Illegal Arrest In Illinois

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fellows

As I read through this thread, I thought about all of the men and women who have died through the ages fighting for the right so clearly spelled out in the Second Ammendment.

When I read the comments of those around here who are obviously wearing pink lace panties that they think what this guy did is against the law, it makes me want to barf. What a bunch of COWARDS!! I sure am glad they were not around when the British tried to take the guns at Concord. They would have sided with the British and we would all still be subjects of the queen. After all, it was against British law for them to have those guns you know and of course, we must always obey the law.

And when I read the comments of the cops, former cops, and lawyers, it makes me understand why some of them get blown away. Those cops that strip searched that kid were dam sure asking for it.

But then, Clinton was a lawyer and he didn't understand what the meaning of is is, so is it any wonder that lawyers in Illinois don't understand what the meaning of OR is? Those two letter words are tough for lawyers to understand.
 
Yeah, I guess the prisons must be full of heros.

I wish I could be a real man and ignore all the laws I don't like, then throw a big fit and hire a lawyer when I get arrested.
 
Black Prince said:
As I read through this thread, I thought about all of the men and women who have died through the ages fighting for the right so clearly spelled out in the Second Ammendment.
Click to expand...
Before you go off on another incorrect constutional analysis, maybe you should know that the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constution DOES NOT apply to the states. The Bill of Rights applies to the federal government, and it is the Supreme Court's position to decide which of those Rights are applicable to the states, by way of the 14th Amendment. This is a fundamental concept that any 1L law student learns in Constutional Law, so maybe you should leave it to the educated folks to do the interpretations of what your "rights" are. If you want to know what your rights are with regards to possessing weapons, look to your particular State's Constution and criminal code.

Black Prince said:
And when I read the comments of the cops, former cops, and lawyers, it makes me understand why some of them get blown away. Those cops that strip searched that kid were dam sure asking for it.
Click to expand...
Way to keep it classy. Maybe you should move to the hills with all the other insane wacko nutbags, after this statement.
 
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator and the several states with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Click to expand...

There, that's much better


But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Click to expand...

I like these educated folks
 
Black Prince states, "When I read the comments of those around here who are obviously wearing pink lace panties that they think what this guy did is against the law, it makes me want to barf. What a bunch of COWARDS!! I sure am glad they were not around when the British tried to take the guns at Concord. They would have sided with the British and we would all still be subjects of the queen. After all, it was against British law for them to have those guns you know and of course, we must always obey the law."

"And when I read the comments of the cops, former cops, and lawyers, it makes me understand why some of them get blown away. Those cops that strip searched that kid were dam sure asking for it."

Black Prince, what a bunch of ripe tripe. Although - you will fit in with a # of posters here who have an inordinate testosterone levels & a real problem with law enforcement.

Welcome to TFL.

12-34hom
 
ZingZang said:
The Bill of Rights applies to the federal government, and it is the Supreme Court's position to decide which of those Rights are applicable to the states, by way of the 14th Amendment. This is a fundamental concept that any 1L law student learns in Constutional Law, so maybe you should leave it to the educated folks to do the interpretations of what your "rights" are. If you want to know what your rights are with regards to possessing weapons, look to your particular State's Constution and criminal code.
Click to expand...
And if you're as smart as you think you are, you wouldn't stop there. You'd examine the legislative history of the 14th amendment, and consider it in relation to the philosophy behind the Bill of Rights.

If anyone here wanted someone to parrot standard conlaw doctrine on the 14th amendment, I'm sure you'd be asked for it. Just because the SCOTUS has taken upon itself the right to selectively incorporate, does not mean it has that right.
 
Reminder for a couple of the previous posters who can't seem to remember the Agreements they make.....
3) No spamming, trolling, flaming or other personal attacks, be they acrimonious or veiled in humor. If you take issue with a Member's position, by all means speak your mind. If you have a problem with a Member's religion, creed, national origin, sex, politics, associations or personal hygiene, take it to email.

[snip]

5) As we can never convey a philosophy through a few rules, we reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to edit or delete posts and/or to revoke Membership. No Second Chances; No Argument; No Trial; No Way.
Click to expand...
 
so which is it?

If the container didnt have a handgun clearly outlined or partially visable, I dont see what pc the mall ninjas used in stopping this guy.how did the mall ninjas know the weapon was in the container..did they see it or were they just guessing?

Im guessing he didnt shoplift neither or store cameras would clearly show such activity.my question is why did they wait the entire time he was on said premises and exiting to make their collar as this turned into some kinda fiasco on the concealed weapon charge,not a shoplifting charge...unless the ninjas were using the shoplifting bit to gain access to the container because they knew him as a carrier of concealed handguns OR recognized the container to be that which is used exclusivly for weapons.

if they started to stop and search every single "container" and person in the mall for contraband without pc, the mall could not only loose business but also face civil action.something to think about.

as far as this goes..it could happen to anyone in that state with the way they do things there.I hope the folks there use their voting rights and get those folks out of office and rid it of hipocracy.
 
Not able to carry

If someone uses a gun in a crime are they penalized in accordance with the non carry, as in really hammered?:confused:

I am really baffled with the law, but they did have a terrible reputation with graft and corruption, and the fact that prohibition was a real big deal in that state.
Going from one of the most notorious for guns, gangs and killings, to the other extreme, of no carry, no nada.

IT IS, bi polar to say the least.:p

HQ
 
I feel that carring the gun in a fanny pack is pushing it a bit

BUT!
It Is Illinois and living in Indiana and having a mayor that wanted to turn our city into a little Illinois for anti gunners, (he is now president of the Brady group). I think that what you did was the correct thing to do. I personally don’t like lawyers but in this case I hope you get the chance to sue the Illinois state government for enough money to turn there state budget into a negative balance.
 
Yes, fanny packs are for wimps... and yes

I carry in one sometimes... Why, because it is easier... gun is not nearly as accessable as in a Holster...but it is easier.... My job requires me to drive to and go in to many places that I can't carry... state laws... but then often I can... so I have to pack and unpack a lot. Fanny pack is a lot easier.

As for the dude who got tagged... by the Mall police. I think his best bet is to go after them for unlawful search and detention... rest will then be thrown out.

If Zig guy is going to degrade folks for using a fanny pack.. I'll take the liberty to critisize anyone who would be dumb enough to carry an UNLOADED gun. Just stupid. I'd rather have a baseball bat.
 
Short memory, blume ... ?
If Zig guy is going to degrade folks for using a fanny pack.. I'll take the liberty to critisize anyone who would be dumb enough to carry an UNLOADED gun. Just stupid. I'd rather have a baseball bat.
Click to expand...
- bold mine - Bud Helms​

... personal attacks, be they acrimonious or veiled ...
Click to expand...

That is two reminders in the same thread. That is two too many.
 
Bud Helms. I do not believe Blume is directing his comments at Zig. Rather the main character of this topic. The "arrestee" so to speak.
 
1. No speculation. Shaun took a thigh drop holster to a tailor and had it modified with the addition of a cover that completely enclosed the gun as per the law. The cover was secured with a large nylon buckle. (Squeeze type--you all have one somewhere.)

2. I'm sure it was obvious to the mall guards what was in the case (or holster, if you want to call it that--it really makes no difference legally as long as the gun was enclosed.) I still question whether that constitutes PC, since having a gun in the container, or an empty container, isn't illegal in Illinois. However, even if the court agrees with that, I suppose they could say that PC existed because the gun could have been loaded. I find that weak, but I'm a gun nut.

3. For the guy who suggested that we could all break the law now, I'm not sure what that has to do with this case. SHAUN DID NOT BREAK THE LAW. Not one single law, Federal, Illinois, or local.
He didn't "ignore the law," he didn't "take the law into his own hands," he didn't "think he was above the law." Period. The law says unloaded and completely enclosed, and he took considerable pains to do just that precisely because that way he could obey the law.

4. I don't like carrying an unloaded gun, either, nor do I like fanny packs. The difference between an unloaded gun and a loaded gun in Illinois is the difference between perfect legality and a felony.
 
However, even if the court agrees with that, I suppose they could say that PC existed because the gun could have been loaded. I find that weak, but I'm a gun nut.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be surprised. Taking pictures of government buildings is PC for criminal/terrorist conspiracy. Possessing a bag of plant material is PC for a drug crime. Possession of brown or white powder is PC for either a drug crime or terrorism. After yesterday, possession of a liquid other than in a water bottle is probably PC for terrorism, too.

However, it should have taken 30 seconds to verify that Shaun's gun wasn't loaded, at which point they should have let him go.

P.S. I just saw Hostel, and I will never think of fanny packs the same way again.
 
Once again I think we are discussing the "letter of the law" vs. the "intent of the law". Only the courts are going to be able to sort this out and will set precedence with their decision. As pointed out earlier, precedence is set easiest if the first court's verdict is reversed in appeal. This isn't an absolute necessity, but it helps. Precedence can be set by lower courts if enough cases are found the same way. So, if charges are just dropped, nothing will be settled and it will be "business as usual". It will take a verdict and a reversal in appeal. As I doubt that the prosecutors would appeal an innocent verdict, it looks like our boy is going to have to hope for a guilty verdict and then go through the appeal process. (Or there will need to be a number of "innocent" verdicts from different lower courts. Any volunteers?)
Of course, the legislature could change the wording to clarify the meaning, but that's not the political way of doing things. If they are going to do anything it will only be after the courts have shown their bent, and more importantly, what it looks like will get them the most votes or campaign contributions in the next election.

Dean
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top