If I was traveling through Illinois, with a HANDGUN for personal protection, this is the Illinois statute that I would abide by. A lot of posters are confusing the laws for transporting a rifle with transporting a HANDGUN for personal protection. It's right in the law from the Illinois State government website, and it is really simple:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=3497&ChapterID=39
Again, don't confuse a "concealed firearm" which means "a loaded or unloaded handgun" with any other type of firearm. That's where some of you are having issues.
we find that the exception identified in section 2(b)(10) of the FOID Card Act can be
applied to the unlawful use of weapons statute and, therefore, a valid permit or license from another state can substitute for the FOID card requirement in section 24–1.6. Accordingly, we hold that the exception contained in section 2(b)(10) must be incorporated in the unlawful use of weapons act.
Thus, to prove aggravated unlawful use of a weapon under this section, there must be evidence that the firearm was (1) uncased, (2) loaded, and (3) immediately accessible. Defendant contends that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed an uncased gun where the uncontested evidence established that the gun
was fully encased inside a closed, latched compartment. Accordingly, defendant maintains that his conviction cannot be sustained under count I.
Looking to the plain and ordinary definition of “case” (Diggins, 235 Ill. 2d at 55)
(snip)
In this case, the gun was retrieved from the back armrest, which Officer Gonzalez himself described as a “compartment.” As with the front seat console in Diggins, we conclude that this backseat armrest, which contained a cover and latch, falls within the meaning of a case under section 24–1.6. Moreover, the evidence is undisputed that the armrest was closed and latched. As such, the gun was enclosed in a case.
Because the firearm was enclosed in a case, the State failed to prove every element of the offense of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon as outlined in section 24–1.6(a)(1)(3)(A). Accordingly, a conviction for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon, as charged in count I, cannot stand.
The IL Supreme court ruled in 2011 that an out of state CCL *does* in fact substitute for an FOID card.
Also, since 2011, there has been case law ALLOWING non-residents to carry a LOADED, cased firearm which is not immediately accessible (and the court specifically mentions latched compartments in vehicles as qualifying for this.)
Well don't thank me too much. Up a half a page I had it all wrong.
Bob said this in an earlier post.Actually I stand 100% corrected; both ILBob and I were 100% wrong.
The IL Supreme court ruled in 2011 that an out of state CCL *does* in fact substitute for an FOID card.
Also, since 2011, there has been case law ALLOWING non-residents to carry a LOADED, cased firearm which is not immediately accessible (and the court specifically mentions latched compartments in vehicles as qualifying for this.)
http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2011/April/109130.pdf
Also relevant:
(I can't believe I missed this IL Supreme court case; it made "carrying a loaded firearm in a center console/ glove box legal in IL; while I carried unloaded since 2006...prior to receiving my CCL)
http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2011/April/109130.pdf
So my revision, in short:
If you have an out of state permit, carrying on your person or in your vehicle anywhere is fine under FCCL act.
If you have a permit but DO NOT have it on you, carrying a loaded gun in the glove box or center console (so long as it latches) is fine. (You don't meet all the criteria for #1 and #2 but you do have a non-resident permit somewhere and that substitutes for the FOID on #3).
They tried to buck it down to a misdemeanor offense in that trial but due to a technicality (multiple charges) it was dropped. (The next candidate may not be so lucky).
So part three remains the same; if you have NO permit from another state, you still have to be unloaded, in a case, and NOT immediately accessible (glove box / center console apparently counts for case AND not immediately accessible per the 2011 ruling). Or, transport broken down in a non-functioning state.
Again, not legal advice, just my observations...
(And yes, this state REALLY sucks. We have 300+ pages of law about firearms and case law out the wazoo, and MUCH of BOTH is now completely untested in court to see what effect the 7th's decision AND the FCCL act now play).
My official advice is to tread carefully, as much of our new laws are still untested in court and lack case law definition.
For those who have out of state licenses, the state supreme court has at least in a limited way equated out of state licenses to FOID cards, but the extent of this is untested.
Bob said this in an earlier post.
be careful Trent. the court was referring specifically to aggravated (felony) UUW when it described the elements of the crime in the case you mentioned. UUW has slightly different requirements.
Section 24–1.6(a)(1)(3)(C) of the unlawful use of a weapon
statute states that the absence of a FOID card is an aggravating factor.
In order to determine what a FOID card is and, therefore, whether
section 24–1.6(a)(1)(3)(C) applies, reference must be made to the
FOID Card Act. Thus, the FOID Card Act gives meaning to section
24–1.6(a)(1)(3)(C), and the statutes, by their own terms, must be read
together.
Reading these statutes together, as we must, we find that the
exception identified in section 2(b)(10) of the FOID Card Act can be
applied to the unlawful use of weapons statute and, therefore, a valid
permit or license from another state can substitute for the FOID card
requirement in section 24–1.6. Accordingly, we hold that the
exception contained in section 2(b)(10) must be incorporated in the
unlawful use of weapons act.
Misdemeanor Unlawful Use of a Weapon
The State maintains that, if defendant’s convictions for aggravated
unlawful use of weapon cannot stand, then this court should enter
judgment on the lesser-included offense of unlawful use of a weapon.
See, e.g., People v. Rowell, 229 Ill. 2d 82, 97 (2008) (“ ‘state and
federal appellate courts have long exercised the power to reverse a
conviction while at the same time ordering the entry of a judgment on
a lesser-included offense’ ”) (quoting People v. Knaff, 196 Ill. 2d 460,
477-78 (2001)).
Accordingly, we hold that the exception contained in section 2(b)(10) must be incorporated in the unlawful use of weapons act.
2. Firearm Owner's Identification Card required; exceptions.
(b) The provisions of this Section regarding the possession of firearms, firearm ammunition, stun guns, and tasers do not apply to:
(9) Nonresidents whose firearms are unloaded and enclosed in a case;
(10) Nonresidents who are currently licensed or registered to possess a firearm in their resident state;
. Reading these statutes together, as we must, we find that the
exception identified in section 2(b)(10) of the FOID Card Act can be
applied to the unlawful use of weapons statute and, therefore, a valid
permit or license from another state can substitute for the FOID card
requirement in section 24–1.6. Accordingly, we hold that the
exception contained in section 2(b)(10) must be incorporated in the
unlawful use of weapons act.
The more I read it, the more I see a whole lot of paranoia. Just go about your business, the police do not have sniffers to detect you have a gun in your car, follow the law and stop where necessary for food, gas, etc.
The same holds true for all of the states that have harsh gun ownership rules.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oneounceload View Post
The more I read it, the more I see a whole lot of paranoia. Just go about your business, the police do not have sniffers to detect you have a gun in your car, follow the law and stop where necessary for food, gas, etc.
The same holds true for all of the states that have harsh gun ownership rules.
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/...alysis-center/
__________________
I'm planning a road trip in early September which will bring me through Illinois. Planing on bringing a shotgun with me. Just curious if a gun sock will legally qualify as a case?
Thanks, Dan
So remove the license plate frame that does nothing but advertise your car dealer for free and go about your business.