Illegal Arrest In Illinois

Status
Not open for further replies.

BGlaze250

New member
The wrongful arrest and false charges against [ICarry.Org] founder Shaun Kranish

In Illinois, law-abiding citizens are prohibited from carrying a loaded firearm for self-defense. Every other state allows it to some extent, but Illinois politicians deny that basic human right to their constituents. We may lawfully carry, however, so long as the firearm is unloaded, enclosed in a case, and we hold a valid “firearm owner identification (FOID) card”. This allows us to be seconds away from safety, and is without a doubt the best way to lawfully stay safe in Illinois. Countless people throughout the state exercise this severely-infringed right to keep and bear arms.

My name is Shaun Kranish, and I’m a law-abiding citizen as well as the founder of ICarry.org, a gun rights group in Illinois. I am one of the citizens that exercise the right to self-defense within the letter of the law. I used to “fanny-pack,” like so many others, and did so on a daily basis. This is the account of my wrongful arrest and false imprisonment.

On the evening of Friday, May 12th, 2006, I had been shopping with my girlfriend at a local mall. For about three and a half hours we strolled in and out of stores, picked out and purchased cards and gifts, and ate at the food court. While we were peacefully walking to the mall exit, we happened to pass by two security guards. They followed and stopped us and then questioned me about the buckled case I wore on my side. They wanted to know what I had inside of it, and I told them it was none of their business and I did not approve of being searched because my personal belongings were private. Despite my protest, the private guards told me to put my hands up and proceeded to forcibly and publicly search me without permission.

After unbuckling and opening my case, they discovered that I was carrying an unloaded gun as Illinois law clearly allows, then handcuffed and detained me on the spot. They called the local police as they dragged me away to a mall “substation,” handcuffed, for everyone to see. As they did, I informed them that I was abiding by the law and implored them to read a copy of the statute along with extra information I carried with me at all times in order to assist and educate officers just in case a situation like this arose.

What happened next could only be described as the horror of being falsely arrested and charged for a crime that I did not commit. I spent two hours handcuffed to a bench in a tiny "holding room" at the mall as two or three security guards along with five or six police officers examined and discussed my letter, and eventually decided to deliberately ignore it and falsely charge me with Unlawful Use of a Weapon, a criminal offense under Illinois statute, in order to cover up and justify my false arrest and search. My girlfriend was harassed, man-handled, searched without cause, and questioned by the police while I was locked and isolated in the next room, unable to do a thing but listen helplessly and try to shout loud enough to be heard.

After some time, while I still remained handcuffed and confined and deprived of the ability to communicate with anyone, including my attorney, my girlfriend was allowed to leave. I was then carted away to the Winnebago County Jail for my first visit ever. There I was questioned endlessly and searched for the fifth time. The officers behind the glass, the transport officer filing out the transfer papers, and the officers behind me all knew that I wanted to post bond. I had already told them which debit card to use for the payment. This search with a metal detector and thorough search by hand of my body didn’t satisfy one of the officers though. He wanted to do a strip search, and no one else protested to protect me.

Warning: The next part can be considered graphically descriptive and contains quotations of what may be considered offensive language. Please use discretion especially if there are young people reading.

Click Here to continue with the full account (graphic) or

Click Here for a version safe for all ages

So, the committed officer and one other took me to a small room. As they chatted with each other and made jokes, they instructed me to take one article of clothing off at a time. They checked each piece of clothing until I was totally naked. They ordered me to hold my arms out and completely turn around as they gawked at and "inspected" me. <graphic description deleted - TBM> I can’t express the level of humiliation of undergoing a strip and body-cavity-search, nor can I fathom to this day why the officer wanted to or needed to subject me to such degradation. The emotional distress I've suffered having to go through this uncalled-for mistreatment hasn't come right away or all at once – but it is lasting and reoccurring.

After much more waiting and being subjected to mug shots, countless fingerprint scans, tons of paperwork to sign, and even more waiting, my bond payment and paperwork was finished. I was finally escorted out of that dirty jail, whereupon I was handed a sealed bag containing most of my personal effects and belongings (not my legally-owned firearm or legal carry-case though!) along with a copy of the criminal complaint: Class A Misdemeanor (Unlawful Use of Weapon) punishable by up to 1 year in prison. My carrying-case, firearm, and accessories were confiscated as "evidence" of my lawful conduct.

It’s important that you realize the dire situation in Illinois. Not only are we denied rights recognized by every other state in the country, but even the minimal rights we’ve retained – the ones contained in Illinois statute (www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=072000050K24-1), the Illinois State Police FAQ (www.isp.state.il.us/foid/firearmsfaq.cfm and www.concealcarry.org/transgun0-000.pdf and www.isp.state.il.us/docs/ptfire.pdf) and case law are routinely deliberately ignored at will by police officers! Their attitude is any law-abiding gun owner may be arrested, charged, thrown in jail, and left up for the courts to work it out. Even those of us who invest incredible time and money to study the law, understand the law, get competent legal advice, and make painstaking efforts to abide by the law, are targeted when law enforcement feels it can “get away” with it.

We are saying "no" in this case and all other similar cases that may arise. We will fight cases of wrongful arrest and false charges like this one. If we don’t, we won’t be left with any rights to exercise at all.

My counsel, Walter Maksym, the veteran Chicago constitutional attorney, has won every case of this kind to date: the John Horstman case (dismissed and the DuPage County (States Attorney & Sheriff) paid him $50,000.00 to settle his federal civil rights - false arrest/malicious prosecution suit - had FOID card with unloaded weapon in a back-pack), the Roderick Pritchett case (found not guilty in Cook County after trial - had FOID card with unloaded weapon in a zipped case in front seat of his vehicle), the Eric Booker case (dismissed - had FOID card with unloaded weapon in a case in front seat of his vehicle), as well the dismissed case involving freedom of speech brought against me last year (www.icarry.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=166).

The law is clear, and though the security guards and police knew it, they falsely charged me despite my innocence. I am confident that with Mr. Maksym's representation I will ultimately be acquitted of this bogus charge and my civil rights will be vindicated. I am looking forward to pleading not guilty and eventually holding the owners and management of the CherryVale Mall, their Security Guards and the Cherry Valley Police to account. However, given my limited resources as a college student, I will be needing and requesting your support in order to do so for the benefit of us all.

Since our ICarry.org organization will be assisting financially with my defense, I would like to encourage anyone interested in gun rights and specifically in helping our terrible situation in Illinois, to consider joining our organization. We have various levels of membership to choose from and our core member base even includes a number of out-of-state members (we affectionately call them “reinforcements”). Alternatively, you can make a donation here. We would all like to see our organization grow and support itself financially. Our commitment to law-abiding gun owners is unparalleled and unprecedented in Illinois. Please visit our website at http://www.ICarry.org to join or simply make a contribution to our cause.

Lastly, I would just like to thank the countless individuals who have been 100% supportive through all of this. Your thoughts, prayers, best wishes, and encouragement have given me the strength I need to get through all of this and try to make the best out of such a bad situation. Thank you for all of your letters, emails, and Internet posts showing your support!! If you would like to reach me, my contact information is on the website and you can email me at the email below. Thank you all for being right with me and beside me through this.

For Press Inquiries: e-mail sak@icarry.org or contact my attorney, Walter Maksym, at 773-929-2923.

http://www.icarry.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=190&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
 
Last edited by a moderator:
While the whole cavity search issue is gravely out-of-line, your arrest was not illegal. Moreover, it was highly justified and within the boundaries of Illinois law. Illinois law allows you to carry an unloaded firearm in a closed case, which must be stored at an unaccessible location. Moreover, a reasonable person would deduce that carrying a gun in a fanny pack would constitute as immediately accessible, which is a class 4 felony.

As for the cavity search, you would have a constitutional claim for violation of personal privacy, which the US Supreme Court has deemed an inalienable right. Whether you believe in the Illinois law or not - it is the law, and the Supreme Court has also given each state the right to decide on 2nd Amendment rights. That's why the 2nd Amendment is not included under the 14th Amendment. This is a nation of laws, whether you agree with them or not. I certainly do not advocate Illinois' gun laws, but I follow them.
 
(a) A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowingly:
(4) Carries or possesses in any vehicle or concealed on or about his person except when on his land or in his own abode or fixed place of business any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm, except that this subsection (a) (4) does not apply to or affect transportation of weapons that meet 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 Firearm Owner's Identification Card; (Source: P.A. 90-686, eff. 1-1-99; 91-673, eff. 12-22-99; 91-690, eff. 4-13-00.)

Notice it says not immediately accessible or unloaded and enclosed in a case.He only needs to meet one condition to be legal under the law, not both.
 
Mr. Glaze, I am totally with you on your frustration with Illinois gun laws, but I fail to understand what good you feel that you are doing by attempting to skirt them as close as possible. How is THAT going to change Illinois law.

Then from a pure practical standpoint, even if you believed that you were following the letter of the law by carrying your weapon unloaded (in an inaccessable place... fanny pack?), what good would it have done you if someone attempted to hold you up?

I'd like to see you expand your efforts to get as many citizens on your side as possible and have them contact their elected reps enmasse. And if that doesn't produce change, then actively work to get 2nd Amendment politicians elected.
To the point: You won't do the "cause" any good if you allow yourself to look like some kind of "gun nut" by getting arrested the way that you did.
You mention that you are in college so you are young and full of piss and vinegar. Now channel your energy and resolve in a way that will actually make change for the better.

Sorry if this sounds like preaching, but I'm too old to care what anybody thinks

Carter
 
I can't believe you are criticizing this man's attempt to exercise his right to self-protection. He was following the law to the letter, and was obviously railroaded and subjected to a degrading and humiliating experience at the hands of the authorities, if his tale is true. I salute his efforts, and I wish him well in his criminal & civil trials. I come from NJ, and our predicament is similar to Illinois, so I understand his frustration.

Carter, to insinuate Mr. Kranish is carrying because "you are in college so you are young and full of piss and vinegar" is insulting. Easy for you to say since you no doubt come from an area where your rights are acknowledged and understood. And to tell Mr. Kranish to "channel your energy and resolve in a way that will actually make change for the better" is asinine, considering he is the founder of a gun-rights organization and is making an attempt to return the right of self-defense to the people of Illinois. How exactly do you channel YOUR energy, send a check to the NRA once a year? :rolleyes:
 
Thanks for the post, Benton. :)

ALL MEMBERS PLEASE NOTE:
This article was posted by TFL member BGlaze250 - He IS NOT THE PERSON THIS HAPPENED TO. The person who was detained by the mall guards is Shaun Kranish, founder of www.ICarry.org

Those who deride Mr Kranish for his actions (which appear to be legal under Illinois law) should re-read this portion of the post:
My counsel, Walter Maksym, the veteran Chicago constitutional attorney, has won every case of this kind to date: the John Horstman case (dismissed and the DuPage County (States Attorney & Sheriff) paid him $50,000.00 to settle his federal civil rights - false arrest/malicious prosecution suit - had FOID card with unloaded weapon in a back-pack), the Roderick Pritchett case (found not guilty in Cook County after trial - had FOID card with unloaded weapon in a zipped case in front seat of his vehicle), the Eric Booker case (dismissed - had FOID card with unloaded weapon in a case in front seat of his vehicle), as well the dismissed case involving freedom of speech brought against me last year (http://www.icarry.org/modules.php?na...ticle&sid=166).
Cases like this have been thrown out many times before. What Mr. Kranish is doing can't even be considered civil disobedience - He's obeying the law!

Good for him, sez I.
 
How can it be illegal if its within the parameters of the law. You have four cases that served as legal precedent for Mdr. Kranish. I hope the mall an local law enforcement get a good legal education about those rights via the court system.

My first question would be the grounds upon which Kranish was searched? mr. Kranish was simply doing some shopping at the local mall. Was he a danger to anyone or the security guards? Does everyone that wears a belt pouch have a weapon inside? I see no grounds for reasonable suspicion here.

My money is on Mr. Kranish to prevail.
 
Cases like this have been thrown out many times before. What Mr. Kranish is doing can't even be considered civil disobedience - He's obeying the law!
I understand that. I will say that if you pull the tail of the tiger, don't be surprised if you get bit.
 
Well, I am genuinely disgusted by some of the posts here. Mr. Kranish is an idiot, Mr. Kranish is being counterproductive, Mr. Kranish is just a misguided youth with too much time on his hands and vinegar in his system, Mr. Kranish should simply move . . .

He was obeying the law.

He was obeying the law, and he was searched without any articulated cause, handcuffed, jailed, subjected to an invasive, degrading search, all because he had the temerity to exercise his inalienable rights (as attenuated as these may be in Illinois) within the letter of the law.

And even were he not, why, pray, should Mr. Kranish quietly and docilely accede to the abrogation of his inalienable rights? Yet the reaction of some here seems to be right in keeping with the local gendarmerie: "Shut up, citizen! If you do not know your place we will damned well show it to you!"

I salute Mr. Kranish. I hope he prevails in both the bogus criminal case and the expected civil case against the mall, the guards, and the local authorities. I hope he damned well shows them their proper place.
 
ALL MEMBERS PLEASE NOTE:
This article was posted by TFL member BGlaze250 - He IS NOT THE PERSON THIS HAPPENED TO. The person who was detained by the mall guards is Shaun Kranish, founder of www.ICarry.org

Thanks, Bluesman, I just returned to the thread, and saw the misconception. Thanks for clearing it up before I got the chance to see it. :)
 
Other important cases were:

People v. Bruner
http://www.state.il.us/court/opinions/AppellateCourt/1996/4thDistrict/December/HTML/4951016.txt
Joan Bruner was caught with an unloaded gun in her purse (which was closed up.) She was entering the Macon County Courthouse at the time, I believe. She was charged with UUW and moved to have the charges dismissed. Her trial judge dismissed the UUW charge on the grounds that the law didn't apply since it was stipulated by both sides that she had a FOID, the gun was unloaded, and the gun was "enclosed" in the "container"--her purse.
The prosecution appealed and the Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed.

This is the closest thing to precedent we have, but it only applies in the Fourth District.

People v. Haggerty
I don't think Walter was the attorney on this case, but Vana Haggerty was charged for having an unloaded Glock in her fanny pack at a county fair. She was threatened with prison time and offered several deals, but she refused to plead guilty.
The prosecutor gave up and dismissed the charges literally on the day her trial was to begin. This was wonderful for Vana, but of course it's not precedent.

None of the cases Shaun cites have set precedent that must be followed here, (only Pritchett and Bruner went to trial and were acquitted, and they're both in different districts than Shaun) but I think they suggest a pattern.

The pattern is this:
When trained judges and lawyers read this statute, the ones with nothing to gain either way interpret it to mean fanny pack carry is legal. The only lawyers who seem to see it differently are prosecutors, who rely on gun charges as reliable time-adders atop normal criminal convictions.

I support what you are doing and how you feel however if you disagree so strongly.....there are 49 other states.
For now . . . . for now. But neither Shaun nor I should have to leave this state to exercise our civil rights. I love my home, I have deep roots here, and I am in the right. Therefore I'm not leaving just yet.

Then from a pure practical standpoint, even if you believed that you were following the letter of the law by carrying your weapon unloaded (in an inaccessable place... fanny pack?)
It's been said before in this thread, but apparently people missed it, so here goes again.
There are THREE ways to be exempt from UUW while transporting your firearm. These three are independent. Any ONE of these three is enough to be exempt. The three are:

1. Break down the firearm so that it can't function. Field strip your handgun, for instance.
--OR--
2. Put the firearm somewhere "inaccessible." This is defined as being where a reasonable person would think you can't easily reach it. Whatever that means.
--OR--
3. Carry your FOID, unload your firearm and enclose it in a case, box, shipping box or other container.

You must do ONE of those things to be exempt. Don't believe me?

Check out People v. Hesler
http://www.state.il.us/Court/Opinions/AppellateCourt/1997/4thDistrict/July/HTML/4951005.txt

Now, Hesler lost his case, but in the process, the Appellate Court examined this idea that you have to do two or three of the exemptions listed in the statute to be entitled to exemption from UUW.
See, Hesler went through a "Roadside Safety Check" in Vermilion County in 1994. Hesler had a revolver on his truck seat next to him. The type is not mentioned, which is odd. When the officer checked on Hesler, he saw the revolver lying in plain sight, but the cylinder wasn't in. He got Hesler out of the truck and searched it. The cylinder was found lying on the floor with at least some rounds in it (the initial report said six rounds; the officer later testified that a round or two had fallen on the floor. Doesn't really bear on the case either way.)

Now, Hesler argued that he had removed the cylinder from the revolver before setting off on his journey, which meant that the gun was "broken down in a non-functioning state." This, he argued, made him exempt.

The state made two arguments:
1. The officer believed Hesler had been transporting the gun in one piece until he was stopped, at which point he quickly disassembled it. Defendant was still guilty of transporting the gun.

2. Even if #1 were not true, the defendant is still guilty because although he had the gun broken down, it was still not "inaccessible" and you must do both.

The trial court bought both arguments and Hesler was convicted. The Appellate Court found that argument #2 didn't hold water at all--clearly the statute says 1 "or" 2 "or" 3. They upheld the conviction, however, because on appeal they are required to examine the prosecution's case in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and in that light, they found argument #1 persuasive.

I don't, but that's another story for another day.

In the Appellate Court's own words from the link above:
Defendant relies upon People v. Freeman, 196 Ill. App.
3d 370, 553 N.E.2d 780 (1990). In Freeman, the defendant's car
was stopped because it did not have a functioning license plate
light. The police officer claimed that, as he approached the
car, he saw the defendant making movements that suggested to the
police officer that the defendant was sticking something in his
pocket. Upon finding that the defendant did not have a valid
driver's license, the defendant was arrested and searched. The
cylinder to a revolver was found in the defendant's left pants
pocket, and a revolver was found under a cardboard box on the
front seat. The trial court did not believe the police officer's
testimony that the defendant disassembled the gun upon the
officer's approach. Nonetheless, the trial court convicted the
defendant because of the court's belief that the pistol was
within the defendant's immediate control. The appellate court
reversed because a "broken down, cylinderless pistol, incapable
of being fired, not in immediate operating condition, and not
immediately accessible" does not fall within the purview of the
unlawful use of weapons statute. Freeman, 196 Ill. App. 3d at
373, 553 N.E.2d at 782.
Freeman is confusing, as it seems to mix the exemptions
found in section 24-2(b)(4) of the Code. As noted, however, that
subsection states that section 24-1(a)(4) does not apply or
affect the "[t]ransportation of weapons that are broken down in a
non-functioning state or are not immediately accessible."
(Emphasis added.) 720 ILCS 5/24-2(b)(4) (West 1994). Whether
the weapon is broken down and whether the weapon is inaccessible
constitute separate exceptions.

There are at least three ways an average citizen can
legally transport a firearm. First, the possessor of a valid
firearm owner's identification card (FOID card) can legally
transport an unloaded firearm so long as it is enclosed in a
container. 720 ILCS 5/24-2(i) (West 1994); People v. Bruner, 285
Ill. App. 3d 39, 42-43, 675 N.E.2d 654, 656 (1996). Second, a
person can legally transport a firearm by placing it in an area
that is not immediately accessible, such as a locked trunk. 720
ILCS 5/24-2(b)(4) (West 1994). Finally, a person can legally
transport a firearm that is "broken down in a non-functioning
state." 720 ILCS 5/24-2(b)(4) (West 1994). The first two
methods are inapplicable to the instant case, and defendant does
not argue otherwise. Rather, defendant argues that he proved, by
a preponderance of the evidence, that he was entitled to the
"broken down" exemption.
 
Yank that critter's tail and keep up the fight. Those of us here in Indiana are watching closely because we fear that, as with California, your nightmare might spread to your closest neighbors if you don't do something soon.
 
The state made two arguments:
1. The officer believed Hesler had been transporting the gun in one piece until he was stopped, at which point he quickly disassembled it. Defendant was still guilty of transporting the gun.

2. Even if #1 were not true, the defendant is still guilty because although he had the gun broken down, it was still not "inaccessible" and you must do both.

The trial court bought both arguments and Hesler was convicted. The Appellate Court found that argument #2 didn't hold water at all--clearly the statute says 1 "or" 2 "or" 3. They upheld the conviction, however, because on appeal they are required to examine the prosecution's case in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and in that light, they found argument #1 persuasive.

Then the justice system is corrupt to its loathesome core.

How on earth can people who have ostensibly been educated in the law at institutes of higher learning fail to understand the meaning of "OR"?! :mad:

And regarding argument #1: The officer cannot testify as to what condition the gun was in the moments preceding his first seeing it. How a court could accept his testimony and enter it as a deciding factor in Hesler's guilt defies explanation. Any defense attorney should have grilled the officer until the officer admitted that he COULD NOT BE SURE WHAT condition the gun was in when he first stopped Hesler, and that all he knew was that the gun was disassembled when he first encountered it. Couple that with the accused's presumption of innocence, and the prosecution's obligation to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and Mr. Hesler should have gone free.

I am not a lawyer, but this stuff seems elementary!

And it is serious malfeasance for anyone to walk into court and be presented with a statute that says OR OR OR and ignore it as though it said AND AND AND. WTF, people?!!?

These cases are INFURIATING!

-azurefly
 
On the evening of Friday, May 12th, 2006, I had been shopping with my girlfriend at a local mall. For about three and a half hours we strolled in and out of stores, picked out and purchased cards and gifts, and ate at the food court. While we were peacefully walking to the mall exit, we happened to pass by two security guards. They followed and stopped us and then questioned me about the buckled case I wore on my side. They wanted to know what I had inside of it, and I told them it was none of their business and I did not approve of being searched because my personal belongings were private. Despite my protest, the private guards told me to put my hands up and proceeded to forcibly and publicly search me without permission.

Mall security doesn't go around and be suspicious of the contents of every shopper's personal bag, fanny pack, purse, etc unless there was some type of motive for them to question the contents of Mr Kranish's buckled case he wore.
What would raise their suspicions?
One, If they saw Mr Kranish shoplift.
Two, while Mr Kranish was in the mall he had opened his case possibly revealing the gun to security or a concerned shopper.
Three, Mr Kranish was wearing something like a shirt that said something like 'ICarry.org' , 'Armed and Proud' or something where security would look at the shirt, look at the case on Mr Kranish's waist, put two and two together and be suspicious he might have a gun on him.
Four, they knew who Kranish was and his association with ICarry.org which gave them the suspicion that he would be carrying a gun and they were right.
Five, Mr Kranish was blabbing out loud about his rights to carry a gun in his case.

Mr Kranish should be smart enough to know of the ways of Illinois gun laws and the way they are interpreted by authority and that it would be a possible risk of getting caught for carrying a gun even if unloaded and in an enclosed case on his person. If he was walking into a gun range it may of been different, but to Illinois authority anyone with a gun walking through a mall is a criminal to the Illinois liberals and Mr Kranish had to know that.
It looked like he took the risk, possibly even making it obvious so he would be caught so he could make a statement and when he was actually arrested and things didn't go his way, then he may of now regretted the risk he took.

I'm not saying it wasn't a noble risk to make a statement about his rights, but if he was willing to take the risk then he should of done his homework a little better and thought it over before he thought that if he would be caught that he didn't actually think the authorities in Illinois would interpret the laws of transporting a firearm the same way he did and that he would end up getting arrested and having to fight it in court.
 
Mall security doesn't go around and be suspicious of the contents of every shopper's personal bag, fanny pack, purse, etc unless there was some type of motive for them to question the contents of Mr Kranish's buckled case he wore.
What would raise their suspicions?
One, If they saw Mr Kranish shoplift.
Two, while Mr Kranish was in the mall he had opened his case possibly revealing the gun to security or a concerned shopper.
Three, Mr Kranish was wearing something like a shirt that said something like 'ICarry.org' , 'Armed and Proud' or something where security would look at the shirt, look at the case on Mr Kranish's waist, put two and two together and be suspicious he might have a gun on him.
Four, they knew who Kranish was and his association with ICarry.org which gave them the suspicion that he would be carrying a gun and they were right.
Five, Mr Kranish was blabbing out loud about his rights to carry a gun in his case.

They were likely supiscious because the "case" in question was actually a holster converted to meet the requirements of a "case" under the law. At least that's my understanding.
 
The peopel here taking shots at this young man sicken me. I am almost certain none of the detractors have 1/10th this young man's cajones when it comes to standing up for his rights.

He broke no laws. If you can't understand that go back to basic English class. "Or" does not mean "And."

He could have done some things better, like having a video camera present being used by his girlfriend. He should also not be surprised at how heavy handed he was treated. Most certainly the jack booted thuglike LEOs he dealt with wanted to "teach him a lesson" once and for all.

And for those who see no purpose in ccarrying as he did; it is the only way he can carry! I would sure as hell rather have a gun in a fanny pack or case with the ammo separate if I were in Luby's cafeteria or on the Long Island Rail Road when the LIRR psycho went on his shooting rampage than have nothing.
 
I find all these analysis of Illinois law humorous -- especially the abruptly confident ones, like, "He broke no laws. If you can't understand that go back to basic English class." I find this particularly funny because the law couldn't be more clear. If I may give some advice; read statutes with a clear, unbiased point of view. Otherwise, you will miss what it really says. It appears that this has somewhat become a legal argument, with the main question being, "How can someone legally transport a firearm in Illinois?"

Some people here are quoting mere portions of Illinois gun laws, while there are 3 governing bodies of applicable law; all of which must be adhered to in order to be within legal parameters.

The Firearms Owner's Identification Act, the Wildlife Code, and Illinois Criminal Code all govern this area of law:

The Firearms Owner's Identification Act merely lays out the grounds for what is required for an Illinoisan to acquire a Firearms Owner Identification card; also known as a FOID card. This Act is not an issue in this case, since the gentleman had a valid FOID.

The Illinois Criminal Code states, in summary, that someone may transport a firearm so long as (1) the firearm is not immediately accessible, or (2) the firearm is broken down in a non-functioning state. Applying this code, the subject in the original post violates part two (2) of this law. Clearly, the firearm was immediately accessible, so part one (1) doesn't apply because he clearly violates it. However, the code allows someone to carry an immediately accessible firearm, so long as it is broken down in a non-functioning state. A reasonable person would not determine that merely unloading a firearm equates that the firearm is "broken down in a non-functioning state."

The original post states that the Defendant carried merely "an unloaded gun as Illinois law clearly allows." First of all, Illinois law not only requires that the firearm be unloaded, but that it also be (1) out of immediate accessibility, or (2) broken down to a non-functioning state. Sounds to me like the gentleman ignored the parts of the law that he didn't like, or else simply didn't read the statute correctly. Since he failed to render his weapon to a "broken down... non-functioning state," he violated the code. Therefore, he has violated the parameters of Illinois Code and should be charged wtih UUW, whether you like the law or not.

I won't go into a Wildlife Code analysis because he has already violated the Code.
 
ZingZang:

I'm not going to leap to judgement on either side of this issue - it doesn't interest me that much - but you seem to be ignoring the third OR.

3) unloaded and enclosed in a CASE, shipping box, OR OTHER CONTAINER by the holder of a valid FOID card.

Was that deliberate? ;)
 
Sue the heck out of the mall, the rent-a-cops, the department and the cops who perpatrated this crap:barf: . There is NO excuse to treat a human being like that. Hopefully the "cops" get fired and face criminal charges.

edited out of respect for good cops.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top