Passing Thru IL?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks. Navy that's how i understand it too. If I have too leave my car it will go in the mini vault under the seat
 
NavyLCDR said:
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.
Click to expand...

That was all answered earlier, before we all started arguing about non-permit, non-resident holders. :)

Permit holders from any state can have a loaded handgun on them or in the car. Period.

If a permit holder, non-resident, from any state gets out of the car they can leave the firearm in a locked car, OR take the gun inside (hotel room, etc) if it is unloaded and in a case. (Then once in the hotel room you can reload it and put it on the nightstand.)

Non-permit, non-resident people must transport it unloaded, in a case, and not immediately accessible, OR broken down in a non-functional state. The type of firearm does not matter, whether it is rifle, pistol, shotgun.
 
My head hurts now. I think I'll just avoid my Illinois Nieces ,and visit my New York and New Jersey Cousins! :D

Anything has gotta be better than The Land That Time Forget.

Completely apathetic. So sad, and so pitiful.. :rolleyes:

No hope there. :scrutiny:
 
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

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.
Click to expand...

Also relevant:

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.
Click to expand...

(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.
 
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.)
Click to expand...

Hallelujah, my Florida CCW is good! My sweet nieces will see me again in the summer!.

Thank you,Trent Lawrence, for the excellent clarification. :cool:
 
Well don't thank me too much. Up a half a page I had it all wrong.

I decided to do some more research to see if any non-residents were ever convicted of AUUW w/ that FOID card statute, and ran across that Supreme Court case that (somehow) I had NEVER seen before.

2011 was my "off year" - I didn't do any shooting, had no interest in guns. Family firearms tragedy that resulted in a death lead to a long hiatus for me. So that one slipped by my radar.

For what it's worth it's been an educational thread. :)

EDIT: and the laws in this state are still DAMN confusing.
 
Trent said:
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.
Click to expand...
Bob said this in an earlier post.
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ilbob said:
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.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. Yes they specifically mention Section 24-1(a)(1)(3)(C) but the wording is pretty clear; by referencing the FOID act, the FOID act must be read together with the law; not separately.

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.
Click to expand...

They go on to specifically say this is incorporated in to the Unlawful Use of Weapons Act.

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.
Click to expand...

They go on to address (specifically) misdemeanor Unlawful Use of Weapons:

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)).
Click to expand...

The court elected not to allow a the State to drop the charge to a misdemeanor level because there were two original charges (AUUW, and possession of firearm without an FOID.) It was unclear under what conditions the the original jury said "Guilty".

The ENTIRE scope of this Supreme Court ruling was on whether the FOID card and the Unlawful Use of Weapons Act (not specific *section* of the act; but the act in it's entirety) were linked.

The court made it quite clear that the two were linked by reference and could NOT be read seperately here:

Accordingly, we hold that the exception contained in section 2(b)(10) must be incorporated in the unlawful use of weapons act.
Click to expand...

It does not say Aggravated unlawful use of weapons, it does NOT cite a SPECIFIC CHARGE - it says that the exception 2(b)(10) in the FOID act MUST be incorporated in to the unlawful use of weapons act.

FOID 2(b)(10)
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;
Click to expand...

So by the supreme court case in Illinois v Holmes it is pretty clear that the non-residents are exempted from having an FOID permit to possess firearms.

I also included (9) where FOID stipulates that nonresidents whose firearms are unloaded and in a case are ALSO exempt from FOID requirements.

Look at the "absurd outcome" again, and read (9) in the FOID act. If we read them separately you are saying the individual would be guilty of a misdemeanor offense for having an unloaded, cased firearm. But the FOID statute clearly reads that nonresidents can possess firearms in an unloaded, cased state in 2(B)(9).

Again; they Supreme Court were quite clear on this and incorporated the two acts together; as read separately you can have absurd outcomes.

. 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.
Click to expand...

They said:

#1 Yes, an out of state permit or license to own firearms from another state can substitute for the FOID card
#2 The FOID exemption under 2(b)(10) applies to the entire unlawful use of weapons act, by incorporation.

Which means ... yes... part #3 of the Unlawful Use of Weapons (misdemeanor) offense should allow a nonresident to claim the exception "unloaded and in a case" to avoid a misdemeanor prosecution.
 
You may have a point. When I get a chance I will take a closer look at this case. I knew the case existed but never looked real close at it.
 
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.
 
oneounceload said:
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.
Click to expand...

Haha yeah. I see people out of state get all paranoid about driving through ONCE (for what, 3 or 4 hours?)

I've lived here my entire life and the last time I got pulled over for anything was 13 years ago.

Remember, it takes probable cause to execute a vehicle search.

Lacking valid probable cause they need a search warrant. (And yes, in my early 20's I made them do EXACTLY that.. while I waited on the side of the road for 2 hours.)
 
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/
__________________
Click to expand...

Gee, let's see

1 million FL cars per year and one gets stopped

try again and please loosen your tin foil

really, some folks really need to study the FACTS and stop listening to internet BS
 
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
 
"The more I read it, the more I see a whole lot of paranoia. Just go about your business ..."

Well, not exactly. I drive I-70 between Indiana and Missouri twice a year and have been stopped the last three trips. Each time I was driving slightly below the speed limit and minding my own business. Each time I was told the reason for the stop is that it's illegal in Illinois to have a license plate frame that obscures any part of the license plate, even if all lettering and numbers are clearly visible.

While license plate frames may be legal in your state having one on your car will get you stopped on I-70, especially in the western part of the state within 50 miles of St. Louis and south of the route to Chicago.

Why do they bother stopping out of state cars? Simple, the connecting roads are major drug routes plus it's simply a legal way to conduct a fishing expedition. It also gives them something to do on a slow day. Who knows, every once in awhile they may get lucky. It isn't paranoia, just the way it is out in the hinterland.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_li...for-your-license-plate-frames-and-covers.html
 
Last edited:
So remove the license plate frame that does nothing but advertise your car dealer for free and go about your business.
Click to expand...

A wise fellow Floridian. They just keep coming, don't they? ;)

For far more potential problems, try the New Jersey Turnpike,the Garden State Turnpike or the New York State Thruway with Florida plates. :eek:

Illinois' I-80,I-70,I-74,I-64,I-55, I-57,I-90 and I-94 are like children's playgrounds in comparison. :scrutiny: I have driven them all multiple times with no hazards since 1989.

Move east to the really big boys and try your luck! :D And slow down and keep to the right! We Jersey Boys grow up on that right lane discipline. It's generational! :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

76shuvlinoff
  • Locked
passing thorugh Illinois
Replies
9
Views
831
76shuvlinoff
76shuvlinoff
S
  • Locked
Travel trailer with gun
Replies
12
Views
1K
Sam1911
S
J
  • Locked
Guns in Illlinois without FOID
2
Replies
37
Views
3K
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
M
  • Locked
Travel "through" NY State (and IL)
Replies
18
Views
1K
archigos
A
M
  • Locked
carrying firearms across state lines
Replies
19
Views
2K
kludge
K
Back
Top