded guns in cases with valid FOID cards?"

If their gun is unloaded and in a case then it's not a violation of the wildlife code. That question is like "If the speed limit is 65 but I'm going 63 can I get a ticket?" Of course not, you're meeting the requirements of the law.


"What I was asking was, why not these specific people I mentioned? "

How do you expect anyone to be able to answer that? Only the SAs who filed the charges can answer why they didn't file additional. However, it is very common practice not to charge each and every possible charge, regardless of what the violation is. That happens in every criminal case I've ever been involved in and in 34 yrs of LE that's a considerable number. It's called hanging paper, it confuses the juries, and it gives a judge a way out if you are trying to make a specific point and get a specific conviction. That's the real world. Just because they didn't doesn't mean that they couldn't.


"You also say that charging them under 24-1 was wrong"

I never said any such thing.


"the SA in Marion County share your firm conviction that the Wildlife Code makes 24-1 irrelevant"

Again, I never said any such thing.
It's been a while since I read the case from Marion Co. However, IIRC, that case involved an unloaded gun carried in a fanny pack. If I'm recalling the specifics correctly then C 61 would be irrelevant because it meets the requirements of the law. Unloaded and in a case.


"If the gun is unloaded, legally cased, and you have a FOID, you're not committing UUW and aggravating factors are totally irrelevant. Simple. "

Exactly. Again, I get back to the example of driving 63 in a 65. No violation.
We're both say the same exact thing however, I don't believe you understand what I'm explaining. That's the problem with the internet. Hard to have a full explanation in the length of time to type it. This is a several hour class at the academy. A few lines on the internet can't cover it all.
Let me give you an example and here's where the uncased gun under the Wildlife code comes into play:
Under 24-1(a)(4) it says the UUW does not apply if one of the following conditions:
(i) are broken down in a non-functioning state, or
(ii) are not immediately accessible; or
(iii) are unloaded and enclosed in a case, firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container by a person who has been issued a currently valid FOID.
So someone who JUST reads 24-1 would assume that as long as the gun was (i) or (ii) then they're good to go. According to 24-1 their gun wouldn't have to be in a case because they comply with either (i) or (ii). So they throw their gun, sans case, in the back of their Suburban and take on down the road where they're stopped for speeding. Troop sees the gun laying in the back end. 24-1? Nope, unloaded and inaccessible. However, uncased so here's the charge under C 61. What they fail to realize is they're still not out of the woods and can be cited under Uncased Gun in the Wildlife Section because they also have the gun in a uncase. Not UUW but uncased gun.
That's what I'm trying to explain. Just because you unload it or have inaccessible does not mean they can't be charged under another section, ie, the Wildlife Code for uncased gun.


"The last two are not illegal under the UUW statute but are illegal under the Wildlife Code as far as it applies "

Exactly. And what I'm explaining is it's still a charge. Would it make anyone feel any better going before a judge for uncased gun? Not me, I'd as soon not give my money, and possibly my gun, to the county.


"Is it your contention that this is illegal under the Wildlife Code, or have we been talking past each other a bit?"

No, and I've never said such. I believe we're talking past each other.


"You seem to be the only one still saying any different, "

No I'm not. Please go back and CAREFULLY read what I've written. I've never said any such thing. You've completely misunderstood and misrepresented what I've said.

Once more, here's where the confusion comes in for a lot of kitchen table lawyers. They read 24-1, see the exemptions, and think "my gun is inaccessible, my gun is unloaded, it doesn't need to be in a case." And under 24-1 that would be correct. Then when they get stopped they get popped for an uncased gun. Then we hear them cry and whine, drag out the book, and start pointing at 24-1, not even realizing the Uncased Law is elsewhere in a different section. I've been thru this numerous times when someone comes in complaining about getting written for uncased gun and they say they're legal because "or" in 24-1. I explain that, yes, they did comply with 24-1 but they didn't comply with Ch 61. Violation, go see the judge.
That's what I'm saying. I not sure where your disconnect comes from. You're putting words in my mouth I didn't say, and then putting your own interpretation/spin on it.
As long as your gun is unloaded, in a case, and unloaded then you're good to go. Don't have to worry about 24-1 or C 61.
 
And under 24-1 that would be correct. Then when they get stopped they get popped for an uncased gun. Then we hear them cry and whine, drag out the book, and start pointing at 24-1, not even realizing the Uncased Law is elsewhere in a different section. I've been thru this numerous times when someone comes in complaining about getting written for uncased gun and they say they're legal because "or" in 24-1. I explain that, yes, they did comply with 24-1 but they didn't comply with Ch 61. Violation, go see the judge.
Click to expand...
And btw that was pretty much my original question, because at my first glance it would have appeared I was within the law.

Anyway ISP, whats your general prediction for fanny pack people? Do you think most LEO's in the state would ignore it and consider it within the law or do you think its a matter of time til they have some hassle at least?
 
"Anyway ISP, whats your general prediction for fanny pack people? Do you think most LEO's in the state would ignore it and consider it within the law or do you think its a matter of time til they have some hassle at least?"

3 or 4 yrs ago the "fanny pack exception" became big news. It was nothing new, just became more public. Because it was generating press we first tried to get an interpretation from then Attorney General Jim Ryan. His office took the position "it's up to each state's attorney". So we contacted every state's attorney, all 102, and asked them for their interpretation. We needed to know for 2 reasons. One, we get called almost daily be the public asking if they can do this, or legal to do that. We wanted to find out what to tell the public. (Regardless what the public thinks, we don't make up the law nor do we interpret the law.) The second reason we wanted to know is so our people will know what, if any, charges a SA would prosecute. (Again, regardless of what the public thinks, we're not in the business to just go around arresting people.) So since we couldn't get a definitive answer from the AG we asked all the SAs. Guess what answers we got? Yup, not quite 102 different answers but almost. We got answers from "no fanny pack carry" to "fanny pack carry is OK." But in most counties the answer we got was "call me if you run across it and we'll decide then." So that's where it's at. Depends on the SA in each county. As with everyone, some are pro-gun, some anti-gun, some who will take a stand, some who won't. Some who may OK local residents but will charge those from other areas of the state. It makes it pretty tough for a person to know exactly what to do to keep legal.
My prediction is, and it's only my opinion, if the issue comes to the forefront again like it did a few years ago that the legislature will pass some bill to clarify the law. Further prediction is it won't benefit gun owners. They'll make sure the law prohibits anything close to fanny pack carry. At least that's the way I see the current legislature.
 
Exactly as I thought, we've been more or less in agreement this whole time. You've got me confused with someone else. If you go back and read my posts, I NEVER advocated carrying a loaded gun, or not enclosing the gun in a case. I always said unloaded, in a case, with a FOID.
You told Soybomb that my advice was bad and shouldn't be followed, but in the post above you say my advice would comply with the Wildlife Code, which is the most stringent standard. I can only conclude that I did a bad job of expressing what my advice was, but again, if you reread my earlier posts, I think you'll find that we basically agree.

I think you and I agree that this is legal:
  • Gun in case designed to hold a gun, fastened around the gun so no part is exposed, AND
  • Gun unloaded, AND
  • Possession of a valid FOID card.

And I think you and I agree that these things would mean illegality:
  • Loaded gun, OR
  • Gun not enclosed in a case, OR
  • No FOID card.

The only thing still a bit murky to me is whether the Wildlife Code applies at all times or, as the State Police/DNR pamphlet says, only when "engaged in activities covered by the Wildlife Code." This is a minor point, as the only difference between 24.1 and the Wildlife Code seems to be that the WC requires that a "case" designed for a firearm be used, whereas 24.1 allows the use of any container, and the WC doesn't provide for the alternative methods of either having the gun in an inaccessible location or breaking it down to a non-functioning state, as 24-1 does.
I'd still like to know whether the WC applies at all times and in all places or only, as stated in the ISP booklet, when one is engaged in activities covered by the Wildlife Code.


In any event, I advised Soybomb that all he had to do was make sure that his gun was enclosed in a case, that it was unloaded, and that he had a valid FOID card, and he'd be legal in Illinois. I went out of my way to be respectful and civil in my disagreement. You told him that I was an internet "expert" and an "internet lawyer" who hadn't read the law and whose advice would get him a felony conviction.
Now you say the reason Haggerty wasn't charged with a felony under the same statute you cited is that she had her gun enclosed in a case, it was unloaded, and she had a FOID! You can't have it both ways. Either that method of carry is legal or it is illegal.
 
Once more, here's where the confusion comes in for a lot of kitchen table lawyers. They read 24-1, see the exemptions, and think "my gun is inaccessible, my gun is unloaded, it doesn't need to be in a case." And under 24-1 that would be correct. Then when they get stopped they get popped for an uncased gun. Then we hear them cry and whine, drag out the book, and start pointing at 24-1, not even realizing the Uncased Law is elsewhere in a different section. I've been thru this numerous times when someone comes in complaining about getting written for uncased gun and they say they're legal because "or" in 24-1. I explain that, yes, they did comply with 24-1 but they didn't comply with Ch 61. Violation, go see the judge.
That's what I'm saying. I not sure where your disconnect comes from. You're putting words in my mouth I didn't say, and then putting your own interpretation/spin on it.
As long as your gun is unloaded, in a case, and unloaded then you're good to go. Don't have to worry about 24-1 or C 61.
Click to expand...
I can tell my statement about "not in the law except as an alternative to unloaded in a case" really struck a nerve, but I never meant that to include the Wildlife Code. You were the one who seemed to be saying that the gun had to be inaccessible, in addition to being encased and unloaded, and I was simply trying to state that there's no requirement for inaccessibility in the law at all. I took this:
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.
Click to expand...
to mean that "a good faith effort to comply" included, in your mind, having the gun inaccessible. I apologize if that wasn't correct, but I think you can see how it might appear to the reader.
So I simply replied that there's nothing in the statute about having the gun inaccessible, but then, that's not exactly true, is it? It's mentioned in 24-1, but, as I said, only as an alternative. So I said exactly that. I never even mentioned the Wildlife Code in that sentence, but you seem to have taken me to mean that inaccessibility would be an alternative under BOTH 24-1 and the Wildlife Code. Of course it isn't, but now that I've said so more than once, I think we can let that issue go. I'm not arguing with you on that point. You are right. I agree.

(Regardless what the public thinks, we don't make up the law nor do we interpret the law.)
Click to expand...
Please take this in the jovial spirit in which it is intended, but . . . . I have to ask . . . . does that apply to the Terry Gainer Era, too, or is that something new since he left? Because when he was in charge, the ISP absolutely did interpret law and make it up as they went along. Badly. My father was a storefront FFL back then and he got one of the infamous letters about transportation over Terry Gainer's signature. The ones that said that firearms and ammunition could never be in the same area of an automobile, but had to be separated--one in the trunk, the other in the passenger compartment, one in the bed, the other in the cab, etc.
The same ones that said guns had to be transported in locked cases.

The letter itself used to be archived at www.gunssavelife.com which is worth visiting in and of itself. Now it looks like the link provided is dead. I've emailed the webmaster asking him to check it, but for now it just comes up "not found":
http://www.gunssavelife.com/gunssave/GSLife/activities/archive6.htm
 
"The only thing still a bit murky to me is whether the Wildlife Code applies at all times or, as the State Police/DNR pamphlet says, only when "engaged in activities covered by the Wildlife Code." "

I don't know which "pamphlet" you keep referring to. Go to http://www.isp.state.il.us/foid/firearmsfaq.cfm, read down a ways, and you'll see the Q: How can I legally transport a firearm on my person or in my vehicle? followed by the Q: What constitutes a legal "case" for transporting a firearm?
That's about a clear as anyone can make it. Cased gun does not apply only while in pursuit of activities covered by wildlife code. You can be cited for an uncased gun going from your house to the range, or gun shop, or anywhere else.


"You told him that I was an internet "expert" and an "internet lawyer" who hadn't read the law and whose advice would get him a felony conviction. "

You need to reread my posts again.
But you were giving legal advise which was just your readings of situations.
I spend my day researching and answer legal questions. Transporting of firearms is one of the most common questions we get. I go to great pains to ensure correct info is out there. 99.99% of the people truly want to be legal. They don't want the hassle of getting jammed up with what they "thought" was OK, but turned out they didn't know about 2.33(n) or someother law. And we don't want people out there with the wrong info. People just want the right answer, not someone's readings where they only pick and choose what sections of the law they find and not understanding all they read. Standing in front of a judge is definitely not the time to learn about the law.


"Now you say the reason Haggerty wasn't charged with a felony under the same statute you cited is that she had her gun enclosed in a case, it was unloaded, and she had a FOID! You can't have it both ways. Either that method of carry is legal or it is illegal."

You really need to stop misinterpreting info. Reading is fundamental and it's not that hard. I never said any such thing. Geez! It's not that hard Don. Really it's not. Just slow down and read what's written. If you are having difficulty reading these posts then you're not helping your cause by trying to explain legal cases.
To explain it one more time. You opined "the SA in Marion County share your firm conviction that the Wildlife Code makes 24-1 irrelevant".
What I said was, and this was very clear to those who have a rudimentary understanding of English, "that case involved an unloaded gun carried in a fanny pack. If I'm recalling the specifics correctly then C 61 would be irrelevant because it meets the requirements of the law." ie, "the law" in response to your question being the Wildlife Code. That meaning if the gun was unloaded in a fanny pack then it was encased and therefore meets the standards of 520ILS5/2.33(n) which is the uncased gun law. According to your statement the SA said the Wildlife Code was irrelevant in that case. My response is that if Haggerty had an unloaded, encased gun, then correct, the Wildlife Code was irrelevant. It was irrelevant because the elements of that statute were complied with, ergo, that section was not violated, therefore irrelevant to the case at hand. As an example, the statement that the section was irrelevant could also apply to 9-1. There was no murder committed so 9-1 was irrelevant. The elements of that section were not violated, therefore, irrelevant.

So, Don, I'm done discussing this. Whatever Soybomb or anyone else, including you, want to do doesn't really matter to me. I've explained it 10 ways to Sunday. I've given correct info out here. I'd really hate for anyone to get jammed up but it won't be me jammed up.
The saying is "Life is full of choices. Choices have consequences." Make your choices and live by the consequences.
 
Thanks for everyones help. Tempers have flared a little but I think theres some good information in here.

Fwiw I decided the gun does not stay in the car for roadside breakdowns. Seems like it'd wind up being useless.
 
About the AG's duties...

Regardless what the public thinks, we don't make up the law nor do we interpret the law.
Click to expand...

Well, yes. I always thought the legislative branch writes the law, AG interprets the law, ISP enforces the law, and the SA prosecutes violations of the law.

However, I called the AG's office recently re: fannypack carry.

Answer I got from them:
"Contact the ISP. It's their interpretation!"
So, I wonder why the public thinks as it does?

Anyway, I did contact the ISP

Our exchange:

ISP, Dist 10 (Pesotum): "A fanny pack or any case is legal as long as it is made specifically to hold a firearm. The location of the ammo is not regulated, but it is advisable not to have it immediately accessible, as it will probably be up to the interpretation of the officer involved.

My reply: Then, if the ammo were in the same compartment of the case as the gun, or in my pocket, the officer might determine I was in violation? (key word: "might")

Ans: Yes

Me: So, in that instance, according to IL code I would not be in violation, still it would be necessary to go to court to prove I was not in violation?

Ans: Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------

I believe I am correct when I write that, if I present the officer involved with a written statement quoting the IL code and a few other details, and he refuses to read it, or reads it and in either case procedes to place me in violation of the firearms code, he is liable.

I don't know if the entire dept of ISP woud be or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top