The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 6, 2013, 01:02 PM   #201
mrray13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2008
Location: deep south illinois
Posts: 706
Maybe not 100% viable, but it goes back to something is better then nothing. Until such time that ISP gets the application/approval process worked out, it's better then nothing. Again, I wish it wasn't the only option, and one day it won't be.
mrray13 is offline  
Old September 6, 2013, 01:24 PM   #202
Armed_Chicagoan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 280
So today in the Chicago City Council Ald. Ed Burke wants to deny liquor licenses to any establishment that doesn't put up a sign prohibiting firearms in that establishment. This is a clear violation of the new law, which gives the state sole right to regulate concealed firearms. The NRA is promising to file suit if this passes, we'll see where it goes.

Presumably, as always, Burke's bodyguards will be exempt from the rule.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,5329961.story
Armed_Chicagoan is offline  
Old September 6, 2013, 05:06 PM   #203
K_Mac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 470
Quote:
My point is that it really isn't a viable option.
Frank I always appreciate your input. I understand that carrying a handgun in a fanny pack unloaded with a loaded magazine is not a great plan. I also understand that depending on what police officer or department you talk to this may or may not be acceptable to them. I have talked to many, at all levels of law enforcement here in Illinois. I, and many others believe it complies with the letter of the law as written. There is always uncertainty in life...

Viability is a whole nother thing though. While there are many scenarios where carrying a weapon in this fashion a losing option, there are many others where having a weapon close at hand is better than not having one at all. Faced with this choice on a regular basis, and spending a lot of time in rural areas where police help is often an hour or more away, I'll take the fanny pack.
__________________
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin

"If you let "need" be a requirement and Government be the arbiter of that "need", then Liberty is as dead as King Tut." Jimbob86
K_Mac is offline  
Old September 8, 2013, 07:10 PM   #204
hermannr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
mrray13:

Some holsters are fully enclosed. I have a hunting holster (Ross Leather) for my Colt revolver that covers the weapon completely, and I have an old full flap holster for my CZ52. It is also fully enclosed.
hermannr is offline  
Old September 9, 2013, 10:58 AM   #205
mrray13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2008
Location: deep south illinois
Posts: 706
hermannr, true, those exist. But other then military/re-enactments, I've never seen one used in concealed carry situation.
mrray13 is offline  
Old September 9, 2013, 03:25 PM   #206
Carry_24/7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 5, 2011
Posts: 798
These have been interesting conversations on fanny-pack carry. I myself moved to IL 6 months ago from Florida. I recently spoke to a capt. With the IL state police and a patrol officer with the Aurora police department to figure out how they handle it at the street level...their responses about mirrored.

Basically, they do not look for and search fanny packs for guns just because you are wearing a fanny pack. If they come across you carrying unloaded in a fanny pack, with accompanied ammo, it's most likely because they were called to the scene for some type of investigation that most likely involves you. They indicated that at the very least, the weapon would be confiscated, you cited (depends on situation what charges) and released pending a decision on what the local prosecutor thinks about what you were thinking. In most cases, the weapon would be confiscated, you would be arrested, must post bond and await what the local prosecutor thinks of what you were thinking.

Seems expensive, time consuming and a big risk to my criminal record to me. Im not saying fanny pack carry is right or wrong, just spittin out what I got from 2 different IL LE folks from 2 different organizations at 2 different times. Ill wait for The CC program to roll out. For you all, your call.
Carry_24/7 is offline  
Old September 10, 2013, 03:44 PM   #207
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,182
It looks like Chicago will be repealing their handgun registry to comply with state law.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old September 11, 2013, 03:09 AM   #208
stormy36
Member
 
Join Date: July 3, 2013
Posts: 21
Quote:
o Monday, the council's Public Safety Committee endorsed a measure that would toughen penalties for the illegal possession of a firearm within 100 feet of transportation facilities. A first offense would carry a minimum $1,000 fine and up to six months in jail.
Ugh. Again with this transit issue, which makes carry effectively impossible for hundreds of thousands of Chicagoans, including myself. >
stormy36 is offline  
Old September 11, 2013, 07:36 AM   #209
Armed_Chicagoan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by stormy36
Ugh. Again with this transit issue, which makes carry effectively impossible for hundreds of thousands of Chicagoans, including myself.
If you have a FOID card you're not transporting illegally and if you get a concealed carry permit once they finally get it up and running you'll be able to carry anywhere except as specified under state law. The city ordinance will only apply to those possessing firearms illegally under state law, since state law preempts home rule laws now.

The whole joke about Chicago's gun laws which is never mentioned when you see pols screeching about how important they are for our safety is that on average Chicago has charged just 75 or so people per year under those laws despite confiscating thousands of guns every year from gangbangers and such. They're almost purely symbolic, and pointless to use in most cases because state penalties are felonies and punishment far more harsh.

And I note that fewer than 8,000 (last I heard) Chicagoans had registered their guns with the city, and there's IIRC 130,000 or so FOID card holders who live here. It was widely ignored, and less than useless. Good riddance to it.
Armed_Chicagoan is offline  
Old September 11, 2013, 10:08 PM   #210
TXAZ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: TEXAS!
Posts: 1,337
Chicago appears to be lifting gun registry requirements

I'm pretty skeptical, but this could be very good news, that could help stop some of the violence once honest people start lawfully defending themselves..

The Washington Post article noted "Gun owners in Chicago will no longer be required to register their weapons and obtain a city firearms permit after the City Council on Wednesday voted to eliminate the two provisions, in a victory for gun rights advocates."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...89d_story.html


The sun times article indicated there was some slight of hand in that the ordinance approved a contradictory approach weakening the state CCW law, by pulling the liquor license of any business that serves liquor (and there's a bunch in Chicago) that allows CCW.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhal...-gun-laws.html

Any Windy City aficionados tracking this one?
__________________
!أنا لست إرهابي

Last edited by TXAZ; September 11, 2013 at 10:21 PM.
TXAZ is offline  
Old September 12, 2013, 12:40 PM   #211
Armed_Chicagoan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by TXAZ
Any Windy City aficionados tracking this one?
Post #202...

An aldercreature was on the WLS radio this morning defending this idiocy, claimed restaurant owners were begging for this liquor license rule. Which makes no sense, since any restaurant (or any other private business) that doesn't want guns can simply post a sign prohibiting them and it becomes illegal to bring one in per state law. Also said (surprise surprise) he doesn't have any statistics on restaurant shootings by concealed carry permit holders in other states shooting up the place in a drunken stupor.

He also said that high-powered loop law firm Jenner and Block would represent the city for free from the inevitable lawsuit. I can only assume there's some quid pro quo going on here, that's the way it works here.

I think the odds of this passing judicial scrutiny are slim to none, the state law clearly preempts such shenanigans.
Armed_Chicagoan is offline  
Old September 12, 2013, 01:54 PM   #212
shaunpain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 550
I'm a Chicagoan tracking this, but only but what I can read in the news. There was no fervor, to my knowledge, of restraunt owners that serve alcohol asking for a city ordinance outright banning firearms. Whatever alderman on the radio said that flat out lied (a common feature of politicians at large, but standard issue here). While the state provision allowed for firearm municipal-wide ordinances, they were very clear in that all laws pertaining to concealed carry are statewide with no home rule allowance. I believe that they are well aware that this ordinance contradicts the Illinois law and they are prepared to fight it. You know, see if they can get away with it.

They won't because they can't. That's how I see it. To not offer any counter law to the repeal of their registry is not doing anything in their opinion. They'll try, but they'll fail.
__________________
"Shut up, crime!"
shaunpain is offline  
Old September 12, 2013, 02:08 PM   #213
stormy36
Member
 
Join Date: July 3, 2013
Posts: 21
Quote:
If you have a FOID card you're not transporting illegally and if you get a concealed carry permit once they finally get it up and running you'll be able to carry anywhere except as specified under state law. The city ordinance will only apply to those possessing firearms illegally under state law, since state law preempts home rule laws now.
That's good to know, but state law still prevents carry on transit. Granted, the penalty seems fairly low, and I can't see an otherwise law-abiding permit holder being prosecuted for preventing an armed robbery on a train where they aren't legally entitled to carry (much like those who have thwarted home invasions with unregistered firearms in the past), I still can't see myself violating a provision of the law day in and day out.
stormy36 is offline  
Old September 12, 2013, 02:58 PM   #214
Armed_Chicagoan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 280
The alderman on the radio this morning was from the 42nd Ward, Brendan Reilly.
Armed_Chicagoan is offline  
Old September 25, 2013, 01:30 PM   #215
Herluf
Member
 
Join Date: September 22, 2013
Posts: 47
Great news for Chicago gun owners...

...but no one seems to be mentioning it!

Two Wednesdays ago, the Chicago City council heavily modified their gun laws.

-CFL is no longer required for handgun ownership.
-Guns no longer need to be registered yearly with the city
-Concealed carry will be legal (with some exceptions) once IL get's it's own law sorted out.

This all seemed like pretty big news to me, but almost no news outlets were reporting on it. There was a good number of mentions when it was approved in committee, but startling radio silence when it passed two days later.

There's still a far-too-extensive assault weapons ban, confusing pistol mag restrictions and yet-to-be implemented limitations on Concealed Carry, but it's the best news for Chicago Gun owners in four decades.

This came as great news to me who didn't currently have a CFL, but 4 days later came into possession of my Grandfather's Beretta Model 84 and Llama Especial.

Anyone else following or hearing this news with interest?

Revised Chicago Ordinance:
http://www.nraila.org/media/11854185...o2013-6015.pdf
Herluf is offline  
Old September 25, 2013, 01:36 PM   #216
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,011
We've been following all of Illinois' firearms issues pretty closely, and it's almost all being discussd in this thread.

Welcome to TFL!

ETA: Threads merged.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old September 25, 2013, 03:05 PM   #217
Herluf
Member
 
Join Date: September 22, 2013
Posts: 47
Thanks for the move.

by "No One" I was thinking more of the media not bringing it up. I'm a WBEZ junkie, and despite their slant, they usually give things like this a fair amount of coverage. I called the news desk yesterday and strongly suggested that it was irresponsible to not have reported on this development as genuine and important news for Chicagoans.
Herluf is offline  
Old September 26, 2013, 10:31 PM   #218
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
Quote:
Concealed carry will be legal (with some exceptions)
A licensee under this Act shall not knowingly carry a firearm on or into:

Any building, real property, and parking area under the control of a public or private elementary or secondary school, pre-school or child care facility,

Any building, parking area, or portion of a building under the control of an officer of the executive or legislative branch of government, and any building or portion of a building under the control of a unit of local government.

Any building designated for matters before a court.

Any building, real property, and parking area under the control of a public or private hospital or hospital affiliate, mental health facility, or nursing home.

Any bus, train, or form of transportation paid for in whole or in part with public funds, and any building, real property, and parking area under the control of a public transportation facility paid for in whole or in part with public funds.

Any public gathering or special event conducted on property open to the public that requires the issuance of a permit from the unit of local government or any building or real property that has been issued a Special Event Retailer's license as defined in Section 1-3.17.1 of the Liquor Control Act during the time designated for the sale of alcohol by the Special Event Retailer's license, or a Special use permit.

Any public playground.

Any public park, athletic area, or athletic facility under the control of a municipality or park district.

Any building, real property, or parking area under the control of a gaming facility licensed under the Riverboat Gambling Act or the Illinois Horse Racing Act of 1975, including an inter-track wagering location licensee.

Any real property under the control of the Cook County Forest Preserve District.

Any building, classroom, laboratory, medical clinic, hospital, artistic venue, athletic venue, entertainment venue, officially recognized university-related organization property, whether owned or leased, and any real property, including parking areas, sidewalks, and common areas under the control of a public or private community college, college, or university.

Any stadium, arena, or the real property or parking area under the control of a stadium, arena, or any collegiate or professional sporting event.

Any building, real property, or parking area under the control of a public library.

Any building, real property, or parking area under the control of an amusement park.

Any building, real property, or parking area under the control of a zoo or museum.

The owner of private real property of any type may prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms on the property under his or her control.

The city of Chicago has been pressuring businesses to put up "no firearms" signs.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old September 27, 2013, 02:15 PM   #219
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,077
The ban on public transportation carry seems particularly untenable. It effectively eviscerates the right for a broad cross section of the public who rely totally on transportation and who may disproportionately live in poor, high crime areas. It also prevents people who are unable to drive due to disabilities from exercising their right to self-defense.

Last edited by Tom Servo; September 27, 2013 at 02:22 PM. Reason: Borderline language
maestro pistolero is online now  
Old September 27, 2013, 03:43 PM   #220
HarrySchell
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 548
"The ban on carry in public transpoort..."

Exactly the idea. They will be a more reliable voting bloc that way, more afraid, easier to placate with less. Let them defend themselves, and they will want real schools. Life as the political class know it may end...
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will.
— Mark Twain
HarrySchell is offline  
Old September 27, 2013, 09:16 PM   #221
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,182
Quote:
The ban on public transportation carry seems particularly untenable.
There's definitely the possibility of a lawsuit there.

One of the judges in Moore mentioned this possibility in her dissent. They may have acknowledged the existence of the right to carry, but the legislature has done its best to restrict the number of places in which it can be exercised.

There are some time, place, and manner restrictions on 1A rights. There will probably also always be some on 2A rights. The question to hash out now is, where do we draw the lines?
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old September 28, 2013, 12:05 AM   #222
62coltnavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 209
The ban on parking lots seems untenable as well, especially after a federal district court ruled that a ban on firearms in post office parking lots was invalid. Laws like this constitute a de facto ban on carry by commuters who take the train into the city and park their cars at lots by the station. There is certainly not enough parking outside of the station lots to accommodate the volume of those who carry and store in their cars--and it would be pretty obvious that their cars contained firearms. Not a good plan.
62coltnavy is offline  
Old September 28, 2013, 08:00 AM   #223
Armed_Chicagoan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by 62coltnavy
The ban on parking lots seems untenable as well, especially after a federal district court ruled that a ban on firearms in post office parking lots was invalid. Laws like this constitute a de facto ban on carry by commuters who take the train into the city and park their cars at lots by the station. There is certainly not enough parking outside of the station lots to accommodate the volume of those who carry and store in their cars--and it would be pretty obvious that their cars contained firearms. Not a good plan.
Under the law you are allowed to store it in your locked car in the parking lot of a prohibited place, and just outside your car in order to put it in your trunk.

Quote:
What is the parking lot exemption for CCL holders in prohibited places?

Notwithstanding any prohibition to the contrary - except those pertaining to property regulated by the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission or where firearms are prohibited under federal law, any licensee prohibited from carrying a concealed firearm into the parking area of a prohibited location shall be permitted to carry a concealed firearm on or about his or her person within a vehicle into the parking area and may store a firearm or ammunition concealed in a case within a locked vehicle or locked container out of plain view within the vehicle in the parking area. A licensee may carry a concealed firearm in the immediate area surrounding his or her vehicle within a prohibited parking lot area only for the limited purpose of storing or retrieving a firearm within the vehicles trunk , provided the licensee ensures the concealed firearm is unloaded prior to exiting the vehicle.
http://www.isp.state.il.us/firearms/ccw/ccw-faq.cfm
Armed_Chicagoan is offline  
Old September 30, 2013, 08:20 AM   #224
Herluf
Member
 
Join Date: September 22, 2013
Posts: 47
maestro pistolero,
That would be my observation as well. Cook/Chicago simply won't give an inch until a superseding law or court action forces them too. Kind of taking a play from the NRA playbook, ironically. In reality though, it looks like the tide has changed based on recent court rulings. I'm pretty confident that most of the more onerous restrictions will eventually go down just like the handgun ban. It's just going to take time and legal action.
Herluf is offline  
Old October 3, 2013, 04:21 PM   #225
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 218
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/...10_03_2013.mp3

Oral arguments today for the NRA's attempt to get FOID carry right now until the IL CCWs are issued.
It didn't go well
press1280 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14964 seconds with 9 queries