Illegal Arrest In Illinois

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am absolutely appalled and flabbergasted by some of the responses to this

ZingZang, CDH, and 1911, you guys are out of your mind and totally brainwashed to be good little meek pansy sheeple by the powers that be, in my opinion. First of all, let's get it clear right now - this was not in any way, shape, or form ILLEGAL under the law of the state, as interpreted by the precedential caselaw. Second, even if it WAS supposedly "illegal" under Illinois law, this law is completely, utterly and 100% violative of the 2nd amendment to the constitution, which all good men and women have a DUTY to ignore and violate.

Alright, let me get this straight. The man was carrying an UNLOADED pistol. What definition of "self protection" might that be?
Click to expand...

First of all, who cares?! If it's in compliance with the law, then it's in compliance, period. Second, clearly it IS a form of self-protection - an unloaded gun is quite a deterrent to a criminal violent aggressor who doesn't know whether it's loaded or not. And furthermore, what's to stop him from carry a few rounds of ammo in his pocket? Would that be violative? The gun is still "unloaded".

It is that little detail that makes me think "he is young and full of piss and vinegar".
Click to expand...

So freakin what? What does being young and full of piss and vinegar have to do with the price of rice in China? Are those crimes?

I know of no one whom I consider to be wise who would carry an unloaded gun (legal or not).
Click to expand...

First of all, so what? Second of all, I'd double check the crowd you're running with - they ain't too wise - because as mentioned, an unloaded gun can be quite a deterrent.


He did it to to push the laws of his state
Click to expand...

You bet he did, and that's quite a commendable, respectable act, which we should all have the cajones to emulate (SOME of us do), given the state of affairs that our rights are currently highly infringed, *especially* in a state such as IL, one of the worst offenders and violaters of our federal constituational rights.


which got him nowhere and did not help his cause.
Click to expand...

You could not possibly be more wrong about that. After he's done teeing them up and spanking them whores home in a taxi cab, in court (the mall security, the cops, the city, etc.) for a big money judgment, and makes them look incredibly stupid, and causes some lost jobs, and sets yet further legal precedent, he is doing himself, myself, YOU, and everyone else a great service in furthering our rights.


I didn't think I was being particularly hard on the gentleman, and I stand by my comments.
Click to expand...

And it's just been explained to you why they are completely nonsensical. You were totally out of line and out of touch with reality, in my opinion.

I was simply pointing out that the man seems to be going about his agenda in the wrong way.
Click to expand...

First, you did more than that. Second, no he's not. This is precisely the kind of thing we must do, to get court challenges, to win in court (winnable cases such as this one), to slowly chip back away at the infringements that themselves have slowly chipped away at our rights!

YMMV. :)
 
Deadin, you skipped some pages, didn't you?

First of all, the "intent" issue has been brought up and decided at the appellate level. The author of the bill was asked about this during open debate. He was questioned as to whether a person could simply encase an unloaded gun and walk around town with it. He replied that a person could, indeed, as long as that person had a FOID.
The court said that since this question was asked and answered in open debate prior to the vote, everyone who voted for the bill either knew or should have known that he was authorizing people to carry unloaded guns in cases in public in Illinois.

Furthermore, your scenario of an Appellate court decision setting precedent has already occurred. It was called People v. Bruner. Here's the link to the decision:
http://concealcarry.org/illinoisvbrunner.htm
Since this case took place in the Fourth Appellate District, however, it doesn't set precedent for the rest of the state.

I eagerly await the next guy who wants to make excuses as to why it was OK to arrest Shaun Kranish for obeying the law.
 
I eagerly await the next guy who wants to make excuses as to why it was OK to arrest Shaun Kranish for obeying the law.
Click to expand...
:D

Been watching this debate with great interest and I'm amazed that so many on the "Pro-Second" side do the same knee jerk as anti-gunners when they read that someone was arrested:
"Well, he must have broken the law."
"Well, that's what he gets for coming too close to 'the line' "
:rolleyes: Phooey

We're Americans, people. We need to stop the, "Well I'm reserving judgment until the Courts tell me what I should think" attitude. Don Gwinn has pointed out the law, the intent and the precedent. Do we really need a great deal more than that to support this young man?

As to carrying an "unloaded" firearm....who cares, other than the Brady Bunch which would rather he carry a cell phone. I give Shaun Kranish high marks for his ingenuity and his principles. The fact that anyone on this board would attempt to pillory the guy is simply unconscionable.
Rich
 
I'll stand by Don Gwinn's posts and information on this case. Bruner is an applicable precedent, (she had a purse), - though as Don states it only applies to the district in which the appeal was made. I am from Illinois. I have not personally met Shaun but saw him in Springfield at the Capital building on an ISRA lobby day. He was wearing an I Carry jacket and an empty holster. I'm only sorry now that I didn't take the opportunity to say hello.

Shaun may be brash, maybe he is young, maybe some individuals may find him annoying - but that is besides the point - he was trying to carry a firearm for self-defense in compliance with the laws of Illinois - that meant carrying a gun unloaded - with a loaded magazine - something that the Champaign County Rifle Association once called - the 6 seconds to safety method of legal carry in Illinois.

The man was trying to actually exercise his rights while complying with the specific dictates of the state's idiotic firearms laws. I for one will give him credit for standing up to do so. I really don't feel the need to have to know or approve of his reasons for choosing to do so.

Did he set himself up to be another possible test case for helping to establish the legal rights of Illinois gun owners - yes. Why, that's between him and God. I for one will give him credit for having the cajones to act upon his convictions and to risk his freedom and his ability to legally own firearms in Illinois in order to exercise his right to keep and bear arms.

If he offends some individuals by his evidently passionate commitment to his goals - then boo hoo. He is actually taking a stand. You don't have to like him, you don't have to like his attitude, you don't have to feel that the course he has chosen is the best - but he at least deserves some measure of respect for having the courage to stand behind his convictions.

I dare say there are many here - that if they were to honestly look in the mirror - would have to admit that they talk the talk but don't walk the walk. Perhaps Shaun's actions combined with his youth and directness/brashness - pricks the hackles and the conscious of some here - who do not yet have the courage to act upon their convictions. There is nothing that an old hand hates more than to see a young kid that tries to break the bronc that the old hand has been too afraid to ride yet - cause ya know the old hand was going to get around to it and heck he would have done it better don't ya know.
 
MAC59 said:

I dare say there are many here - that if they were to honestly look in the mirror - would have to admit that they talk the talk but don't walk the walk. Perhaps Shaun's actions combined with his youth and directness/brashness - pricks the hackles and the conscious of some here - who do not yet have the courage to act upon their convictions. There is nothing that an old hand hates more than to see a young kid that tries to break the bronc that the old hand has been too afraid to ride yet - cause ya know the old hand was going to get around to it and heck he would have done it better don't ya know.
Click to expand...

That sir I believe hits the nail square on the head! How many of those "strong 2A supporters" condeming this young man have done anything but send in some $$$ to the NRA every year? Not many I would wager.
 
Deadin, you skipped some pages, didn't you?
Click to expand...

Guilty as charged. :o

This discussion just seemed to be going around in circles and not really getting anywhere, so I stuck my oar in the water and apparently have stumbled over it.:D

Dean
 
That sir I believe hits the nail square on the head! How many of those "strong 2A supporters" condeming this young man have done anything but send in some $$$ to the NRA every year? Not many I would wager.
Click to expand...

Ha! I'd bet that most of those who condemn him don't even do that! They're the same ones with the lame excuses why they don't join the NRA (ya know, "they're for gun control", "don't want to be on a list", etc. :barf: ). Grow a pair, fellas, if you're in that category.
 
ZingZang:

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.
Click to expand...

You sir, are flat out incorrect. I wrote on this subject as my thesis paper in law school, and received an A grade (A-) from my professor who was a former member of the New Hampshire Supreme Court.

The "Incorporation Doctrine" holds that the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment incorporates certain rights into a prohibition upon the States as well, as of 1868, the date of the 14th. The test for determining whether a right is incorporated as against the states is whether the right is FUNDAMENTAL. Relevant factors in determining "fundamental-ness" are whether the right is found in the Bill of Rights of the U.S., whether it's found in the Bills of Rights of the various states, and whether the right predated the Constitution. The 2A right meets all the criteria, just like speech, press, religion, etc. It will be held to be fundamental, as it clearly is, and will be held to be incorporated, once the SCOTUS ever directly addresses it. The incorporation doctrine didn't really take shape in the SCOTUS until the nineteen-teens and 1920s - and so the only cases which held that the 2A did not apply to the states (Cruikshank, Presser, and 1 other, if memory serves), are all pre-incorporation - before the incorporation doctrine become a time-tested doctrine, and the test for fundamentalness was fleshed out.
 
youre right..I remember back when ohio wanted concealed carry and a bunch of supporters went to cleveland and walked in the open with their guns for all to see.I adamently thought those people were fools and would end up in the slammer knowing cleveland,its corrupt politics and its antigun ways.they had the stones to do it,I didnt. anyhow,the big problems that the antis were saying was going to be..didnt happen,it then started all over the state and LE even joined in & took part as well.we got cc from it and alot of hard work from guys taking it up with the state.it still isnt perfect yet but then what is.its a start.

if this guy was abiding by the law and got treated as a criminal..he should sue them and deserves to win every penny.
 
Look as an IL resident it wouldn't have even occured to me that doing such a thing would be legal. Even if there is some loophole the intent of the law is very clear I think and this is a violation of it.

I absolutely positively believe that it should be legal to carry here. I think the FOID act sucks, and I fully support changing our existing law.

But we ARE a nation of laws. Disobeying the law because you don't agree with it is no excuse.
 
Cowman - He. Didn't. Break. Any. Laws.

He was arrested by people not unlike yourself who don't understand the law.

Regardless of what you feel the intention of the lawmakers was, what matters is the law as written was obeyed. If the law was poorly written, then shame on the lawmakers for doing a slipshod job. It's not Mr. Kranish's fault that the law, as usually enforced, isn't properly enforced.

Please put aside your feelings and read Don Gwinn's post again.

Cowman said:
Disobeying the law because you don't agree with it is no excuse.
Click to expand...
"All laws, rules and practices which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void"
Marbury v. Madison, 5th US (2 Cranch) 137, 180
 
The thing is in this case, he wasn't disobeying the law in the first place, he was acting in specific compliance with the law.
 
It was for the edification of the confused people who keep thinking he broke the law. For sake of argument, if he did break the law, no one here should be morally outraged. If he pushed the limits of the law to retake a freedom, no one should be criticizing.
 
My point was that the phrase "wrong laws should be disobeyed" has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

The more I consider the situation in Illinois, the angrier I get. A bunch of greasy thugs with badges feels that they can brutalize an innocent person with impunity, getting their perverted rocks off under the color of law by ignoring the meaning of the word "or."

These criminals should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Sixty years ago a group of veterans took up arms against similar badged felons in Athens, Tennessee over the right to vote - how much more fundamental is the right to self-defense that these goons are working to destroy?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top