Legal concealed carry in IL

SecurityMike · January 2, 2012, 01:24 PM

So I think I found a loophole in Illinois' concealed carry law that would allow private citizens to carry. There is a section of the law that states exemptions to the deadly weapons laws. For example the top of the list is police officers, and then prison guards who are on duty or driving between work and home. But at the bottom it says armed security guards who work at a nuclear energy, weapons, or storage site and who have been trained by the nuclear regulatory commission. But it does not specify "while in the performance of their duty" or "When commuting between home and place of employment". So I'm just wondering what you all think or if anyone can shed anymore light on this?
The law-
Sec. 24‑1. Unlawful Use of Weapons.
(a) A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowingly:
... (4) Carries or possesses in any vehicle or concealed
on or about his person 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, stun gun or taser or other firearm, except that this subsection (a) (4) 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;

The exemptions-

Sec. 24‑2. Exemptions.
(a) Subsections 24‑1(a)(3), 24‑1(a)(4), 24‑1(a)(10), and 24‑1(a)(13) and Section 24‑1.6 do not apply to or affect any of the following:
Example of wording in other situatons
(2) Wardens, superintendents and keepers of prisons,
penitentiaries, jails and other institutions for the detention of persons accused or convicted of an offense, while in the performance of their official duty, or while commuting between their homes and places of employment.

(13.5) A person employed as an armed security guard
at a nuclear energy, storage, weapons or development site or facility regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission who has completed the background screening and training mandated by the rules and regulations of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

So it looks like if you are a guard at a nuclear site, you are allowed to carry anywhere?

C0untZer0 · January 2, 2012, 01:37 PM

I was in the reserves with a nuke fac inspector, a DIA investigator and a Cook County cop and they used to argue about this all the time.

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?act=idx

Stealth01 · January 2, 2012, 05:26 PM

The simplest solution is to move accross the river to Missouri... No arguements required!

Nordeste · January 2, 2012, 06:31 PM

This thing about "gun-unfriendly" States, somehow shocks me

. If you have a constitutional right to bear arms, how is it that a State can make regulations that prohibit citizens to carry?. Your Constitution is supposed to be at a higher level than any State's legislation, isn't it?.

I understand that the explanation might be that your 2nd Amendment grants you the right to bear arms (understood as the right to own firearms) but it says nothing about carrying them for self-defense. Is that right?.

bedbugbilly · January 2, 2012, 06:45 PM

You could probably get a "clarification" of this by having a "advisory committee meeting" with the former Illinois Governors . . .

Oh, yea . . . I forgot . . most of them are in prison.

sigcurious · January 2, 2012, 06:48 PM

My guess would be that they're exempted because of the sensitive nature of their work, ie if someone attacked them with the express purpose of trying to use their credentials to access a facility with nuclear materials it would not only be a possible local issue but regional/national. But again that's a purely speculative guess.

C0untZer0 · January 2, 2012, 07:43 PM

I think it's an unintentional loophole that is open to interpretation. I could be wrong, but Illinois politicians really don't want anyone except active police with arrest powers to be carrying guns, that's my opinion.

To Nordeste - yes it's a little mind boggling. It was 1981 when Morton Grove banned guns and the next year Chicago's started their gun ban. I already knew about the U.S. Constitution from elementary school and thought "wha ? Doesn't the Second Amendment garuantee the right to 'Keep and Bear Arms', how can they outlaw guns?"

Well it boils down to what the meaning of the word "is" is...

It doesn't matter until there is case law spelling it out exactly. The three major cases that i am aware of are Heller, MacDonald and Ezell (Ezell is not quite finished yet).

What we're working out now with Moore v Madigan and Shepard v Madigan will determine exactly what it means to bear arms. The state's interpretation is that it means having firearms on your property, - not carrying them in public.

Also, while the Illinois Constitution reiterates some things that are found in the Bill of Rights, like the 1st Amendment - Freedom of Religion, 4th Amendment, 5th amendment - right to trial by jury and freedom from double jeopardy; the Illinois constitution never included the right to keep and bear arms.

Not that the ommission trumps the 2nd Amendmnet of the United States of America... but I'm just saying. It's not in the Illinois Constitution.

kraigwy · January 2, 2012, 08:03 PM

I've dealt with a lot of cops from all over the country, Chicago Cops were always the most "unfriendly". They seem to think they are the only ones who should have guns.

Not saying all, just the ones I've run into. Even after the LEOSA came out they wouldn't recognize it until Chicago had to pay $200K in a law suit for false arrest.

Not sure the details but I got it from an outfit in NJ made up of cops and prosecutors traveling the country trying to educate police departments on the LEOSA.

What I'm getting at. I wouldn't push it. Just because you get a ruling in your favor, doesn't mean the CPD will get the same ruling. You could spend a lot of time jail and money trying to prove your case.

Nomadicone · January 2, 2012, 10:04 PM

If I were in your shoes I would consider this. The interpitation of the law falls to the officer that stops you until it is elevated to the State Attorney's office. That said, most officers don't know the carry laws as well as you and I since we focus only on this one issue and they have a much broader focus. The officer who stops you can have a big impact on your life until it all gets sorted out.

Having lived in IL I would pass on it. A good part of why I don't live in IL any longer and have never returned.

Cheapshooter · January 2, 2012, 10:21 PM

You are in the People's Republic of Illinois! The meaning of any law is what they want it to mean. The they being the liberal politicians in Chicago that run the state. It has nothing to do with the elected officials in Springfield.

C0untZer0 · January 2, 2012, 11:13 PM

Well, we don't have carry and we do have a 72 hour waiting period.

On the other hand, aside from NFA items, I never have to ask "Is my gun legal in Illinois ?" I don't get jerked around buying ammo or magazines online.

In Chicago we're litigating cases that could shape gun laws for the whole country.

I am grateful to Dick Heller, George Lyon, Tracey Ambeau, Gillian St. Lawrence,Tom Palmer, and Shelly Parker who brought their suit against DC, as well as Alan Gura, and Robert A. Levy - counsel for Heller. If those six plaintiffs had decided to just move rather than fighting the gun ban, there would be no DC v. Heller - It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self defense.

The Heller decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago.

I'm grateful to Otis McDonald.

I'm grateful to both Mary Shepard and Superintendent Michael Moore who brought their cases forward challenging Illinois UUW/ gun laws whcih equate to a carry ban.

I believe it will get sorted out.

I also feel optimistic about the 2012 elections in Illinois and the effort to bring HB 148 - the carry bill, up again for a vote.

SHNOMIDO · January 3, 2012, 12:22 AM

You could start your own private investigation company, pay all the money that goes with that, and "always be on duty"

contact a lawyer.

jimbob86 · January 3, 2012, 01:04 AM

Quote:

The simplest solution is to move accross the river to Missouri... No arguements required

-Stealth01

I used to say crap like that..... IIRC, I advised someone there to "vote with his feet" ..... until I was reminded of a couple of quotes.....

"No Free man should ever be barred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson

"Evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Jeff Cooper

I believe that denying people the means to defend themselves, their families and their property is evil........ there are people in Illinois fighting the good fight, and even look to be winning, lately ...... advising them to flee is not helping.

TexasJustice7 · January 3, 2012, 04:45 AM

In other words, only the NONE Peasants are allowed to own a gun, or to defend themselves with a gun. Or if you live in Illinois you are a second class citisen unless one is law enforcement. I agree with whoever said
move to Missouri. I am glad they brought those cases CountZero and you have a good point. I just can't wait around half a century for Illinois to recognize constitutional rights.

Thankfully I don't have to look for loopholes in Texas law to have a handgun for self defense, and where a half million people have gun permits. And the ones who don't can carry in their vehicles as well. I will bet though that there are more criminals with guns in Illinois than there are in Texas.

**Aguila Blanca** · January 3, 2012, 06:14 AM

I am not a lawyer. The law aswritten APPEARS to open that loophole. However, what a law means is ultimately interpreted by the courts, not by the citizens. My guess is that a court in Illinois would view "employed as" to mean "when acting on duty as".

The law reads "A person employed as an armed security guard
at a nuclear energy, storage, weapons or development site or facility ..." It does NOT say "A person employed by a nuclear energy, storage, weapons or development site or facility ..." The devil is in the details. I read it again, and I remain of the opinion it would be interpreted by a court to apply only when you are actually "at" the facility, actively on duty as an armed security guard.

Nordeste · January 3, 2012, 08:19 AM

Thank you, C0untZer0

. Looks like I guessed right, and it also looks like someone saw the gap in which to fit a ban to carry for self-protection and used it. Right to bear and keep is not exactly the same as right to carry.

Crankgrinder · January 7, 2012, 12:06 AM

i agree with tex, but i would say lets keep our laws here in Texas a secret. Lets not have the droves of people from IL moving down here for us to fool with. Half the former state of california now lives here and our jails are full of those who thought their stuff would fly here as well and the other half are walking around talking how great california is. Cant wait until they all remember to go back home.

January 2, 2012, 01:24 PM	#1
SecurityMike Member Join Date: November 13, 2011 Location: Chicagoland, Il Posts: 35	Legal concealed carry in IL So I think I found a loophole in Illinois' concealed carry law that would allow private citizens to carry. There is a section of the law that states exemptions to the deadly weapons laws. For example the top of the list is police officers, and then prison guards who are on duty or driving between work and home. But at the bottom it says armed security guards who work at a nuclear energy, weapons, or storage site and who have been trained by the nuclear regulatory commission. But it does not specify "while in the performance of their duty" or "When commuting between home and place of employment". So I'm just wondering what you all think or if anyone can shed anymore light on this? The law- Sec. 24‑1. Unlawful Use of Weapons. (a) A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowingly: ... (4) Carries or possesses in any vehicle or concealed on or about his person 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, stun gun or taser or other firearm, except that this subsection (a) (4) 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; The exemptions- Sec. 24‑2. Exemptions. (a) Subsections 24‑1(a)(3), 24‑1(a)(4), 24‑1(a)(10), and 24‑1(a)(13) and Section 24‑1.6 do not apply to or affect any of the following: Example of wording in other situatons (2) Wardens, superintendents and keepers of prisons, penitentiaries, jails and other institutions for the detention of persons accused or convicted of an offense, while in the performance of their official duty, or while commuting between their homes and places of employment. (13.5) A person employed as an armed security guard at a nuclear energy, storage, weapons or development site or facility regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission who has completed the background screening and training mandated by the rules and regulations of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. So it looks like if you are a guard at a nuclear site, you are allowed to carry anywhere? __________________ "We have repeatedly held that one who is unlawfully assaulted and put in apparent danger of his life or of great bodily harm need not attempt to escape but may repel force with force..." PEOPLE v. BUSH 414 Ill. 441 (1953) Supreme Court of Illinois.

January 2, 2012, 05:26 PM	#3
Stealth01 Senior Member Join Date: November 16, 2010 Location: Missouri Posts: 240	The simplest solution is to move accross the river to Missouri... No arguements required! __________________ Ken

January 2, 2012, 06:45 PM	#5
bedbugbilly Senior Member Join Date: November 19, 2009 Posts: 3,287	You could probably get a "clarification" of this by having a "advisory committee meeting" with the former Illinois Governors . . . Oh, yea . . . I forgot . . most of them are in prison. __________________ If a pair of '51 Navies were good enough for Billy Hickok, then a single Navy on my right hip is good enough for me . . . besides . . . I'm probably only half as good as he was anyways. Hiram's Rangers Badge #63

January 2, 2012, 08:03 PM	#8
kraigwy Senior Member Join Date: June 16, 2008 Location: Wyoming Posts: 11,061	I've dealt with a lot of cops from all over the country, Chicago Cops were always the most "unfriendly". They seem to think they are the only ones who should have guns. Not saying all, just the ones I've run into. Even after the LEOSA came out they wouldn't recognize it until Chicago had to pay $200K in a law suit for false arrest. Not sure the details but I got it from an outfit in NJ made up of cops and prosecutors traveling the country trying to educate police departments on the LEOSA. What I'm getting at. I wouldn't push it. Just because you get a ruling in your favor, doesn't mean the CPD will get the same ruling. You could spend a lot of time jail and money trying to prove your case. __________________ Kraig Stuart CPT USAR Ret USAMU Sniper School Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071

January 2, 2012, 10:04 PM	#9
Nomadicone Senior Member Join Date: January 31, 2008 Location: Arizona Posts: 214	If I were in your shoes I would consider this. The interpitation of the law falls to the officer that stops you until it is elevated to the State Attorney's office. That said, most officers don't know the carry laws as well as you and I since we focus only on this one issue and they have a much broader focus. The officer who stops you can have a big impact on your life until it all gets sorted out. Having lived in IL I would pass on it. A good part of why I don't live in IL any longer and have never returned. __________________ Outdoor Equipment Outfitter for your outdoor equipment needs www.outdoorequipmentoutfitter.org

January 2, 2012, 01:37 PM	#2
C0untZer0 Junior member Join Date: April 21, 2011 Location: Illinois Posts: 4,555	I was in the reserves with a nuke fac inspector, a DIA investigator and a Cook County cop and they used to argue about this all the time. http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?act=idx

January 2, 2012, 06:31 PM	#4
Nordeste Senior Member Join Date: May 8, 2011 Location: Asturias, Spain Posts: 328	This thing about "gun-unfriendly" States, somehow shocks me . If you have a constitutional right to bear arms, how is it that a State can make regulations that prohibit citizens to carry?. Your Constitution is supposed to be at a higher level than any State's legislation, isn't it?. I understand that the explanation might be that your 2nd Amendment grants you the right to bear arms (understood as the right to own firearms) but it says nothing about carrying them for self-defense. Is that right?.

January 2, 2012, 06:48 PM	#6
sigcurious Senior Member Join Date: May 25, 2011 Posts: 1,755	My guess would be that they're exempted because of the sensitive nature of their work, ie if someone attacked them with the express purpose of trying to use their credentials to access a facility with nuclear materials it would not only be a possible local issue but regional/national. But again that's a purely speculative guess.

January 2, 2012, 07:43 PM	#7
C0untZer0 Junior member Join Date: April 21, 2011 Location: Illinois Posts: 4,555	I think it's an unintentional loophole that is open to interpretation. I could be wrong, but Illinois politicians really don't want anyone except active police with arrest powers to be carrying guns, that's my opinion. To Nordeste - yes it's a little mind boggling. It was 1981 when Morton Grove banned guns and the next year Chicago's started their gun ban. I already knew about the U.S. Constitution from elementary school and thought "wha ? Doesn't the Second Amendment garuantee the right to 'Keep and Bear Arms', how can they outlaw guns?" Well it boils down to what the meaning of the word "is" is... It doesn't matter until there is case law spelling it out exactly. The three major cases that i am aware of are Heller, MacDonald and Ezell (Ezell is not quite finished yet). What we're working out now with Moore v Madigan and Shepard v Madigan will determine exactly what it means to bear arms. The state's interpretation is that it means having firearms on your property, - not carrying them in public. Also, while the Illinois Constitution reiterates some things that are found in the Bill of Rights, like the 1st Amendment - Freedom of Religion, 4th Amendment, 5th amendment - right to trial by jury and freedom from double jeopardy; the Illinois constitution never included the right to keep and bear arms. Not that the ommission trumps the 2nd Amendmnet of the United States of America... but I'm just saying. It's not in the Illinois Constitution.

January 2, 2012, 10:21 PM	#10
Cheapshooter Senior Member Join Date: December 2, 2007 Location: Missouri Posts: 8,306	You are in the People's Republic of Illinois! The meaning of any law is what they want it to mean. The they being the liberal politicians in Chicago that run the state. It has nothing to do with the elected officials in Springfield. __________________ Cheapshooter's rules of gun ownership #1: NEVER SELL OR TRADE ANYTHING!

January 2, 2012, 11:13 PM	#11
C0untZer0 Junior member Join Date: April 21, 2011 Location: Illinois Posts: 4,555	Well, we don't have carry and we do have a 72 hour waiting period. On the other hand, aside from NFA items, I never have to ask "Is my gun legal in Illinois ?" I don't get jerked around buying ammo or magazines online. In Chicago we're litigating cases that could shape gun laws for the whole country. I am grateful to Dick Heller, George Lyon, Tracey Ambeau, Gillian St. Lawrence,Tom Palmer, and Shelly Parker who brought their suit against DC, as well as Alan Gura, and Robert A. Levy - counsel for Heller. If those six plaintiffs had decided to just move rather than fighting the gun ban, there would be no DC v. Heller - It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self defense. The Heller decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago. I'm grateful to Otis McDonald. I'm grateful to both Mary Shepard and Superintendent Michael Moore who brought their cases forward challenging Illinois UUW/ gun laws whcih equate to a carry ban. I believe it will get sorted out. I also feel optimistic about the 2012 elections in Illinois and the effort to bring HB 148 - the carry bill, up again for a vote.

January 3, 2012, 12:22 AM	#12
SHNOMIDO Senior Member Join Date: June 23, 2011 Location: Illinois Posts: 423	You could start your own private investigation company, pay all the money that goes with that, and "always be on duty" contact a lawyer.

January 3, 2012, 04:45 AM	#14
TexasJustice7 Senior Member Join Date: May 10, 2011 Posts: 213	In other words, only the NONE Peasants are allowed to own a gun, or to defend themselves with a gun. Or if you live in Illinois you are a second class citisen unless one is law enforcement. I agree with whoever said move to Missouri. I am glad they brought those cases CountZero and you have a good point. I just can't wait around half a century for Illinois to recognize constitutional rights. Thankfully I don't have to look for loopholes in Texas law to have a handgun for self defense, and where a half million people have gun permits. And the ones who don't can carry in their vehicles as well. I will bet though that there are more criminals with guns in Illinois than there are in Texas.

January 3, 2012, 06:14 AM	#15
Aguila Blanca Staff Join Date: September 25, 2008 Location: CONUS Posts: 18,484	I am not a lawyer. The law aswritten APPEARS to open that loophole. However, what a law means is ultimately interpreted by the courts, not by the citizens. My guess is that a court in Illinois would view "employed as" to mean "when acting on duty as". The law reads "A person employed as an armed security guard at a nuclear energy, storage, weapons or development site or facility ..." It does NOT say "A person employed by a nuclear energy, storage, weapons or development site or facility ..." The devil is in the details. I read it again, and I remain of the opinion it would be interpreted by a court to apply only when you are actually "at" the facility, actively on duty as an armed security guard. Last edited by Aguila Blanca; January 3, 2012 at 05:37 PM. Reason: Expanded thought process

January 3, 2012, 08:19 AM	#16
Nordeste Senior Member Join Date: May 8, 2011 Location: Asturias, Spain Posts: 328	Thank you, C0untZer0 . Looks like I guessed right, and it also looks like someone saw the gap in which to fit a ban to carry for self-protection and used it. Right to bear and keep is not exactly the same as right to carry.

January 7, 2012, 12:06 AM	#17
Crankgrinder Senior Member Join Date: July 24, 2011 Location: Texas Posts: 917	i agree with tex, but i would say lets keep our laws here in Texas a secret. Lets not have the droves of people from IL moving down here for us to fool with. Half the former state of california now lives here and our jails are full of those who thought their stuff would fly here as well and the other half are walking around talking how great california is. Cant wait until they all remember to go back home.