Shaun Kranish Needs Your Help

[PatrickHenry]

To all Gun owners across America:

ICarry.org is asking the entire firearms community—gun owners, gun stores, and civil rights organizations—to come together for a fundraiser to help cover the costs of Shaun Kranish‘s legal defense. Our objective is to raise $3,500.00 (Three Thousand Five Hundred Dollars)by October 31st, 2006 to help cover the legal expenses that Shaun has incurred by the State of Illinois’ prosecution and their attempt to financially intimidate Shaun and others from exercising their inalienable rights.

As most of you know, Shaun Kranish, the founder of ICarry.org, is still a student and is not in a place where he can afford such a liability. We are fortunate that Shaun is willing to stand up for all of us, now it is time to stand up for Shaun. We need to pull together as a group. The donation you make is a donation to fight for our rights.

It is important that we send a message to the state of Illinois that we will no longer be intimidated by the police and the prosecuting State’s attorney from exercising our civil rights. The State attorney needs to understand that no matter who he attempts to squeeze, the gun owners in this state will fight back. To be clear, this donation will benefit Shaun’s legal defense, but it will also be benefiting all of us. By rallying behind gun owners who are being prosecuted for exercising their inalienable rights, we are sending a message to those who are supposed to be serving us.

Your donation to Shaun’s defense will be part of a larger movement that is standing up to those politicians who are constantly attacking American gun owners. Let Springfield know that there is a growing number of very dissatisfied and outraged patriots in this state.

Thank you for your support,

David Lofton
Northeast Director - ICarry.org


Click HERE to go to the fundraiser page for more info
http://www.icarry.org/modules.php?name=Founder

Click HERE to go directly to the donations page
http://www.icarry.org/modules.php?name=Donations

 

[Autolycus]

How is it coming along?

 

[Soybomb]

Its a noble effort but I still don't believe I can support him. In the long run I don't believe his battle plan will aid in getting concealed carry, just tighter transportation laws.

 

[jnojr]

If his account of what happened is true, he'll be a multi-millionaire in a couple of years.

 

[Autolycus]

Soybomb:

I have to ask what you think is a better battle plan? I think it best to support someone and then support something better when it comes along. I believe right now Mr. Kranish is all we have got.

 

[crazed_ss]

Its a noble effort but I still don't believe I can support him. In the long run I don't believe his battle plan will aid in getting concealed carry, just tighter transportation laws.

Im wondering.. was he planning to to get "caught"? If so, I have to question the logic in starting a fight like this without having the monetary means to defend yourself.

 

[gunsmith]

I hope I get the chance to contribute

He, like most people in his state, is being denied basic rights

 

[GoRon]

In the long run I don't believe his battle plan will aid in getting concealed carry, just tighter transportation laws.

Unfortunately I think you are correct.

We still need to support him as a show of unity as gun owners. If we support him in mass the legislature my think twice about passing new restrictions.

What he did was civil disobedience, very dangerous to do with a gun and not recommended.

 

[romma]

I think the kid has guts... This kid put his neck out, knowing full well he would be risking his freedom along with disqualifying felony convictions to make a point. Some people seem to care more about stricter laws than taking a stand and fighting. Go Shaun! If all gun owners from IL would unite and get on board with this kid, you will have a better chance for concealed carry in your lifetime... Remember, United we stand, seperate we hang.

 

[ilbob]

If his account of what happened is true, he'll be a multi-millionaire in a couple of years.

You will find a lengthy account of the incident on his web site. I believe that his account of his encounter with the mall guards and subsequent arrest by local cops to be true.

I am not so sure about the multimillionaire part of the equation. I am guessing a settlement more in 5 figures rather then 7 figures, but I have been wrong about many guesses in my life. Despite the publicity that large settlements garner in the press, they are not real common.

It does bother me some that the focus of the thing is the gun, rather than the more astounding problem that what he did just plain does not appear to be illegal, yet the criminal justice system has not kicked the case out after all this time. Some of that may just be inertia, some of it a search for a way to reduce their potential civil liability, and some a warning to others not to try this yourself regardless of whether it is legal or not; but it seems just plain unfair to me to keep someone on the edge like that for so long when in the end it is going to have to get dropped because the act he committed just does not fit the legal definition of the crime he is being charged with.

 

[SAK]

There are a couple of things I would like to say.

First off, I would like to say thanks to all of the many many people from Illinois, across the country, and some even out of the country that have helped me out financially by contributing to my defense fund. I wouldn't be able to do this without the help of those people.

There are always critics, and I try hard not to take what they say personally. Most of them are polite about it, even though they disagree. I appreciate that courtesy. Let me say a few things that I truly and deeply believe. I believe that the most effective, and more seriously the ONLY way one may retain a right is to exercise it. There will always be enemies of freedom, well-meaning or otherwise, that will seek to strip you of your rights. The only way they may do this is if you don't exercise them.

It is perfectly legal to carry in Illinois. This has been proven time and time again in court. It is written in the law in black and white -- in plain English. You are free to decide whether or not you want to exercise that right to carry within the law. If you are afraid that your government will punish you (and yes, as you see it's a very serious concern in Illinois), then I suppose you choose not to exercise it. I promise you, though, that what little bit of freedom you've managed to hold onto will be taken away from you because you are not exercising it. Afterall, today it's not about RIGHTS, it's about NEEDS.

So pack your pistol away in a lockbox in your trunk, even though you can have it on your person in a case. Tomorrow, they will seek to FORCE that pistol into your trunk by law. The only thing that will stop this is more and more and more people exercising the right. It is ridiculous circular reasoning to say "We shouldn't exercise our rights by carrying unloaded and in a case in Illinois, because tomorrow they'll take that away from us." The same could be said about any right. With that kind of attitude, you will only see your rights flushed down the toilet.

It is far more difficult for them to pass a more restrictive law when it can be shown that people EXERCISE that right. It's far more difficult for them to pass a new law than it is for you to simply pack your unloaded pistol in your case and exercise that right. If they try to pass a new law, do you have any idea how many of us will be in Springfield fighting it? If they want to force us to break down our guns or if they want to outlaw "fannypack" carry, do you have any idea what kind of resistance they'll meet? We have the ultimate argument: No FOID card holder in Illinois has ever used a firearm that was unloaded and enclosed in a case for a crime.

I know exercising your rights can be difficult. It is a responsibility you have that is very difficult indeed. Shirk it all you want, but then don't complain when you lose the right. A right unexercised is a right forfeit. You want concealed carry, when you're unwilling to exercise what you've got right now? Just like the states that had open carry (Wisconsin is a good example) and wanted to pass concealed carry. They would do much better and pass it much easier if they exercised what they had first. You can't stare at a plate of food in front of you, refusing to eat, and demand more. Eat what you've got, and then demand more, demand what is rightfully yours.

This is a matter of a right, not a privilege. You have to fight for a right. You don't pander for a right. You pander for a privilege. Pandering and being the good "polite" guys is what has gotten us in this mess. It's time to understand that the very nature of politics is conflict. Stop trying to win people over by being politically correct. If you want to be politically correct, then hand your guns over now. Because nothing short of full disarmament is politically correct these days.

Just exercise your right. Join the ranks, the 100s or 1000s of us who fannypack. You can be as "open" or "concealed" about it as you wish. You don't need to wear the same type of case that I did. But exercise it someway. It's your responsibility, not to mention a damn good idea in a dangerous world and state like we've got. Furthermore, do you think we'll ever change a single anti-gun mind by hiding what we do? Do you realize how powerful it is for people who've never shot a gun, never held a gun, and are afraid of guns, to see their friends, their family, and their neighbors -- normal everyday people -- carrying firearms? Do you want to break the false idea that only criminals and police carry guns? This is what the media and Hollywood has brainwashed people into thinking. We can change that simply by carrying. I wish Illinois had open carry in cities -- because I would exercise it. If I lived in Wisconsin right now, I would exercise it. The threat of being wrongfully arrested and falsely charged will not stop me from exercising my rights. It shouldn't stop you either.

Carry.

 

[Soybomb]

I have to ask what you think is a better battle plan? I think it best to support someone and then support something better when it comes along. I believe right now Mr. Kranish is all we have got.

I really fail to see how fanny pack carry is even a battle plan really. If you want concealed carry you need to compaign for real concealed carry. You need to convince the electorate that the public should be able to carry loaded weapons in holsters in public. Unloaded fanny pack carry will have absolutely zero influence over public acceptance of concealed carry. Honestly outside of gun forums do you think anyone knows who shaun kranish is, and if you told them would they think its outragous that a guy can't carry an unloaded gun in a bag through a mall? If anything they'll be outraged its legal and demand tighter laws. Its great to stand up for your rights, but its foolish to think this is any way will influence voters to support concealed carry. I think a person would do alot more good to take new shooters shooting and talk up concealed carry to people as much as possible. People need real information on concealed carry, thats the way to fight this battle.

Where I differ with SAK is that I don't think it would be that difficult to pass laws strengthen transportation laws to disallow fanny pack carry. It was certainly never intended to be constructed in a way to allow illinois residents to carry concealed weapons in public. We have a dangerous amount of support for assault weapon bans in this state, closing the "gun carrying loophole" wouldn't be a hard sell. I carry a bag full of unloaded guns in the front seat right next to me often. I'm worried things like this have a greater chance of resulting in me keeping them in a locked box in the back of my car than anything positive. Ymmv. I applaud you for standing up for what you think is the right thing either way.

 

[SAK]

Were you typing and posting at the same time I was? Did you read what I wrote?

 

[SAK]

It's not a "battle plan" in and of itself. It is one of the MANY angles we must use. Lobbying has got us nowhere, except further in a hole. Our main lobbies even admit their goal is to "stop 90% of the antigun legislation in Illinois." Well I'm sorry, but if 10% passes, in 10 years they'll have passed all they want anyways! We're losing ground, not gaining.


You won't get an ounce returned to you until you exercise what you have right now! If you want to maintain the whipped-dog mentality of "if I exercise, they'll just hurt me more" then you've already lost bud.


Also, and anyone who knows me can testify to this. I fannypacked daily. I did it everywhere, even while doing my banking. I have countless witnesses to that. So no, this wasn't staged or planned in any way. It was a matter of zealous security guards letting a position of authority get to their heads. They were the ones who came after me and then proceeded to grab me (assault/battery) and hold me against my will. They searched me illegally (this would be like me walking up to you on the street and proceeding to search you). Then they handcuffed me (why in the heck did the guy even HAVE handcuffs in the first place?) and dragged me away in front of everyone. They kidnapped me in public. I had every legal right to fight back, but I did not. I don't condone violence unless it's absolutely necessary. I think we all agree on this.


So, you don't carry in your trunk already?

 

[Soybomb]

Were you typing and posting at the same time I was? Did you read what I wrote?

Indeed I was.

Lobbying has got us nowhere, except further in a hole.

I don't think we have any real lobbying here except for the ISRA which doesn't seem to be much help for concealed carry. For ccw we're going to need grass roots stuff with all us little guys in the state calling our state reps and selling our friends and neighbors on the idea. Its going to be especially hard in chicago.

You won't get an ounce returned to you until you exercise what you have right now! If you want to maintain the whipped-dog mentality of "if I exercise, they'll just hurt me more" then you've already lost bud.

Lets be honest though, you are using the law to carry a gun in a way that wasn't intended by the legislature. If Illinois voters don't approve of concealed carry, they probably aren't going to approve of concealed carry of unloaded guns either and new legislation won't be hard to push through to stop it. I can appreciate the gung-ho attitude but I think realistically we have to look at whats most likely to happen in our state at the current time and perhaps use some discretion in the ways we push back. If something is more likely to hurt the cause then help it, I don't see any reason to take the ship down in flames.

So, you don't carry in your trunk already?

Everytime I go to the range my firearms are unloaded in a zipped bag either on the passenger seat or in the back seat. It meets the legal requirements for transportation in the state and I think we'd all agree its what the law was drafted to allow.

 

[jnojr]

I am not so sure about the multimillionaire part of the equation. I am guessing a settlement more in 5 figures rather then 7 figures

He has an enormous civil action against the mall. Private "security guards" detaining him, handcuffing him, and then preferring baseless charges against him? And the "deep pockets" to attract big-time civil litigators?

Like I said, if things went down the way he said, I forsee a very comfortable future for him. His recourse against the police probably isn't nearly as great. He'll probably only wind up with a five figure settlement there.

 

[GoRon]

I say we support him even if we have reservations about the method employed.

We aren't gaining any ground through lobbying. If they try and tighten up and restrict how we can carry our guns to the range it will force the anti gun folks into the light. Maybe it is good if they try and inconvenience the hunters in Illinois like they do with pistol shooters.

A lot of the Illinois hunters are a part of the problem. They are willing to compromise the pistol/black rifle guys rights to protect their slug shotguns. As long as they don't mess with the hunters they can restrict whatever they want here in Illinois.

 

[SAK]

I think you're very wrong when you say that is not what the legislators intended. This very argument was brought up before them. They knew what it would allow, and they passed the bill anyways.

First off, the best evidence of legislative intention is the plain English wording of the law. Just like the Second Amendment. It says "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That's pretty clear to me. Don't try to pervert the law by saying what they "intended." If they intended it differently, they should have worded it differently.

Second, are you waiting for a law to say you CAN do something? I mean, do you get your rights from the government? Personally, I believe my rights are pre-existing to government. I think government is a creation, and idea of man, whereas our rights are natural from birth. If our government does not explicitly pass a law saying something is ILLEGAL, AND the action is not immoral, how can it be a crime? How can you say that we can't carry unloaded and enclosed in a case FOR DEFENSE because the law doesn't say we can? Would you like a list of lawful gun ownership reasons as well?

I think if we're going to win this fight, a lot of mindsets need to be changed. Peel off those years and years of conditioning and start thinking "freedom." Rights do not come from government, PERIOD. The Bill of Rights doesn't "grant" a single right, and I can't stand when people say it does. The Bill of Rights was never even intended to be applied to people. It applies solely to the federal government (and now state gov't thanks to 14th Amendment...even though the 2nd Amendment hasn't been "incorporated" as they say by the Supreme Court) by explicitly listing what MAY NOT BE DONE.

 

[SAK]

http://concealcarry.org/illinoisvbrunner.htm

The State contends "transport" means to take an object to a specific
destination. The language of the exemption includes not only the act of
transporting but also carrying or possession of a weapon, the common
definitions of which would not be limited to taking the weapon to a specific
destination. Other than the portion of the legislative debate cited above,
the only other discussion during the legislative debate which deals with this
point occurred between Representatives Koehler and Cullerton:
"Koehler: 'Perhaps I heard you incorrectly, but I thought you said that
you can..you have to have a..an unloaded gun in a case now when you carry it
on the street. Is that correct?'

Cullerton: 'That's correct. In a city.'

Koehler: 'In a city.'

Cullerton: 'Right, that's what the law would do. In another [sic] words,
say you're going out to hunt. You put your gun in a..unloaded, you'd unload
it, you'd put it in any kind of a container or case and put it in the car.'

Koehler: 'Okay, and this...and..but what about carrying it on the street?'

Cullerton: 'It has to be in a...'

Koehler: 'It has to be in a case.'

Cullerton: '..case. Right. Only if it's in the city. If you're out in
the..outside of an corporated area, you can have it in the open. Okay? But if
you're on the street, walking down the street with a gun unloaded, it would
be against the law.'" 82d Ill. Gen. Assem., House Proceedings, May 16, 1981,
at 5-6 (statements of Representatives Koehler and Cullerton).

We include the portions of the legislative debate not because we believe they
are determinative, but simply to demonstrate the legislature was considering
the assorted applications of the exemption. The best indication of
legislative intent is the language of the exemption as adopted. Even allowing
for the strict construction of the exemption provided in section 24-2(i), the
legislature intended the exemption to apply not only to transporting a gun,
as in the situation {*44} of purchasing a gun and transporting it home or
transporting a hunting rifle to the location of the hunt, but to also apply
to the carrying and possession of a gun while simply walking down the street.
We agree with the trial court the exemption "may allow for mischief."
However, it clearly applies to defendant because her pistol was unloaded, in
a case and she had a valid FOID card. The exemption did not require her to be
transporting the pistol to a specific location in order to hunt or target
shoot or take a recently purchased weapon to her residence. The State
suggests this exemption, as interpreted by defendant, would actually provide
a "concealed carry" law. We note "concealed carry" laws deal with the
concealed possession of a weapon in a holster and do not provide the weapon
must be unloaded. See Fla. Stat. Ann. § 790.06 (West Supp. 1996); Tex. Rev.
Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 4413(29ee) (West Supp. 1997). The exemption here
specifically provides the weapon must be unloaded and in a case.
Our ruling is not an endorsement of the defendant's behavior. Citizens
carrying unloaded weapons, even if encased, into courthouses is a prelude to
violence. Unloaded weapons can readily be loaded. Arguably, a violation of
section 21-6(a) of the Code should be a felony rather than a misdemeanor. The
exemption provided by the legislature permits the defendant under these
circumstances to avoid prosecution under section 24-2(i) of the Code for the
felony charge, but she remains subject to the misdemeanor offense proscribed
by section 21-6(a) of the Code. The remedy for the mischief noted by the
trial court is a matter for the legislature.
The judgment of the trial court dismissing count I due to the exemption
provided in section 24-2(i) of the Code is affirmed.
Affirmed.
COOK and GREEN, JJ., concur.
DISPOSITION

Affirmed.

 

[ilbob]

It was certainly never intended to be constructed in a way to allow illinois residents to carry concealed weapons in public.

The intent of the law was to provide a means by which Illinois citizens could lawfully transport their firearms without violating the law. As I understand it, the original version of the bill did not include the exceptions for this kind of transport, and it could have made it very difficult on lawful gun owners just to take their firearms to the range. Or even to take them home from the gun store.

I would tend to agree that the people who voted for the language in question probably never considered that anyone would carry an unloaded, encased firearm around in public, just because they did not see there would really be any purpose in doing so unless one was headed to a range, hunting, etc.

I would be willing to bet money they never considered anyone would strap on a tactical holster containing an unloaded gun and walk around a mall. But the law is the law. And the very wording of the law makes what he did legal, unless the authorities can get a judge to very creatively interpret some fairly simple phrases.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

SAK - What is 21-6(a)?

The case you quoted at length stated that the woman in question was still subject to the misdemeanor offense of violation of section 21-6(a) of the Code (see the third from last sentence at the end).

What is that?

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Nevermind

I went to the link. She carried it into the courthouse!

Since your case does not involve an attempt to fanny-pack your way into a courthouse, this case seems to sanction your behavior.

You Illinois people should rally behind SAK. Especially if you did not have the guts to do what he did.

 

[ilbob]

I hope I get the chance to contribute

You still can contribute. Go to the web site and pay via paypal. It is painless. Although his immediate goal has been accomplished, no reason to stop there.

 

[SAK]

You were wondering about 720 ILCS 5/21-6

(720 ILCS 5/21‑6) (from Ch. 38, par. 21‑6)
Sec. 21‑6. Unauthorized Possession or Storage of Weapons.
(a) Whoever possesses or stores any weapon enumerated in Section 33A‑1 in any building or on land supported in whole or in part with public funds or in any building on such land without prior written permission from the chief security officer for such land or building commits a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) The chief security officer must grant any reasonable request for permission under paragraph (a).
(Source: P.A. 89‑685, eff. 6‑1‑97.)


A ridiculous law that could entrap ANY gun owner on ANY land that is publicly funded in whole or part. You basically have to get permission from your country sheriff. I've never heard of them enforcing this law.

 

[Don Gwinn]

That law is so vague as to be more or less unenforceable now. Vana Haggerty was charged under the same law, but that charge was dropped with the others.

Haggerty was charged because when she was fanny-packing (and selling brass knuckle "paperweights") she was on the Marion County Fairgrounds at some kind of event.

If she could be convicted for something like that, it would mean that anyone could be convicted for possessing their firearms on any road in Illinois . . . . or for having a filet knife in the tackle box while fishing on state or county land. Remember, it requires that you get "prior" written permission, so this law has been violated literally millions or billions of times since it was passed. If you live in Illinois, ask yourself, do you know anyone who has written permission from the Chief Security Officer to have a filet knife or a shotgun at a state park?

When Vana's trial was still upcoming, a lot of us wrote to the director of the State Police asking for written permission to possess our firearms on the highways. To my knowledge, no one got a response.