Ill. court OKs storing guns in car consoles

[cclawdog]

Hes got 2yrs on prob in a town like Naperville or some other up tight town who looks for DUI's and no valids all day.

LOL right!

[cclawdog]

I just wonder if this new ruling will affect the way CPD allows their horses to carry off-duty. Please let me know thank you

How did I miss this....effing hilarious!
and please let me know thank you!! roflmao

[cclawdog]

There's nothing stopping anyone from carrying a loaded gun on their persons, other than a law on the books. Someone that wants to kill a Police Officer during a traffic stop is probably not going to store their unloaded firearm in a locked case as per the UUW exemption. People are either going to abide by the law or they're not.

OK. That's basically the whole point to this. But with whats on the books is constantly being misinterpreted by your "law abiding" citizen, why add to it? Just doesn't make sense.
I am and always have been pro gun. I have no problem with the background checks and waiting periods because some people are just plain stoooopid! What I have a problem with is how gun owners are treated by those who are not. They want to pass ALL these laws and bans that don't affect the bad guys one bit. They're sick of the violence plaguing our youth and choking our neighborhoods.....so go after the bad guys! Leave the rest alone.

[cclawdog]

Just do a google search for Deputy Kyle Dinkheller.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...69322100258929

Damn! I wonder if he was "law abiding" up until this point? STATE OF MIND changes a situation in a heart beat. Like I said "law abiding" don't mean jack and you can't tell who is or isn't

[IFR_Rob]

But then again, this isn't Indiana, and until our Law Unit and the Cook Co. (Lake, Mc Henry, Du Page, Will, Kane, etc.) State's Attorney's Office says otherwise, if you have a gun in your console or glove compartment, you're an arrest..

If any P/O has been told of any changes (regarding the ruling) at this time, I'd like to hear how you were told to handle this type of situation.

As of now, I can't even run a gun through our Gun Desk without an RD# (report) and Inventory#.

I respect LEOs and the work they do, but also believe in being in a position to defend myself. ChiTownDet's position scares me to death. On 2 seperate occasions the IL Supreme Court has ruled that citizens may carry unloaded & encased firearms. As mentioned in this thread, Illinois v. Diggins, they ruled that as long as the firearm is unloaded, by someone with a FOID, and in a case it is legal.... and they ruled that a center console is a case.

Further in Illinois v. Bruner, they ruled that carrying an unloaded gun in a case and inside a purse is legal.

The ISOP state in their brochure on Transporting Firearms that a loaded mag may be in the same case as the gun, just not in the gun.

SO, it seems to me that a person who carries the firearm in a case, unloaded, and possessing a FOID is totally legal. However, LEOs and SA's don't know that or don't follow that.... so while you may win in court, you could spend 30 months in jail as Diggins did and spend tens of thousands of dollars by doing what is legal and clearly stated so by the IL SC.

I would appreciate other thoughts on this matter - especially from LEOs.

[ISPCAPT]

As mentioned in this thread, Illinois v. Diggins, they ruled that as long as the firearm is unloaded, by someone with a FOID, and in a case it is legal.... and they ruled that a center console is a case..

I hope you aren't a law student because if you are you just flunked your 1st semester.
The court did NOT ruled that the center console was a case. It was ruled as a container. There's a difference. The court ONLY addressed the Unlawful Use of a Weapon statute. Nothing more. It did nothing to change the law concerning uncased gun. A completely different statute. The gun still has to be in a case to comply with 2.33(n).

However, LEOs and SA's don't know that or don't follow that.... so while you may win in court, you could spend 30 months in jail as Diggins did and spend tens of thousands of dollars by doing what is legal and clearly stated so by the IL SC.

Since you've shown you don't understand the court ruling then don't expect any of us to give your "opinion" about LEOs and SAs any credibility.

I would appreciate other thoughts on this matter - especially from LEOs.

Your thoughts would be considered for discussion had you knowledge of the case. Get your facts straight first.

[IFR_Rob]

Nope, not a law student... just a citizen interested in learning

I concede that I may not understand the case, but it isn't for lack of trying. I have read the statutes around FOID, unlawful use, and the Diggins case. Educate me! What is the difference between a case & a container? How do you interpret the Diggins ruling?

[MCSO5113]

Nope, not a law student... just a citizen interested in learning

I concede that I may not understand the case, but it isn't for lack of trying. I have read the statutes around FOID, unlawful use, and the Diggins case. Educate me! What is the difference between a case & a container? How do you interpret the Diggins ruling?

I think the gun laws in this state are too strict. Ever take the time to wonder hows come you police officers are out gunned? Answer because "criminals" don't apply for FOID cards, or CCW license. They don't care if they are carrying illegally. Agg UUW and similar weapons charges are easy charges to beat for them. Seen it happen. If you want the sensless shootings and killings, and not to mention the crime rate, to go down then do like the other 48 states have done. Allow concealed carry. Most criminals will be less apt to rob someone due to this fact. I've talked to these guys in my daily duties as a Corrections officer. They know that these charges are bogus becasue the way the wording is in the gun laws.

[ISPCAPT]

What is the difference between a case & a container?

It depends on the statute being discussed.
If you've "studied" the statutes then it's pretty clear. What does the UUW statute say is necessary to legally transport? To help you "study" this further here's what it says. "case, firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container." From your "studies" then you'll know the ILSC ruled the console fit the definition of "other container" as it pertains to the UUW statute.
If you're talking about 2.33(n) (Uncased Gun) then that statute is more specific requiring that a gun has to be in a case to be legal. It specifically defines a case as "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." You'll note there is nothing in that definition about "other container". It is specifically defined.
Maybe this example will help you in your "studies". A guy is driving down the road and on the front seat of his car he has a loaded handgun, in the open, and not in a case. What's the charge? He can be charged, at a minimum, with 2 violations - One would be UUW and the other one would be uncased gun. Those are 2 separate, distinct charges. Another example. Same guy driving down the same road except this time he has his handgun unloaded and in the glove box. What's the charge? Uncased gun. He cannot be charged wtih UUW since the glove box is the "other container". However, the uncased gun charge still is a valid charge because he violated the elements of that statute. Now change the scenario again. Same guy, same road. This time he has a loaded handgun completely enclosed in a zippered gun case. What's the charge? UUW for having the loaded handgun. Since he has the gun in a case he does not violate any of the elements of uncased gun statute.

How do you interpret the Diggins ruling?

There's nothing really to "interpret". The ILSC was ruling on the UUW statute ONLY. It did nothing to change any other law, including no change to 2.33(n) requiring firearms to be in a case. The UUW charge was the only issue before the court and it was the only issued addressed by the court. There's nothing to "interpret". All the court did was say the closed console in a vehicle was the "other container" in the UUW statute.

Too many people aren't reading the ruling or understanding it and they're going to get jammed up with legal problems. All they have done is heard the court ruled a "console is a case" and they now think it is 100% legal to carry a gun in the console. Not so and the court didn't say it was. The court only ruled on the UUW statute section concerning "other container". It changed nothing else.

[IFR_Rob]

Thanks ISPCapt

My "studies" have been around 430 ILCS 65 (FOID Act) and 720 ISCS 5/Art. 24 (Deadly Weapons). I hadn't read 520 ISCS 5/2.33 thoroughly enough as I interpreted that to be "hunting".

It took 6 pages to write the entire US Consitution, yet 3 Illinois sections (and maybe more that I'm not aware of) each 12 or more pages in length to define what a firearm is, how it cannot be used, and how to transport it. Heck, I guess we are lucky, it isn 1900 pages like the Healthcare bill.

I will still bet that if I carried an unloaded gun in a gun case, in my center console (or in a backpack walking down the street), and have my FOID card that many officers and SA would arrest and charge me.

Thankfully each of us have different strengths and areas of knowledge. Researching a topic is difficult to do when you aren't trained to do it in that area. For instance, my profession is in technology. If you want a program written or a network server built I could do that for you. However someone who doesn't work in that area could research all they want and likely still would not be successful - in the short term. Even those in my field (including me) don't know everything there is about technology - I still struggle with the 14 remote controls to manage my tv and stereo Just as you did ISPCapt, I try to educate and provide help.

Thanks again for the clarification....

[bankfraudguy]

...................

[Oldskoolfan]

I remember learning about this thing we used to have called the 2nd Amendment, does anyone else remember that?

[ISPCAPT]

SO what happens then?
Is the guy in this example getting arrested, car towed, gun taken?
Felony?
Misdemeanor?
is he getting a ticket?
FOID Revocation?

It can be written on the standard citation. The firearm can be taken and held until the person comes with a case to pick it up.

How many officers are going to be citing people under the wildlife code?

Any certified LEO in IL can cite anything in any section of IL statutes except for the motor carrier section. LEOs from depts all over the state cite for uncased gun. It's really a pretty common citation.

[benron]

Take it, unload, maybe even break it down (depending on his attitude) then hand it all back after the stop and tell him not to assemble or load it until I'm gone. But then again, this isn't Indiana, and until our Law Unit and the Cook Co. (Lake, Mc Henry, Du Page, Will, Kane, etc.) State's Attorney's Office says otherwise, if you have a gun in your console or glove compartment, you're an arrest..

If any P/O has been told of any changes (regarding the ruling) at this time, I'd like to hear how you were told to handle this type of situation.

As of now, I can't even run a gun through our Gun Desk without an RD# (report) and Inventory#.

Chitowndet,you mean to tell me that if IL passed a cwp,on every traffic stop you would question every driver if they were carring a weapon? if they said no,what would you do then? would you pull them out and search their vehicle? if this is your attitude towards law abiding citizens,thats very scary,would you want your loved ones treated like this by another police officer,just imagine if you mother or father was stopped,and searched like some criminal,how would you feel? i believe if you treated the law abiding citizen of chicago like that, you would have alot of CR# filed against you,not to mention you would have a very,very long day,depending on the number of traffic stops.

[scotsmen]

Illinois gun laws are outdated and needs to be changed, but at the end of the day if you are not a p.o, deputy ect, you can not carry a gun on you in the state of illinois, so for the life of me I will never understand why we always of civilians that buy cute little fanny packs, murse's, and hand bags and call it a legal firearms case and carry the gun around with them untill they get arrested. But also at the end of the day we only need to understand one fact, YOU CAN'T FIX STUPID!!, But what I can see as a result out of this glove box incident is a p/o making an arrest for the same thing and a nasty lawsuit flying his way.