The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 13, 2013, 09:35 PM   #26
Jim March
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,309
Let's go back to talking about Illinois.

We've missed something important.

Several guys on the IL Carry forums (link I provided) are claiming to have contacted their county prosecutors for clarification and so far have gotten bupkis even from ones that normally talk to them. (Cook County's not among that number, obviously!)

Well somebody official needs to make a statement muy pronto. Because this sure as hell looks like the IL Supremes just took the state to Vermont Carry or something damned close. Now, maybe they did and maybe they didn't but guess what guys? If it ain't clear, criminal law sides with "we the people". You can't prosecute if you don't have a "wilful violation of the law" ("mens rea" to a lawyer) when the law isn't clear. Unclear criminal law statutes get tossed out all the time - their existence is an abomination under US legal principles.

So. The ball is now in the hands of the state. Somebody official needs to write an official memo laying out what they think is going on. We can then wrangle over it, hell we can sue over it, we can show it's a steaming southbound product of a northbound male bovine, whatever, but we'll have a starting point.

Right now everybody is standing around wondering what the heck - and in criminal law that's serious bad mojo.
__________________
Jim March
Jim March is offline  
Old September 13, 2013, 10:20 PM   #27
rwilson452
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2004
Location: Tioga co. PA
Posts: 2,361
I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me that anyone convicted only on that statue could get their conviction overturned. Somebody set me straight here.
__________________
USNRET '61-'81
rwilson452 is offline  
Old September 13, 2013, 11:37 PM   #28
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,574
Good decision! Straight forward and concise.

I will add that those previously convicted may not necessarily have their convictions overturned. Under federal constitutional law, a case announcing a new rule of law cannot be used to overturn previous convictions unless their direct appeal is still pending. Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) available at http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/489/288/.

Teague and its principles are difficult for lawyers and judges to apply because there are a million shades of grey in whether a decision is announcing a new rule of law. I won't pretend to know whether this Illinois decision is "new law." Of course, Illinois can give greater retroactive effect under state law if it wants to do so.
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is online now  
Old September 14, 2013, 01:11 AM   #29
Jim March
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,309
Don't have details yet but I'm hearing that IL has state-level case law on this more strict (against the government) than the federal standards.

States can enact constitutional safeguards that are better (better in the civil liberties sense) than federal.
__________________
Jim March
Jim March is offline  
Old September 14, 2013, 07:26 AM   #30
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 218
The new law is officially on the books in IL, however, with no permits issued at this point, it's still in reality the old law. CA7 will hear this next month. The conflict is that IL claims someone must challenge the new law, which means months in district court and the case mooted when the first permits go out. Our side(specifically NRA) is claiming the old law is in effect and that the statute is invalid UNTIL permits are issued.
press1280 is offline  
Old September 14, 2013, 08:22 AM   #31
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,315
Unless I'm missing something, under the old law, no carry was permitted. Under the new law, concealed carry is permitted, but only with a proper license.

Under Aguilar and Moore, you can't be prosecuted for UUW or AUUW, because the laws violates the 2A. Except, the new law says with a permit, you can carry, albeit concealed.

That appears to leave open carry (at the moment) as the only viable means of carry, until the permitting process is actually established (up and running).

Even then, it may mean that unfettered open carry will still remain a viable means of carry.

I think that it is this, that has caused the massive huddle between the State Attorneys.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old September 14, 2013, 12:53 PM   #32
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,085
It's hilarious that after all the machinations, that Illinois could well end up a so-called constitutional open carry state.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old September 14, 2013, 05:14 PM   #33
mrray13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2008
Location: deep south illinois
Posts: 708
Al, under the old law one could carry in Illinois, with these specific requirements,

Unloaded,
Enclosed in a case,
Must have valid FOID.

The language is clear, as this link explains. It's been discussed and disputed, but it's there in black and white.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 720 ILCS 5/24-2(i)
nothing in this Article shall prohibit, apply to, or affect the transportation, carrying, or possession of any pistol, revolver, stun gun, taser, or other firearm which is unloaded and enclosed in a case, firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container, by the possessor of a valid Firearms Owners Identification Card.
Key word emphasized by me....

Last edited by mrray13; September 14, 2013 at 05:25 PM.
mrray13 is offline  
Old September 14, 2013, 06:30 PM   #34
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrray13
Al, under the old law one could carry in Illinois, with these specific requirements, [snip]...
I'm aware of this. Just like in CA, up until recently, they could carry - Unloaded Open Carry (UOC).

Like it or not, that is simply not a form of carry that we (mostly, the rest of the country) would recognize.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old September 14, 2013, 07:31 PM   #35
hermannr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
Mrray13; IMHO: unload, you are carrying a hammer, or transporting a firearm. It may look like you are carrying a firearm, but with no ammo, it is no more dangerous than a hammer.
hermannr is offline  
Old September 15, 2013, 10:14 AM   #36
mrray13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2008
Location: deep south illinois
Posts: 708
Yeah, it isn't the greatest option, but until now, it was the only option. As the website said, 6 seconds to safety, and we all know that you might not have 4 seconds, let alone 6.

hermannr, you could carry your ammo with you, but of course, not in the firearm. A loaded magazine can even be carried in the same case as the firearm, just not in the weapon. Still not optimal, but it was all we had.

Yeah, it sucks.
mrray13 is offline  
Old September 15, 2013, 11:45 AM   #37
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrray13
Yeah, it isn't the greatest option, but until now, it was the only option. As the website said, 6 seconds to safety, and we all know that you might not have 4 seconds, let alone 6.

[snip]

Yeah, it sucks.
Please believe me when I say that I'm not trying to deride you, or any others that live in areas that won't recognize self-defense. I think its great what is going on in IL, just as I think it horrible with what the CA legislature is doing.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old September 15, 2013, 12:19 PM   #38
Gary L. Griffiths
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, IA, WA
Posts: 1,275
Quote:
I'm aware of this. Just like in CA, up until recently, they could carry - Unloaded Open Carry (UOC).
It actually may be better for us in the long run that CA has now outlawed UOC. The Supreme Court might not strike down a UOC statute because it allows one to "bear arms," but outright prohibition should be off the table.
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own personal safety; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths, Chief Instructor, Advanced Force Tactics, Inc. (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill)
Gary L. Griffiths is offline  
Old September 15, 2013, 10:25 PM   #39
mrray13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2008
Location: deep south illinois
Posts: 708
Al, no hard feelings here. And as Gary pointed out for CA, in the long run it's better that Illinois was believed to not have a legal way to carry. Or better yet, a legal way to defend oneself with the Constitutional right to bear arms.
mrray13 is offline  
Old September 19, 2013, 01:22 PM   #40
Lt. Skrumpledonk Ret
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 30, 2012
Location: Oh, Jesus.
Posts: 205
Congratulations, Hambrick!

Congratulations to this man and the 100+ others who's charges have been dropped in light of the recent Illinois Supreme Court ruling in the People v. AGUUWlar .

A representative of State's Attorney Anita Alvarez had the audacity to say this when pressed by Fox 32 News to explain their policy: "It would not be prudent for citizens to carry loaded firearms in public, whether they possess a valid Firearm Owners ID card or not. As for whether these cases would result in criminal charges...I would only say that we would evaluate any individual incident on a case-by-case basis."



http://www.myfoxchicago.com/story/23...#ixzz2fJj841Vx

I'd sue for $3 million.

Last edited by Lt. Skrumpledonk Ret; September 19, 2013 at 01:30 PM.
Lt. Skrumpledonk Ret is offline  
Old September 19, 2013, 02:50 PM   #41
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
Quote:
I would only say that we would evaluate any individual incident on a case-by-case basis."
Aka those we are friendly with will get a pass and everyone else will get socked.
csmsss is offline  
Old September 19, 2013, 05:00 PM   #42
cobra81
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 18, 2005
Location: Land of Lincoln
Posts: 300
14 months in jail and then quietly released with no charges? I'm glad he didn't cop a plea. Nothing like a good multi-million dollar lawsuit victory to adjust Ms. Alvarez' attitude. I hope he gets a good attorney and eats them alive.
cobra81 is offline  
Old September 20, 2013, 06:06 PM   #43
Armed_Chicagoan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 286
The infuriating thing is this guy, who has a clean criminal record, spent more time in jail than criminal gang members get for actually threatening people with a loaded gun.

Like this admitted gang mamber from my own neighborhood:
Quote:
Jaime Gutierrez, 20, pleaded guilty to aggravated unlawful use of a weapon before Cook County Criminal Court Judge Sharon Sullivan who sentenced him to one year in prison, said Lisa Gordon, a spokeswoman for the Cook County State's Attorney.

Gutierrez, of the 3600 block of West Leland Avenue in the Albany Park neighborhood, was arrested July 29 and originally charged with unlawful use of a weapon and possession of a firearm with a defaced serial number, both felonies.
He got upset with the way his soccer game was going one morning, and pulled a gun out of his backpack and threatened other players and spectators with it.

Chicago has a horrible track record of prosecuting gun crimes by career criminals, letting them plead to light sentences. These are the same guys who then go on to murder someone eventually, it's extremely rare for someone charged with murder to have a clean record. And very often they have a record of gun crimes prior to their murder, for which they receive light sentences and are released to commit more crimes. It's absolutely ridiculous.
Armed_Chicagoan is offline  
Old September 21, 2013, 01:20 AM   #44
shaunpain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 554
^^^Armed Chicagoan

This is exactly the problem. I am an 11 year resident of the Humboldt Park/Logan Square area and can say without question that the most sickening aspect of the justice system here is the inability, due to money or prison capacity, to prosecute gun crimes as they are already on the books in Chicago. While our legislators seem to save political face by piling on more municipal gun ordinances, there seems to be a disconnect in even attempting to prosecute career criminals with a laundry list of felonious gun charges. I'm sure paying the piper is all it takes (there is a serious amount of ineptitude in the wealthy class here) and it's obvious to anyone that facts and statistics answer to no one. Police Chief McCarthy was in the Tribune this week voicing his opinion after the Navy Yard shooting saying we need more "reasonable" gun control to the tune of federal and fingerprinted registration. We know this doesn't work. We've seen that every law has been ineffective here. We aren't so stupid (these days) to believe that had the citizens been armed at any of these shootings, the outcome could have somehow been worse.

The winds are blowing another way these days. This is good. Our leaders here are panicking. I assure you that changes are coming soon. Not just in policy, but in leadership as well.
__________________
"Shut up, crime!"
shaunpain is online now  
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 05:33 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 0.12117 seconds with 9 queries