On July 25 "Mike" submitted this comment to my article titled "Read why he carries a gun..."
"... Now see if you can find where the IL legislature - while taking the time out from pissing away all our money - went in and wrote remedial legislation/language to clarify what is and what is not a "container" suitable for transporting a firearm. I think you'll find that they made the correction and that it will withstand any court test so long as IL is allowed to prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons. "
Below is the law from the Illinois Compiled Statues as they exist online today. Maybe Mike knows of some other place where the legislature publishes the laws of the state. Mike, if you do, please let us know how the law was changed and whether "container" was defined. Thanks.
"720 ILCS 5/24‑1Sec. 24‑1. Unlawful Use of Weapons. (a) A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowingly: ...(10) Carries or possesses on or about his person, upon any public street, alley, or other public lands within the corporate limits of a city, village or incorporated town, except when an invitee thereon or therein, for the purpose of the display of such weapon or the lawful commerce in weapons, or except when on his land or in his own abode, legal dwelling, or fixed place of business, or on the land or in the legal dwelling of another person as an invitee with that person's permission, any pistol, revolver, … or other firearm, EXCEPT that this subsection (a) (10) 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." (emphasis (capitalization, italics, color added))
(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." (emphasis (capitalization, italics, color added))
So, the way I read it is, if I am transporting my unloaded handgun in my "container" (whatever that is - DayTimer zipper case, backpack, lunchbox, briefcase, Jewel sack) and have my valid FOID card with me, and walk into Starbuck's for a latte, I am not breaking the law.
Transporting it can mean as little as walking from here to there. I'm "transporting" it with me.
Comments, anyone? Isn't this the law? Surely, the law enforcement officers in McHenry County and its municipalities wouldn't arrest someone who is not breaking the law. Would they?
8 comments:
One must look at the "legislative intent." TO do this you need a copy of the floor debate.
I’m sure there has been case law, and possible an opinion from the AG opining what the word TRANSPOTATION is defined as.
I think that in the legislative intent the word TRANSPORTATION meant “in a vehicle.”
I doubt concealed carry at Starbucks will pass muster.
To split this into semantics would be like Clinton asking what the meaning of IS; IS?
I think you should test the backpack or lunchbox carry at Starbucks, would you like to call the police or shall I?
Oh I hope the police find you carrying your handgun and you get to spend some time defending your position. YOU'LL learn real quick that YOUR interpretation and the COURTS are far different
If some nut bursts into a crowded Starbuck's and starts shooting his way to the front of the line, I hope I've got more than a PB&J sandwich in my lunchbox.
I suspect it won't be that the courts and I have different interpretations, but rather that the local police (wherever) and the courts differ in their interpretations.
I think you’re nuts........
I think you fanaticize about shooting someone.............
A person like you is why WHO gets a CCW should be very tough.
Med, you are certainly entitled to your opinion.
No, I don't fantasize about shooting someone. I hope I never have to.
However, if it's a choice of my getting shot by someone or my shooting him, then I hope I am armed and nail him before he gets me.
I suggest that you read "From Luby's to the Legislature".
I think Illinois CCW is on the horizon. I believe in a person’s right to arm themselves, however with all the nutcases out there I believe that without some stringent oversight by the police, it will be inevitable that someone will do just as you suggest. (Go into STARBUCKS blasting away) There are some scary people out there that have crazy and still walk the streets.
The local police could probably fill a book with known idiots and loonies that should be, but never have been, officially listed as being NUTS. (Term NOT PC but who cares) Until someone has been hospitalized as a mental patient or has been convicted of certain crimes, they will most likely pass the BS computer background done by the ISP.
If you think the ISP will go door to door doing background checks on everyone that applies for CCW, you can sign yourself into the psych ward. I’m sure they have a room open for you.
The local police should be required to sign off on all CCW permits. I hope the legislature makes acquiring a CCW difficult and the requirements high.
Most of us in favor of concealed carry don't mind reasonable limits on FOID cards and Concealed Weapons Permits; i.e., to keep them out of the hands of those who are mentally ill and are felons.
"Stringent oversight by the police" and requiring local police to sign off on all CCW permits are worrisome to us who guard our rights. This is why "Shall Issue" is desired.
Many deputies and officers do not oppose right-to-carry, but they won't say so when their sheriff or chief of police is against it.
Post a Comment