IL CC Permit applications approved - it's starting

Status
Not open for further replies.
What really happened was closer to Madigan taking pity on the amateurs and throwing us a few bones. He could have done anything he wanted to us, but he showed some human decency that I did not know he had in him.

I couldn't agree more. The big shocker of 2013 was when Madigan "changed sides."

The other big shocker of 2013 was when the bill hit the Senate and the "other shoe dropped", with last minute changes, universal background checks, etc. I'm sure Madigan had that all planned out.
 
I couldn't agree more. The big shocker of 2013 was when Madigan "changed sides."

The other big shocker of 2013 was when the bill hit the Senate and the "other shoe dropped", with last minute changes, universal background checks, etc. I'm sure Madigan had that all planned out.
He did not change sides. He is and always has been on his own side.

I am not even convinced he cares all that much one way or the other about concealed carry.

There are competing power blocks on his own side he has to accommodate to stay in power and he is a master of doing that.

He knew our side was desperate enough to take any LTC bill as long as it was shall issue and preempted. The NRA made it very clear all along that those were the only non-negotiable items in the bill. That meant he was free to put anything else in it that his side wanted.
 
Actually, for IL, this was a monumental event. Let's face it. Hell did in fact freeze over.
They didn't just roll over though, but why should they? It's not in their DNA. When is the last time they played fair after a court order?

What we have now is too expensive, too restrictive, to ambiguous, to open to interpretation.

I look at MO CCW law, it's short and to the point. The first clue the law in IL is excessive is the number of pages the act takes up. They think we are stupid and need boatloads of training, but simultaneously we are all attorneys that can read this and make sense of all of it?

No paper applications for now? Why not? In July, they will obviously type the info into the system manually. They can't do it now? Why not? Are their fingers broken? There is not reason they can't type the info into the exact same web form that we did.

$150? Actually it's closer to $153, because you can't pay with a check.

16 hours of training? How do the other citizens of this country get by with so much less? Are we all "developmentally disabled" and need the extra?

90/120 days to wait for issuance? Why? it took 10 seconds or less for them to know if you are disqualified.

30 days for local LEO to object? For something other than what they already know? Just a way to try and deny a right to someone. Again how do they get by in the other states?

$300 for someone from OOS? Why double? Is it really that much more work?
"Substantially Similar" catch 22. This leaves HI, the one state that is counted as having permits, but nobody can get one.

OOS'ers can come into IL with a loaded firearm in their car, as long as they are allowed to possess a gun in public in the home state, they don't even necessarily need a permit, but an IL resident, who, if they have a FOID, cannot do the exact same thing? So much for equal protection under the bill of rights.

20 some prohibited places, most of which are not banned in the other states, with a law that provides misdemeanor A and B penalties if you are caught in one of those places, yet the lack of signage isn't an automatic valid excuse.
Residences can be off limits, subject to the penalty, but there is specifically zero requirement of a sign?

FOID card required for FCCL. Why? So the department of redundancy department can clip you for the extra cash? You would think that if they can figure out I'm not a criminal for $10 for 10 years, they can figure out the same thing without needing $150 for half the length of time. Or is it just a way that, if I happen to let my FOID lapse accidently, they can nail me to a cross for having a FCCL that is void due to the underlying document being expired? This making me a prohibited person if they are lucky?

There is more, but I'm tired of typing.
 
Last edited:
I also echo Wildbill's sentiments about the concealed carry law. For my business card (for teaching concealed carry) I list on the back side all of the prohibited places.

There's no requirement that many of them are marked; in fact, the only requirements for posting are alcohol > 50%, and private businesses. EVERYTHING else doesn't require posting. There's no requirements for libraries, museums, parks, playgrounds, parades, concerts, community festivals, car shows, etc.

It's entirely possible that all who carry in Illinois will stumble on to one or more prohibited places. And the first offense can carry a 6 month jail sentence. Which, to anyone who works for a living, could be quite a "life altering" experience. The second offense? Up to 1 year in jail.

When I teach the course I focus extensively on prohibited places to make sure students are aware of the ramifications if they choose to ignore them, or accidentally enter one.

Take parks, you are OK if you are on a trail that goes through a park if the portion of the trail that goes through the park is part of a bigger trail that extends beyond the park. But you can't go on a circular trail that only exists within the park.

I illustrate this by standing in one spot in the classroom, saying "It's OK to carry here", then I take two steps to the side, and say "But over here, you can spend 6 months in jail."

Beyond ridiculous, most of it.
 
Take parks, you are OK if you are on a trail that goes through a park if the portion of the trail that goes through the park is part of a bigger trail that extends beyond the park. But you can't go on a circular trail that only exists within the park.

How about trails that end at a park but there is a new trail that starts at the park border?
 
How about trails that end at a park but there is a new trail that starts at the park border?

To qualify for the passthrough trail exemption, only if the new trail extends beyond the park borders. The law only allows you to traverse the park on a trail, if only a portion of the trail is within the park borders. E.g. a cross-city bike path that goes through several parks is OK. But a trail that exists entirely, and only, within the park, is not allowed.
 
But conversely if a trail doesn't extend into a park, and another trail starts on the other side of the park - you can't traverse the park right?

At least that's the way I understand it.

I ride the Prairie Path a lot, and even though we're not going to have this problem in DuPage I sometimes wonder how similar circumstances will play out in Cook. The Prairie Path leads right up to Herrick Lake Forest Preserve, but technically the Prairie Path doesn't go through Herrick Lake. The bike path in the Herrick Lake Forest Preserve is just Herrick Lake's bike path. On the other hand it is designated a “National Recreation Trail” under the federal National Trails System Act and since it connect to the Prairie Path which is also part of the National Recreation Trail.

I wonder how a similar situation will play out in Cook Co. Chicago has a history of being stupid. I think someone will get arrested eventually as dopes like Tom Dart and others try to create a chilling effect on people who carry. It probably will only be settled by a case law.

The anti-gun prosecutors will argue about where one trial ends and another begins. Hopefully the judges will find for defendants in those case.
 
There are several segments of bike paths here in town that are not obviously part of a park but I think they legally are part of a park along the way.

There is a spur that comes off a county run bike trail that goes along the edge of a park and then into the park. I am not entirely sure if the path is part of the park or not. It runs along a city street and one could easily think it is just a wide sidewalk.

There is another similar bike way that goes along side a city street about where one might expect a sidewalk to be but I think the whole bike way is actually inside of a park district park that just happens to be a golf course.

There is another bike way that consists of I think 4 segments of bike path connected by streets. I have walked the whole trail a couple of times. there is nothing on the streets to indicate it is part of the bike path. All the actual bike path segments are inside of parks.

I think you could probably argue that section 65 (c) gives you coverage. But it is not a sure thing for all cases.
 
ilbob;

What needs to be argued, and what will unfortunately require a lawsuit to accomplish, since legislation is unlikely, is that we have as much right to self defense in a park (where people are VERY likely to be attacked/mugged/raped/etc), as in our own homes.

It's going to take one of two things; a person with a CCL who is unarmed, attacked, and seriously injured or killed; or a person who carries anyway, arrested, tried, convicted, and works their way up through appeals through to the IL Supreme court (so that the verdict is effective state wide, and not just in one circuit).
 
Trent, what about state campgrounds? I have not had a good answer on that yet. One CG we frequent has a unfenced play area for kids with slide and swings and such. Does that make the campground a GFZ because it's a "park"? This one has me worried. I can go 30 miles more to a federal parks CG and by federal law I can carry there, but how does state law figure in on this one? Nobody knows and if I show up at a CG with a gun in the camper like I have always had, am I now going to be a criminal?

Aggggg!!!!
 
Trent, what about state campgrounds? I have not had a good answer on that yet. One CG we frequent has a unfenced play area for kids with slide and swings and such. Does that make the campground a GFZ because it's a "park"? This one has me worried. I can go 30 miles more to a federal parks CG and by federal law I can carry there, but how does state law figure in on this one? Nobody knows and if I show up at a CG with a gun in the camper like I have always had, am I now going to be a criminal?

Aggggg!!!!
banned location #12

(12) Any public playground.

I think it is a fair argument that only the playground area(s) of an otherwise unbanned area is banned.

you were committing a crime before because you were in violation of 720 ILCS 21-6. It is also arguably a UUW violation even if unloaded and encased since you were not engaged in transport. It is very hard to argue you are transporting anything when you are sitting still for a week or 2.

on the bright side, the courts in IL have been very generous in interpreting what transport means, for the transport exemptions found in the UUW act.

where did you get the idea you can carry in a federal campground? you sure as heck cannot carry right now as you do not have a FCCL.
 
Last edited:
Trent, what about state campgrounds? I have not had a good answer on that yet. One CG we frequent has a unfenced play area for kids with slide and swings and such. Does that make the campground a GFZ because it's a "park"? This one has me worried. I can go 30 miles more to a federal parks CG and by federal law I can carry there, but how does state law figure in on this one? Nobody knows and if I show up at a CG with a gun in the camper like I have always had, am I now going to be a criminal?

Aggggg!!!!

You can't carry outside of your camper, but you can keep a gun on you, loaded, in your camper (it's a recognized "dwelling" under the law).
 
ILBob;

Check the definition of dwelling in this document; http://www.state.il.us/court/circuitcourt/CriminalJuryInstructions/CRIM 04.00.pdf

One of the things we are required to teach as concealed carry instructors is the definition of "dwelling" (as well as "forcible felony", and a few other mandated terms).


Definition Of Dwelling Place

The term “dwelling place” means
[1] a[n] [ (building or portion of a building) (tent) (vehicle) (enclosed space) ]
which is used or intended for use as a human habitation, home, or residence.


[or]

[2] a[n] [ (house) (apartment) (mobile home) (trailer) (living quarters) ] in
which at the time of the alleged offense the [ (owners) (occupants) ] actually
reside, or in their absence, intend within a reasonable period of time to reside.
 
ILBob;

Check the definition of dwelling in this document; http://www.state.il.us/court/circuitcourt/CriminalJuryInstructions/CRIM 04.00.pdf

One of the things we are required to teach as concealed carry instructors is the definition of "dwelling" (as well as "forcible felony", and a few other mandated terms).
Good point Trent. I forgot about the dwelling exemption in the UUW act. So I think you are safe from the UUW charge in this situation. 21-6 does not have that exemption, although I think the housing authority case gives good reason to believe the courts would go along.
 
Keep in mind that for the purposes of Dwelling, it covers INSIDE your home / camper / (residence) only.

The definition of justified use of lethal force CHANGES depending on if you are inside, or outside of your home.

Inside your home you can claim justified use of lethal force if the entry is "tumultuous or violent", and you are preventing the commission of a felony. (Not forcible felony).

Outside your home - e.g. in your front yard, detached garage, etc - the definition changes to forcible felony. Which changes the rules significantly.

If someone kicks in the door to your house in the middle of the night, you don't have to meet "force with like force" - you can use lethal force to defend your home, period.

If someone breaks in to a detached garage, or shed, or your vehicle out on the driveway, now the definition changes as you are on "other property", you have to respond with force in like kind - you can't escalate to lethal force unless you are in serious risk of bodily injury or death (being threatened with a weapon, etc).

The same rules apply to a campsite; although you're technically prohibited from taking the loaded gun out of your camper / tent /etc anyway.

Our lethal force laws are somewhat confusing at first glance, but they get somewhat more clear the more you study them. The *safest* route to take under any circumstances is not to shoot unless you are in jeopardy of death or serious bodily injury; even in your home. If you do this, you'll meet BOTH requirements under the law, which significantly improves your odds of having the homicide ruled as justified.

Sec. 7 2. Use of force in defense of dwelling.

(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:

(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent,*riotous, or tumultuous manner, and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or offer of personal violence to, him or another then in the dwelling,

or

(2) He reasonably believes that such force is*necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.

Compare to other property:

*(720 ILCS 5/7 3) (from Ch. 38, par. 7 3)
Sec. 7 3. Use of force in defense of other property.

(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with either real property (other than a dwelling) or personal property, lawfully in his possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his immediate family or household or of a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Note that in the first case, it's simply "felony", and the litmus-test for justified use of lethal force branches; in the second case, it is only "forcible felony", and there is only ONE claim.
 
Last edited:
Additionally, this third case overlaps with the first two, if you are directly threatened (defense of person):

Sec. 7 1. Use of force in defense of person.* ****

(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary

to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another,

or

the commission of a forcible felony.

Note that in defense of person, you also have a "branching condition" that you must satisfy (either/or), and in the second case, the felony must be a forcible felony.

Forcible felony has a legal definition; defined as:

A forcible felony is defined in the Criminal Code of 1961:
"treason, first degree murder, second degree murder, predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, robbery, burglary, residential burglary, aggravated arson, arson, aggravated kidnapping, kidnapping, aggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement[,] and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual."

Your "best case" for getting justified on lethal force, therefore, is:

* in your own home
* if the entry was made in a violent fashion
* you are under direct threat of serious bodily injury or death
* and thereby preventing a forcible felony.

At that point you've met SEVERAL criteria for justified use of lethal force.

Your case becomes more tenuous if you only meet one. (But this doesn't mean it wasn't justified; only that you don't have as many "outs").
 
By the way.. these topics are covered in the first 6-7 slides on my 2nd 8 hour course when I teach concealed carry classes.

I actually spend a LOT of time going over lethal force when I teach. I dedicate two hours to going over the required laws, prohibited places, interaction with law enforcement, etc. Then another two full hours going over lethal force. (Actually was more like 2.5 hours this last class.)

Those three paragraphs get pretty deep.
 
I was referring to keeping the pistol in the camper. Sorry I wasn't clear about that, but that brings up another snag, moving from the camper to the truck. When we are leaving the campground for shopping and such is carrying a unloaded gun from the camper to the truck that I'll load when we get out of the campground illegal?

Federal campgrounds in other states where we camp and any other campgrounds are legal to carry in as long as you are legal to carry in that state. My FL permit has covered us in most of them except for CA where we left our guns with friends in NV while we were there. THAT state is worse than IL, but not by much.
 
Here's the muddy part to me, Sect 65 Paragraph a (3)

(3) Any building, parking area, or portion of a
building under the control of an officer of the executive
or legislative branch of government, provided that nothing
in this paragraph shall prohibit a licensee from carrying a
concealed firearm onto the real property, bikeway, or trail
in a park regulated by the Department of Natural Resources
or any other designated public hunting area or building
where firearm possession is permitted as established by the
Department of Natural Resources under Section 1.8 of the
Wildlife Code.


I looked all through the law, but found nothing dealing with campgrounds. I have trouble believing that they can say a entire facility is a GFZ just because there's a swingset in one corner.
 
Here's the muddy part to me, Sect 65 Paragraph a (3)

(3) Any building, parking area, or portion of a
building under the control of an officer of the executive
or legislative branch of government, provided that nothing
in this paragraph shall prohibit a licensee from carrying a
concealed firearm onto the real property, bikeway, or trail
in a park regulated by the Department of Natural Resources
or any other designated public hunting area or building
where firearm possession is permitted as established by the
Department of Natural Resources under Section 1.8 of the
Wildlife Code.


I looked all through the law, but found nothing dealing with campgrounds. I have trouble believing that they can say a entire facility is a GFZ just because there's a swingset in one corner.
I don't think anyone is claiming an entire facility is off limits just because a small part of the facility is a playground. just the playground part.
 
stargeezer; this should clear up section (3), which references section 1.8 of the wildlife code.

Essentially, that exclusion allows for carrying a concealed firearm while hunting on state parks. Although you have to be careful, not to be construed as hunting with the handgun, unless the handgun is of a caliber sufficient for hunting, you have tags for handgun firearm season, and it's actually in season.

(This is actually a boon, especially for bow hunters, as now we can put down wounded animals with a coup de grace. Before we couldn't have a handgun on us at all while hunting, unless it was actually handgun season.)


(520 ILCS 5/1.8) (from Ch. 61, par. 1.8)
Sec. 1.8. The Department may establish and maintain refuges or public hunting areas upon any lands or waters owned by the Federal government by mutual consent of the Federal and State governments and upon any lands owned or leased by the State, with the consent and approval of the state department or agency having jurisdiction over such lands.
The Department may designate state managed lands and waters or portions thereof as wildlife refuges by administrative rule.
It shall be unlawful to take any species of wildlife on any property named as a wildlife refuge by the Department or other Department management areas except as provided by Section 2.25 and Administrative Rules.
The Department shall post the boundaries of such refuges and shall publish legal notices in accordance with the procedure set forth in Section 1.13 pertaining to the operation of Public Hunting Areas.
(Source: P.A. 85-152.)
 
The first clue the law in IL is excessive is the number of pages the act takes up. They think we are stupid and need boatloads of training, but simultaneously we are all attorneys that can read this and make sense of all of it?
Of course not and that's the point. They're hoping everybody will fail at interpreting the law to a point where they can revoke the licenses they didn't want to issue in the first place. Which is generally the way it is with everybody's "shall issue" laws to begin with. Ours had to be tweaked over the years and needs far more more tweaking, AFAIC.
 
stargeezer; this should clear up section (3), which references section 1.8 of the wildlife code.

Essentially, that exclusion allows for carrying a concealed firearm while hunting on state parks. Although you have to be careful, not to be construed as hunting with the handgun, unless the handgun is of a caliber sufficient for hunting, you have tags for handgun firearm season, and it's actually in season.

(This is actually a boon, especially for bow hunters, as now we can put down wounded animals with a coup de grace. Before we couldn't have a handgun on us at all while hunting, unless it was actually handgun season.)

I am not sure that is what it means at all. I think that maybe that was what was being attempted but I am not convinced that is what came out.
 
ilbob;

I agree it was written very poorly. The prohibition talks about buildings. The exception doesn't.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by stargeezer View Post
Here's the muddy part to me, Sect 65 Paragraph a (3)

(3) Any building, parking area, or portion of a
building under the control of an officer of the executive
or legislative branch of government, provided that nothing
in this paragraph shall prohibit a licensee from carrying a
concealed firearm onto the real property, bikeway, or trail
in a park regulated by the Department of Natural Resources
or any other designated public hunting area or building
where firearm possession is permitted as established by the
Department of Natural Resources under Section 1.8 of the
Wildlife Code.


*********************************************************

It's times like these that make me wish I'd paid more attention in grammar classes.

I'm not going to be a test case for this, but that "or" seems to separate two statements that while related by the subject of the DNR divides the subject between people carrying "onto the real property, bikeway, or trail
in a park regulated by the Department of Natural Resources
" OR hunters carrying on "any other designated public hunting area or building
where firearm possession is permitted as established by the
Department of Natural Resources under Section 1.8 of the
Wildlife Code
"

I'm not lawyer OR a English major and I wish one would jump in here to offer an opinion. I'll follow Trent's advice until I know otherwise because this is just a can of scorpions with each one already mad and ready to sting. I never liked pain.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top