So, just to be concrete, because Warp started this thread due to something I posted....
If a person who has no CHL or equivalent document, comes from California (where the state does issue such licences), with the intent to stop in the state (so we aren't talking about FOPA), but with no intent to do any of the specifically listed exceptions to the FOID requirements for non-residents (hunting, target or competitive shooting, etc)....
What are the consensus positions on the following acts:
1) Drive to an in-state destination with a firearm unloaded in the trunk (not in a case, not disassembled, just in the trunk).
2) Have an unloaded firarm in a duffel bag in the trunk of ypur car, stop at a hotel, and carry the duffel bag into a hotel room
3) Load the firearm once they are in their hotel room.
As I read the opinions, decisions, and laws that I have seen cited on this thread and elsewhere, the first scenario would be illegal due to lack of a case. Put the gun in a case and you appear safe. The second scenario seems like it would be legal, provided a duffel bag is considered a case under Illinois law. (Note: this is a change in my position from what I previously thought, based on info in this thread.)
The third I'm not clear on.
The person isn't engaged, or planning to engage in, any of activities for which a FOID exception is granted. They aren't "someone who has a permit to have a gun from their home state" so the IlSC ruling doesn't seem to bear. Seems like they could be arrested and charged with possession of a firearm and ammunition without a FOID (or equivalent).
Well.... now, I'm going to post info that contradicts the other info I posted.
This lawyer stuff is trickier than it looks
This is from a much more recent case but from a lower court than the other info came from.
If you became a test case, I don't know whether or not either of these past cases would be allowed to be presented in your case.
Question 3 is pretty darn closely related to this case below.
Overly summarizing the case getting to the point below, The Plaintiff Mishaga challenged the constitutionality of FOID because of how it applied to her being an out of state resident. The Plaintiff lost.
In this case, the State is the Defendant. The Plaintiff is Mishaga.
The 3 sentences below say:
(Its really interesting to me that the State #1 as part of their argument because it weakens their law, IMO)
1) The State said the just by being eligible for a license in your home state is enough for Exception 10 to apply to the Plaintiff (Exception 10 is that an out of state license is acceptable for a FOID substitute) and......
2) .... that Mishaga home state doesn't have a FOID type card and therefore is is 'exempt from FOID Act liability under Exception 10' .....and that ....
3) .... 'risk of prosecution is too remote where the FOID Act clearly fails to criminalize her planned course of conduct' of 'to keep a functional firearm for self-defense while staying in her Illinois friends' home'.
So, because of those reasons, the FOID Act didn't violate her Constitutional Rights and the FOID Act should stand.
In THIS CASE, the State said that out of state people don't even need a license, they only need to be eligible to get one in their home state, for Exception 10 to apply.
Again, I don't know if these past cases would be allowed to be relevant in another future case.
http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/...gavSchmitzILFOIDCARDNOTNEEDBYNONRESIDENTS.pdf
Therefore, the more sensible reading of "licensed," in light of plain meaning, context, legislative purpose, and legislative history, is, as Defendants argue, that a nonresident is "licensed" to possess firearms by his resident state if he is legally eligible to do so, with or without a license document evidencing his eligibility. Accordingly, Mishaga, as a nonresident whose resident state, Ohio, tacitly authorizes her possession of firearms because she is not otherwise disqualified, is exempt from FOID Act liability under Exception 10's "licensed or registered" requirement. Mishaga, therefore, does not face a credible threat of prosecution under the FOID Act if and when she chooses to exercise her Second Amendment right to keep a functional firearm for self-defense while staying in her Illinois friends' home, because her risk of prosecution is too remote where the FOID Act clearly fails to criminalize her planned course of conduct.