Illegal Arrest In Illinois

Status
Not open for further replies.
Grab the tigers tail and try to uh stick it to him. Don't be discouraged by some of the sissy's on the board who say they're pro 2nd but have 49 ccw's and wont carry hollowpoints on thursday unless they have it in writing from the ATF that its ok.:rolleyes:

Stick it to the mall, the guards in a personal capacity, the LEO's and their pet dogs if you can. Thats the only way we can hope to hold onto our one or two rights we have left.

People also say just to move...Where will we run to when the agenda is world wide. Stand your ground.
 
ammoeater said:
I can't believe you are criticizing this man's attempt to exercise his right to self-protection.
Click to expand...

Alright, let me get this straight. The man was carrying an UNLOADED pistol. What definition of "self protection" might that be? It is that little detail that makes me think "he is young and full of piss and vinegar". I would have much more respect for him if the pistol had been loaded (legal or not).

I know of no one whom I consider to be wise who would carry an unloaded gun (legal or not). He did it to to push the laws of his state which got him nowhere and did not help his cause.

I didn't think I was being particularly hard on the gentleman, and I stand by my comments. I was simply pointing out that the man seems to be going about his agenda in the wrong way.

Carter
 
CDH,
Are you nuts? Your post was contradictory and realy offered nothing to further the agenda of this site which is RESPONSIBLE gun ownership.

He complied with the laws of his state, whether you like it or not. You would have him disregard the laws entirely. That is no way to go about things. You say pushing the limits of the law got him nowhere, but he should have broken the law instead?

And the part about "getting himself arrested", how did he do that? Walk through a mall with a fannypack on?:barf: Your sense of arrestable offenses is as good as my dog's sense of color.

This guy is on the front lines for the gun owners of IL. What have you done for the 2nd lately?
 
rhgunguy,
Read the original post a little more closely. It wasn't a "fannypack". It was gun case/holster with some extra straps on it. And, yes, he was within the letter of the law,
as he interpreted it. Not necessarily within the "intent" of the law. A court will decide that.
I don't feel that he has anything to cry about by being arrested. This is obviously exactly what he was trying for. Now he will have his day in court and may be able to set some precedence and case law that will counter the police interpretation of the current law. Then again, it could just as well go against him. I hope he is prepared for that eventuality. Best outcome would be that Illinois will recognize that, like just about all other States, concealed carry is not a bad thing. Worse possible case would be a re-writing of the law to make it even more onerous.

Dean
 
Heist, your analysis of element #3 of this code fails to understand that Illinois courts do not consider a fanny pack a case. While there are 2 separate statutory definitions of "case," one being the Illinois Criminal Code and the other the Wildlife Code, the court has the responsibility of interpreting the statute. Quite often, such as in this case, the courts will look to the legislative intent in order to interpret statutes.

While you or I could easily place a personal fanny pack into the definitions of the codes above, the courts would disagree. In fact, I have witnessed this many times throughout my years of law enforcement experience, and later during my legal career. The courts do not like those who test the waters, like this gentleman did. This guy tested the waters and got burned. You win some, you lose some. This reminds me of when a little kid tells his friend to stop touching him, so the friend puts his finger in the kid's face and repeats, "I'M NOT TOUCHING YOU, I'M NOT TOUCHING YOU..."
 
zingzang said:
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.
Click to expand...

"Also be"? How do arrive at that? Sounds to me like you yourself are making a selective reading of the statute.

Courtesy of ATW525:
(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.)
Click to expand...


ZingZang, I dare say that it seems to be YOU who are not reading the code as it is written. We have this sticking point about the word "OR": it's very important, but evidently very difficult for some to comprehend -- including, evidently, judges and jurors.

The way ATW525 quoted the statute makes it clear to me and others that if the weapon is unloaded and in a case, that satisfies the transportation requirements, because he can do it that way (per the law's own wording) OR he can have the gun inaccessible OR he can have the gun broken down to a non-functioning state.

Really, why are you having this much trouble with OR?

And if there are issues with the wildlife code, and you believe Kranish's arrest was justified on that basis alone, why do you demur from stipulating what part of that statute he violated? I don't have any familiarity whatsoever with the wildlife code, so I ask you to inform me. You insist that you know Kranish broke that law; tell us what he did that ran afoul of it. After all, you are the one claiming it. From what I gather, not even the IL authorities called Kranish on the wildlife code.


-azurefly
 
It's illegal to carry in IL.

It's illegal to carry in IL



It shouldn't be, but it is. Don't carry in IL.

k,thks.
 
To avoid confusion, can anyone produce a picture of the case this gentleman was using or one similar to it? A case buckled to his belt is pretty ambiguous. I have never heard of a product such as this, but would be interested to see one.
 
azurefly:

Legal rulings often depend upon the definition of words in the law (whether statute or common law). Those definitions are quite often not the same as common usage. For example, here in MA, in most of the statutes the word "firearm" means handgun, short-barreled rifle, or short-barreled shotgun. In otherwords, in most of the statutes in MA a full-length rifle or shotgun is not a considered a firearm. Consequently, you will repeatedly see the phrase "firearm, rifle or shotgun..." in MA law. Unless you carefully read the definition section of MA gun law, you would miss that fact and grossly misinterpret the law.

As layman, we tend to read the law and think we understand it. But we typically read it using the common usage definitions of the words in the statute. If the court uses a different definition (whether because the words are defined elsewhere in the statute or have been defined in precedent) we may be gravely mistaken.

In this issue, one question is where the statute reads: "are unloaded and enclosed in a case, firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container" one important question is whether the courts consider a fanny pack to be a case. To you and I it is a case. But the law may consider otherwise. Legally it may be a case. Or it may not. Or it may be a gray area in IL law that has not been adequately settled. If the law considers that the pack is not a case, then he was violating the law.

I feel for those in IL. I grew up in the state and have family there. The clear intent of IL law is that it is illegal to carry a gun for defensive purposes. It is legal to transport a gun (e.g., between home and a shooting range, or home and a gun store, etc.). I'm not an attorney, let alone an IL attorney. To my uneducated eyes, it seems to me that he is, at best, right up against the legal boundary and could be on one side or the other, depending upon the interpretation of the court.

If you go around flaunting the fact that you are right up to a gray boundary of the law, don't be surprised if the authorities take a dim view. He was taking a very great risk. Note, I'm NOT saying the authorities behavior was correct. I'm saying that the authorities behavior was predictable.

Personally, I never want to be someone's test case, so I do my best to stay well away from the edges of the law.
 
I just went back and rechecked the article in the newspaper. The "case" was a standard nylon holster with a flap sewed onto it so the gun wasn't visible and worn on a belt. The loaded magazine was in a pouch on the case/holster and the gun itself was unloaded. Apparently the court will have to decide if his holster with a flap qualifies as a "case" as stipulated by the law or if it is stil just a holster as the police contend.

As the old saying goes, "The jury is still out on this one."
I feel that the fact he was (and has a history of) seeking confrontation, getting what he was seeking and then filing a lawsuit isn't going to be much in his favor. (At least at a local level)
 
Again, it doesn't have to meet the definition of case. This time, you skipped "container" and focused on "case".

Is a holster a container? It could be argued as such. I wouldn't put my butt on the line over that though.
 
Heist, your analysis of element #3 of this code fails to understand that Illinois courts do not consider a fanny pack a case.
Click to expand...

In this issue, one question is where the statute reads: "are unloaded and enclosed in a case, firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container" one important question is whether the courts consider a fanny pack to be a case. To you and I it is a case. But the law may consider otherwise. Legally it may be a case. Or it may not. Or it may be a gray area in IL law that has not been adequately settled. If the law considers that the pack is not a case, then he was violating the law.
Click to expand...

Its not important at all, does it meet the requirements of "other container"?

(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

Again problems with the word "or".
 
Which Side Are You On?

The only way to challenge an unjust law is to fight it actively through any legal option available. Good luck to the guy this happened to... get a top-notch lawyer and fight like heck. If you win you may just add to the pile of legal precedents in the odd state of Illinois supporting the right of a citizen to carry arms under certain restrictions. If you loose, at least you fought the good fight. We're all behind you if you were complying with the letter of the law. Or are we?
 
so the guy had it in a modified holster? I don't think a reasonable person would consider that "enclosed", let alone a container.
better ask for a bench trial.
 
Azurefly, before you go on another tirade like your last post, just know that a fanny pack is not a sufficient "case" to satisfy Illinois gun code. Sorry if that gets you all balled up inside, but that's the way it is. Any way you cut it, Illinois courts will not allow civilians to carry unloaded firearms in a fanny pack because it contradicts the legislative intent of the statute.
 
Its not important at all, does it meet the requirements of "other container"?

(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

Again problems with the word "or".
Click to expand...
The legal definitions for the words above (including "case", "firearm carrying box", "shipping box", "or other container") may not be the same as common usage.

one important question is whether the courts consider a fanny pack to be a case
Click to expand...
Note, that I said "one important question." In other words, there may be other important questions before a legal determination can be made.

Does IL law consider the device that he was using to carry the gun to be a case? Do you know? I don't.

Is that the only important question? No. Did I say it was the only important question? No. I did not. Morever, the fact that I said it was "one important question" implies that there are other important questions, doesn't it?

Is this another important question: Does IL law consider the device that he was using to carry the gun to be a container? Sure is.

A couple other important questions: Does IL law consider the device that he was using to carry the gun to be a firearm carrying box? Probably unlikely, but I don't know for sure. Does IL law consider the device he was using to carry the gun to be a shipping box? Probably unlikely, but I don't know for sure.

If you loose, at least you fought the good fight.
Click to expand...
And wind up in jail. Heck of consolation prize, don't ya think?

I'm all for concealed carry -- I've got my resident permit and non-res permits in NH, ME, CT, and FL. But I'm not sure what he's doing is helping the cause.
 
ZingZang - After seeing that you conveniently left out the part of the law that would make your argument weaker (back on the first page), I have a tendency to discount your opinion.
ZingZang said:
...a fanny pack is not a sufficient "case" to satisfy Illinois gun code.
Click to expand...
Other members have cited verifiable court cases that negate your statement. Do you have any evidence that a fanny pack isn't a sufficient case or for some reason doesn't qualify under the "or other container" portion of the law?

"Or other container" is terribly vague. He could carry a firearm in a clear ziploc bag and satisfy that portion of this poorly written law.

Further, if the firearm he was carrying had a magazine disconnect, then he would have the additional argument that the firearm was broken down to a non-functioning state simply by removing the magazine.
 
"Or other container" is terribly vague. He could carry a firearm in a clear ziploc bag and satisfy that portion of this poorly written law.
Click to expand...
That depends upon whether "container" is defined elsewhere in the law or by precedent. It is possible that under IL law, the word "container" is defined to mean something other than the common usage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top