IL CC Permit applications approved - it's starting
- Thread starter stargeezer
- Start date
- Status
why wouldn't you be able to?
Update Java. You *must* be on the current version to access the site. I had the same problem Monday and couldn't get past the spinny-thingy until I'd updated (again.. sigh).
It doesn't matter what Chicago says about "carry" or transport". The state has occupied the entire area of handgun possession. Matters not if it is carry or transport. Matters not if there is an FOID, or FOID and FCCL. They amended the FOID law to be 100% consistent with the FCCL law's language. Chicago is out of the handgun regulation business for FOID and FCCL holders.
The FCCA speaks to "carries". When a firearm is unloaded, in a "case" and you are the holder of a FOID card (or, according to People v Leonard Holmes, a permit from another state) you are in compliance with the UUW law. There is no "carry" of the firearm.
It doesn't matter that the IL supreme court has not ruled on the FCCA yet. They made it clear in Diggins that the "transport" is legal as long as it is unloaded and in "case". What you are proposing is that because someone takes the time and expense to obtain a FCCL, they are actually subject to more restrictions that a person who only has an FCCL. This is called an absurd outcome, sort of like the absurd outcome you continue to preach in regards to the 21-6 law.
Elm Creek Smith
Member
Can't wait to see the first post on THR when an Illinoian (Illinoisian?) gets a license in hand, the first post on THR when someone does the "WalMart Walk," and, especially, the first post when a Chicagoan gets a license in hand! I also can't wait to see the first post on THR after a licensee has "contact" with a police officer/state trooper.
The first time I was stopped by an Oklahoma Highway Patrolman while carrying I gave him my DL and CHL and announced conversationally that I was legally armed. He handed me my CHL back and asked what I was carrying. When I told him it was a 3 inch S&W Model 13 in .357 Mag, his only comment was, "Good choice." IOW, no big deal. If your law enforcement folks are professional, it SHOULDN'T be a big deal.
Good luck!
ECS
The first time I was stopped by an Oklahoma Highway Patrolman while carrying I gave him my DL and CHL and announced conversationally that I was legally armed. He handed me my CHL back and asked what I was carrying. When I told him it was a 3 inch S&W Model 13 in .357 Mag, his only comment was, "Good choice." IOW, no big deal. If your law enforcement folks are professional, it SHOULDN'T be a big deal.
Good luck!
ECS
I offer you the same challenge I have offered others who claim 21-6 no longer applies. So far no one has accepted the challenge.
Put your unloaded gun in a zip lock bag and close it up.
Walk around with the gun in the bag in hand on an EL platform for a few hours.
You will find out really quick whether the authorities believe 21-6 applies or not.
You guys are real brave offering your goofy legal advice to others, but refusing to follow it yourself. Time to put up or shut up.
Apparently at least some people who get a carry license celebrate by going to Walmart.
This has already been covered re: Joan Bruner over on the IL carry website.
She beat the 21-6 charge. It fell apart on the testimony of the officer on the witness stand who admitted he didn't have the permission either.
These discussions are about what is legal, and what case law supports a position (or not).
I don't doubt that some cop somewhere will do something, legal or not. The fact that you picked the "EL" means you thin the Chicago PD will do anything to a gun owner, lawful or not.
Last edited:
So, the word is, the State Police put everyone back on Review until all of the state Law Enforcement officers can be trained on how to interact with concealed carry holders.
You mean to tell me they haven't already taken the time to DO this?
After all of the media exposure, the duration of time the act has been law, etc.
Well, I'm not surprised. It's Illinois. They've got to try to drag it out as long as possible. After all, the legislature goes back in session next week and they'll have the option of screwing us all over before the first permit gets issued.
Ugh. Dislike this state.
You mean to tell me they haven't already taken the time to DO this?
After all of the media exposure, the duration of time the act has been law, etc.
Well, I'm not surprised. It's Illinois. They've got to try to drag it out as long as possible. After all, the legislature goes back in session next week and they'll have the option of screwing us all over before the first permit gets issued.
Ugh. Dislike this state.
She did not beat the 21-6 charge.
here is part of what the appeals court actually said.
This is what the appeals court thinks 21-6 means. That matters a lot more than what anyone on IllinoisCarry thinks. It is not random chance that the court believes that the law means what it actually says. That is the way the courts read laws.
This is what the court actually said.
The charge she beat was the UUW charge (24-2) because the court found that her purse satisfied the container requirement found in the UUW act.
Like every one else I have challenged to my little experiment, you have evaded answering to the call. If you really believe that 21-6 no longer applies, for whatever reason, take the challenge. I will supply the ziplok bag. In fact, I will contribute the first $20 to your legal defense fund. If you can get another 1000 people to donate a like amount, you might have enough to pay your legal bills from such a case.
If you really believe that what a semi-anonymous person on the Internet says trumps what the appeals court said, take the challenge.
Last edited:
No, you are wrong. First of all, it left the 21-6 charge intact. Notice it did not say conviction. The trial for that had not yet taken place. That is why it says she remains subject to the charge..
Now I do apologize for claiming she beat the 21-6 charge. We do not know the outcome. I was confusing her name with the following case.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=96759
And a paste of someone familiar with that story.
You see, the point is that with all of the gangbangers getting busted in Chicago, you can't find a case where they were charged with 21-6.
All we find is an unsuccessful attempt on this defective law.
The state can't even define WHO is the "chief security officer" to give the permission. This legal definition does not exist in IL statutes.
And it isn't worth the time of day to the IL legislature, who beat the subject of public carry of a firearm to death in the days and weeks leading up to the passage of the FCCA.
We have the regular gun shows at the County fairgrounds. There are lots of people coming and going that have guns. There is no written permission. It is a law that is ignored.
It looks like there is approximately one person in the entire state worried about this law and the misdemeanor penalty associated with it.
Now I do apologize for claiming she beat the 21-6 charge. We do not know the outcome. I was confusing her name with the following case.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=96759
And a paste of someone familiar with that story.
You see, the point is that with all of the gangbangers getting busted in Chicago, you can't find a case where they were charged with 21-6.
All we find is an unsuccessful attempt on this defective law.
The state can't even define WHO is the "chief security officer" to give the permission. This legal definition does not exist in IL statutes.
And it isn't worth the time of day to the IL legislature, who beat the subject of public carry of a firearm to death in the days and weeks leading up to the passage of the FCCA.
We have the regular gun shows at the County fairgrounds. There are lots of people coming and going that have guns. There is no written permission. It is a law that is ignored.
It looks like there is approximately one person in the entire state worried about this law and the misdemeanor penalty associated with it.
Last edited:
Vodoun da Vinci
Member
Would any of us be surprised if the law gets drastically "amended" before anyone actually gets a permit? I would not be surprised to see all kinds of restrictions added before it actually "goes down" and people get their permits.
VooDoo
As Anti-Gun and Lock-Step as the Chicago reps and senators are, no, not at all.
I've been waiting patiently "for the other shoe to drop" since this all started.
It is true that it only takes a simple majority to amend this now that the Home rule stuff is basically over. But when we look at the votes we have, it is unlikely that further restrictions will pass. Chicago has a lot of seats in the legislature, but not enough to make it past 50%. Most legislators will want to give this thing a chance before they start making new restrictions.
Once they see there are zero problems, I look for some easing, not tightening.
Once they see there are zero problems, I look for some easing, not tightening.
Then you are going to take the challenge?
What address shall I send the ziplok bag to?
If you are afraid to do it in Chicago, maybe a less scary place. How about Winnebago County? the police chiefs and the sheriff here are all pro carry.
don't forget to print out the IllinoisCarry FAQ to bring with you just in case the cops or the judge don't know what the official IllinoisCarry stance is on this issue.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
