Illegal Arrest In Illinois

[makarovnik]

Moderator

I realized the mistake in my subject title as soon as I posted, but unfortunately the "edit" function allows you to edit the text and not the subject, otherwise I would have changed it. As far as the language, I didn't realize that that using asterisks was against the rules. I've seen other posters do it without being edited so I thought it was okay. Sorry if I offended anyone.

 

[Optical Serenity]

A few things:

There are many very respectable security guards out there. No need to trash talk all because of what a few have done. Also, be careful as certain states give a lot of authority to an "agent" of a business.

Same goes for law enforcement officers. Calling me a JBT without knowing me, is no different than the anti-gunners calling you a baby killer without knowing you.

 

[The Good]

some random thoughts:
-being a mall security guard i know shoplifting has nothing to do with the job
-even if the mall has an anti-weapon policy(which is okay because its private property), they cannot stop you or search you without your permission. security guards can detain people in a serious emergency. they should use their handcuffs if they think you are assaultive.
-is this the same "fanny pack" he was wearing? if i read right it was an altered version of this holster, made to conceal the entire gun, or is it something else, could you be specific about it? it helps so we know exactly whats going on. was he wearing i-carry.org gear? not claiming any of this should make a difference and not saying it shouldnt, i just want specifics

 

[The Good]

by the way, from cherryvale mall's website, the code of conduct


"20. Carrying or displaying weapons of any kind except those carried by certified law enforcement officers in the performance of their duties."

"Violation of this code of conduct may result in expulsion from this property in addition to any other legal remedies that mall management may choose to exercise.

This shopping center is private property and no rights shall accrue to the public by virtue of the public’s entry into this mall or on mall property. This “Behavioral Code of Conduct” is not intended to deprive any person of their applicable civil rights or liberties under the law. If you feel your rights are being violated, please notify the mall management office."

 

[ilbob]

Yes, but ISP2605's point on that score all along was that you keep conflating the Governor and the ISP. They're not the same. If the Governor ensures that there's no money to pay the wages of the people who process FOID applications, then the applications don't get processed.

You and I might think state police officers should have been pulled in to do that work, but that's not what the ISP wanted to do.

Conflating. I had to look that one up. I don't believe that is what i am doing at all.

The governor wants to harass gun owners. It is part of his very soul. He used the ISP to do it. Whether it started out as deliberate or not, it certainly ended up that way. There is no question that there were all kinds of solutions to reduce the scope of the problem that did not involve more money. The plain fact that they chose not to do any of those things says a lot about motives. ISP senior management made a deliberate choice to go along with the governor on this and make tens of thousands of law abiding Illinois citizens into unintentional criminals.

There's absolutely no doubt that people at high levels in the ISP are corrupt liars, but since ISP2605 is not one of them, why push him off THR?

I don't want ISP2605 to leave. He has an interesting POV and good information he has shared on some of this stuff. I don't know enough about him to judge whether he is a liar, corrupt, or at a high level of the ISP. What he says has that ring of truth to it though, at least from his POV.

I am not sure what you mean when you accuse the ISP management of being corrupt liars. I know they regularly lie, sometimes out of both sides of their mouths, but that is par for the course when you work for a politician. When you take the job, part of the deal is you agree to lie for them. Another part of the deal is if things go wrong, you are the one to fall on the sword to protect the politician.

I was not aware of any systemic corruption. I always thought the ISP was pretty clean. maybe you could elaborate on this some.

 

[GoRon]

Has anybody given any thought that this guy might be working for the other side? Think about it, some of the things he has done are pretty outrageous and would be good fodder for the anti's to argue for even tighter restrictions to keep "kooks with guns" off the streets.

Shaun "SAK" is a true blue believer in our right to self defense and the importence of the second ammendment. His intentions are pure.

I also have some fears this may backfire against us resulting in more restrictive laws and eliminating the fannypack "loophole".

 

[Autolycus]

I agree that SAK is a true believer. I dont have the cajones to try the stuff he is doing and I truly support his efforts. He is trying harder than I am but I fear his efforts are in vain. I know that the local government did not have fanny pack carry in mind but they created this loophole in the law. I dont exploit it as I simply cannot afford to go to jail or hire an attorney to defend me.

 

[ilbob]

He really thinks this will help us regain some of our lost liberties, at least as regards firearms in the state of Illinois. Some might be concerned that it might make things worse. I would ask - how much worse can it get?

I have said it is tough to gain traction over the idea of carrying around an unloaded gun, so I do not know how far it might take us even if he is acquitted or the charges dropped (which seems likely). He would not be the first person this has happened to, and the first four or five cases did not change anything. In much of the state, the cops will still arrest you and you will still pay lawyer bills and lose time from work, and probably have to defend one's self in court, even though everyone in the criminal justice system knows the score by now. The only thing that might stop the deliberate flaunting of the law by the authorities is if a civil suit resulted in a substantial verdict - like in seven or eight figures. Will that happen? Realistically - no.

Remember that this is the state that knew its largest police force tortured suspects for many years and the only result is an investigation that takes 30 years to complete. Also the state that knew police and states attorneys deliberately sent innocent people to death row and chose to do nothing about it except as a publicity stunt by a governor in an effort to gain favor in his corruption trial. You think anyone in power will care one bit that a few law abiding gun owners are being hassled for obeying the law?

If this kind of thing sparks Illinois citizens to do something to improve the situation in this pathetic excuse for a state, maybe something good will come of it. It is very hard to tell what the end result will be.

 

[Edmond]

Let's not forget about the blatant corruption. Unfortunately, I don't things change until something drastic happens and I don't think this is drastic enough for something to be changed. I think it would take something as extreme as a politicians familiy getting hurt with that politician realizing that people have a right to defend themselves against animals. Again, I don't think that's likely to happen because when you're a politician here, you get armed guards. Wish I had armed guards...

 

[ilbob]

It is very difficult to fight crime when the majority party is actively in league with criminal elements, and the minority party is not much better.

I don't see any way to reverse the decline of the state. It is just too far gone. Maybe when it gets bad enough, the citizens will do something. But I don't expect that to actually happen. As long as their welfare checks don't stop, they are happy to swim in sewage.

 

[Autolycus]

Sadly I also am agreeing with Ilbob. This state just seems hopeless. I am planning on moving out for school and not coming back save to visit family. If we had CCW I still doubt I could stomach it here but I am so sick of the way I as a gun owner am treated. Guns are a major factor but I really am tired of being of the crappy government here. We have corrupt government on all levels here in Illinois and nobody really seems able to do anything about it. The Feds are investigating everything around CHicago including the counties. Hopefully they will throw Daley in prison where he belongs.

 

[Soybomb]

Some might be concerned that it might make things worse. I would ask - how much worse can it get?

There are other states that have far more annoying transportation laws. I can put my unloaded gun in my range bag, zip it up, toss it in the back seat and go to the range. In other states I might be required to put the guns and ammo in seperate containers, or the trunk, or locked containers if I have no trunk, etc. Just more inconvenience.

I guess it depends on what you're wanting for. I don't see how this will help the state get real concealed carry. At best you'll get a court precedent if you're charged with UUW for fanny pack carry, at worst we'll get stricter transportation laws. Since I don't really care about unloaded fanny pack carry there isn't much I can see gaining from this. Ymmv.

 

[Don Gwinn]

*If* we could establish that fanny pack carry is legal, and

*If* we could then defend it against attempts to "close the loophole," and

*If* we could then get larger numbers of people willing to do it, then it could theoretically be used as leverage to trade for turning the FOID card into a CCW. Keep it shall-issue, maybe add training and higher fees if necessary. Ohio used open carry that way, but open carry is a bigger stick.


I would like to address this idea that "if we exercise this right, they'll just take it away." Again, I say, if "they" could take it away, "they" wouldn't hesitate regardless of what we do.

Do you all remember the John Horstman case? Do you remember how that turned out? Joe Birkett was the State's Attorney in Dupage back then, and he was the one who made the decision to pull the plug on that case. He set John free and then went right out and told everyone in the press that he'd had no choice because the law was "vague" and called upon the legislature to "close this loophole."

He got zero traction. Why would that be?

Because anti-gunners know that silence and the status quo are their only friends and our worst enemies. They know that the last thing they want is open discussion and debate about CCW statewide, with legislators thinking that their stand on CCW is important one way or the other. They think that's a loser.
They know they have a sweet deal right now. Almost nobody in Illinois thinks about this issue, and the status quo is just how they like it. They see no reason to stir things up. That's taking chances they don't need, and once CCW becomes an important public issue, they can't control where it will go.
So they had zero interest in "closing the loophole." They knew that the real effect of that debate, even if they managed to kill fanny-pack carry, would be to open up the issue and educate a lot of people who think there's no CCW in the U.S. or that Illinois has permits but they don't need one.
They still know it. They still don't want to have that debate.

Do we want to have that debate? We should want it! It's the only chance we have. We know the status quo stinks, so why are we so eager to protect it?

 

[garymc]

Entitle the thread "It happens to Shaun again"

I thought the name sounded familiar and found this article, part of which is pasted below: http://www.gunowners.org/op0545.htm

"A few weeks ago we wrote to you about Shaun Kranish and his efforts to start another gun rights organization in Illinois, ICARRY.ORG. We welcome youth and vigor to the movement. Well now Shaun has his first taste of the war as he has been arrested at Rock Valley College in Rockford, Illinois for carrying an empty fanny pack. Shaun tells his story below, but essentially Shaun disagrees with the College's policy on self-defense. Therefore, Shaun wanted to speak to the President of the school, but was referred to the campus public safety office (aka d'uh cops.)

What happened next is best said in Shaun's own words which are below. But the result of his two hour meeting with them was to be arrested for disorderly conduct by officer Edward Crumb (what a perfect name for a small-time "want to be a real cop.") It should be noted that Officer Crumb was allegedly acting under the direction of Chief Joe Drought.

Now Shaun can't even return to campus without being arrested for trespass and taken to county jail. I think you will be at first amused, and then appalled, by the charges which I now give you verbatim from the Criminal Complaint filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, County of Winnebago, Case Number 05-315.

DISORDERLY CONDUCT: in that Shawn [SIC] Kranish knowingly did an act in such an unreasonable manner as to alarm or disturb Janna L. Shwaiko and provoke a breach of peace to wit Shawn [SIC] Kranish walked into the Presidents [SIC] office and requested from Shwaiko a meeting with the President. Kranish was wearing a blue jacket with the words "I Carry" on the front of the jacket and he was also wearing a black nylon pouch or handgun holster [Can't officer Crumb tell the difference?]. Shwaiko believed Kranish to be carrying a gun and it alarmed her in violation of 720 ILCS 5/25-1(a) of the Illinois Compiled Statutes."

I wasn't there either time Shaun was arrested, but its amazing how often lightning can strike the same person. I have to suspect a little provocation unless this is a widespread conspiracy amongst the cops to beat down a freedom fighter. Maybe some of each.

 

[ilbob]

I wish people would at least get the story right.

No fanny pack involved. The gun case he was using both times is a nylon holster specially modified to completely enclose the gun in compliance with Illinois law.

He is not now banned from the school. That lasted only a short time.

The SA dropped the DC charge and Shaun filed a federal lawsuit over the incident. First amendment - not second.

I don't know if the cops that arrested him the second time even knew about the first arrest. It is entirely possible that they communicated with the SA office before bringing him in. The SA office might or might not have recognized the name, or the previous incident.

 

[Don Gwinn]

[

I have to suspect a little provocation unless this is a widespread conspiracy amongst the cops to beat down a freedom fighter. Maybe some of each.

He did provoke them. He carried a gun, but not a badge. That's a provocation in Illinois.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

ilbob

Does that statute say that it must be a fanny pack?

 

[45Cal]

Just another good reason for our brothers and sisters in Illinois to fight that much harder for the right to CCW.

Those with badge's retire too and,
HR 218 can't save you in Chicago.


45CAL
NRA Life member.

 

[ilbob]

Does that statute say that it must be a fanny pack?

The statute says nothing about fanny packs.

[...]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;

IMHO, a zip lock bag might well suffice (it certainly qualifies as other container), although I think a good argument could be made that carrying a firearm in such a way might lead to a legitimate disorderly conduct charge.

One judge ruled a purse was acceptable, another that a cardboard box was OK.

The key word being enclosed.

The wildlife code actually says:

Case. Case means a container specifically designed for the purpose of housing a gun or bow and arrow device which completely encloses such gun or bow and arrow device by being zipped, snapped, buckled, tied or otherwise fastened with no portion of the gun or bow and arrow device exposed.

I am not sure how a definition in the wildlife code means anything to the UUW statute.

However, this is Illinois. A judge here once ruled that shooting is not a recreational activity.

<added> An appeals court overturned that ruling.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

ilbob

A judge ruled that a purse and a cardboard box were acceptable?

Shaun might look a little funny at the mall with a purse!

 

[NineseveN]

Shaun might look a little funny at the mall with a purse!

As opposed to how funny he looked getting arrested?

 

[ilbob]

A judge ruled that a purse and a cardboard box were acceptable?

Different judges in separate instances.

Shaun might look a little funny at the mall with a purse!

I doubt anyone would even notice these days. With all the weirdos at the mall with their green hair and multiple piercings, who is going to notice a purse?

 

[stlgunfan]

If the guy isn't doing anything wrong and isn't on parole or probation, then he cannot be legally searched without consent. If it happened to me, I would have just ignored them and walked out the door and called the police. As far as I'm concerned what those guards did is kidnaping.

Interesting. However what is the law in IL when it comes to kidnaping. Here on the MO side Kidnaping falls under the statues for use of deadly force, but that situation would be very tricky. If a "mallninja" tried to haul me off for no reason, and goes grabbing my gun Im legally carrying, Hell yes I would draw. One for going for my gun, two for illegal kidnaping. A mall ninja is not a certified LEO. Just like if any other plane jane tackled me and tried to disarm me, Im defending myself.

The mall security should have jsut called the cops. Again this is IL so this doesnt shock me one bit. Just like the other communist states like CA, NJ, IL, NY

 

[Autolycus]

I hope he wins the case. I defiately agree with Don Gwinn. The status quo is a big wall for us to bang our head on.:banghead:

Not many people give a damn about CCW laws and getting a CCW law passed. It really does not affect them and they could care less... until it involves them. A good friend of mine was robbed while she was down in Carbondale and that turned her into one of us. It usually takes the a violent incident for someone to change their mind.

Awareness is the first thing that needs to be addressed. I did not know you could legally carry a pistol in other states until I was 23. I saw it in the movies and I thought that it was only rich people, police, politically connected, and private investigators could CCW. Then I found out there were many shall issue states and that mine was not.

I try to spread awareness because people do not know that you can legally do this in other states. I would like to see IL become a shall issue state within the next five years.