Shaun Kranish Needs Your Help

[Malum Prohibitum]

I've never heard of them enforcing this law.

Well, now wait a second. The case you posted shows them enforcing it against Joan Brunner, and the appellate court upheld it. That was the point of the opinion (beyond it being ok to carry unloaded in a case).

 

[Don Gwinn]

You make a good point. Sheesh.

Anyway, I thought I'd mention that we've put Shaun over the top. He was looking for $3500, and he was at $3450 according to the website when I looked, so I figured "OK, I'll donate the last $50. Better than going to McDonald's ten times."

By the time I was done, the updated total was a balance of $3600. I hope this helps.


The bottom line, folks, is that we are where we are. If we let them squash Shaun Kranish, we condone it. I'm not willing to condone it. If you can't give, you can't give. If you won't give because it's his own fault he got arrested while following the law, you might have some thinking to do. I don't care if he wasn't following the law cautiously enough or going far enough beyond the law for safety in Illinois. He obeyed the law and they arrested him anyway. That shouldn't be allowed to stand.

 

[johnster999]

I did the same. Thought I'd be the last $50 and obviously others had the same idea! Good luck with the case, Shaun.

999

 

[SAK]

oops sorry guys. Been busy and forgot that it was still at 3450 on that page.

Sorry for getting your hopes up about being the last $50! I still have some mail donations coming in as well. We made our goal of $3500 in 8 days, which is AWESOME. It must be some kind of record for online gun-charge defense funds. Thanks a ton everyone!

I'll fix the page now and show how we met the goal. If it makes you feel any better about having donated after the goal was met, I still owe my family another 3500, so the money will go to that Luckily with this fundraiser, I won't have to borrow any more from my parents and save both them and I the burden. I'm so thankful for the community and the groups like Gun Owners of America and Guns Save Life.

Thank you.

 

[scout26]

Shaun,

I'm stopping to get a MO at the grocery store tomorrow, put me down for $40, this case is important for this state.

 

[ilbob]

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.

I believe that it indeed has been used against people who brought unloaded firearms into public buildings such as courthouses.

And keep in mind that fairgrounds are sometimes used for gun shows. I never heard of anyone getting busted for having an unloaded gun at such an event. I think there are even a few gun shows (at least used to be a few) in school buildings.

I am not sure how you decided the county sheriff is the chief security officer. he might well be the chief LEO, but that does not make him the chief security officer.

 

[ilbob]

FWIW.

Years ago (1980ish) I worked for a security guard company. I had to take a class to worked armed. One of the things the instructor stressed was that private citizens, including armed guards, could not take firearms into a "public" place. He said the courts had ruled a public place was a facility owned by any governmental entity.

He made an example of saying that it would be legal for private armed guards to work at Wrigley Field, but not at Soldier's Field.

The lawyer for the company I worked for was of the same opinion. I don't recall what provision of the law this was under, so don't know if it is the same section. I do recall that the company would not bid on armed guard contracts at governmentally owned facilities at all.

One would think the provision for permission from the "chief security officer" would make it legal, but perhaps that provision was not in the law back then.

 

[jnojr]

Update? I don't see anything new on icarry.org