Posted on 04/09/2002 12:17:54 PM PDT by RCW2001
News stories from around the nation identifying gun control as a trip-wire issue dividing conservatives and liberals don't surprise. The events of September 11 have heightened the resolution of the "individual rights" interpreters of the Second Amendment. These are distinguished from the "collective rights" faction. The former stare the language in the face and come away with a reading different from the collective crowd. At issue is the interpretation of a single sentence: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Opponents of comprehensive gun-control laws view this as a constitutional guarantee of the right of Americans to own guns. An easy to way to put it is that they view the amendment as if the initial clause were irrelevant, leaving us simply with a guarantee against federal gun control that challenges the right of citizens to own weapons. By contrast, of course, there are those (roughly speaking, the nation's intelligentsia) who insist that the Second Amendment goes no further than to say that Congress may not legislate against the right of individual states to organize militias of arms-bearing citizens.
The learned arguments go on and on. The gun-control lobby has suffered two severe blows in the recent period. One of them is that Professor Laurence Tribe of Harvard, much esteemed by American liberals, in part because of his enthusiasm for abortion rights, having examined the historical documents, opines that indeed the people who framed the Bill of Rights intended to guarantee individual, not merely collective, gun-ownership rights. And the Fifth Circuit ruled in the same direction in United States v. Emerson.
As with other contentions requiring constitutional interpretation, the division over gun control is only one part historical (What did the framers intend?). Another, more significant part, is political (What does the American public want?) But it's better, and safer, to ask the question: What do the American people reasonably want? It probably could be established by polling that the American people would be happy to hang anybody who burns the U.S. flag, but such sentiments are not likely to be codified.
It's more fruitful to argue reasonable limitations on gun ownership. A comic routine in Las Vegas in 1980 featured a debate between presidential contenders Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter on the matter of gun control, Walter Cronkite presiding. "What about atom bombs, Governor Reagan? Do you believe the Constitution guarantees the right of individuals to have atom bombs?"
"Well, Mr. Cronkite," the comedian answered pensively, "just small atom bombs."
The assertion of a right at ridiculous lengths — the absolutization of it, in the manner of the American Civil Liberties Union — is a way of undermining it. If the Constitution says you can say anything you want under any circumstances, then you can shout fire! in a crowded movie theater. If you have the right to remain silent in all circumstance, then you can decline to give testimony vital to another citizen's freedom and rights. If you insist that a citizen has the right to own a machine gun, you discredit his right to own a pistol or a rifle.
What ripened in the aftermath of September 11 was a sensibility — of the individual citizen's dependence, at the margin, on his own resources. George Will put it pithily (as ever), when he asked, Call for a cop, an ambulance, and a pizza, and ask which is likelier to get to you first. A rifle in the closet wouldn't have been useful against the swooping 767s that struck the Twin Towers. But a sense of the implications of chaos and anarchy was sharpened. An analyst 20 years ago remarked that an 82-year-old couple living in an apartment in the Bronx, after twice being assaulted, found it possible to sleep at night only after acquiring a pistol and advertising its presence on a note pinned to the outside door.
Both sides will find it useful to temper extreme expressions of their positions. But it is certainly true that at this moment it is likelier that congressmen running for election or reelection in November will not press the collective interpretation of the Second Amendment.
Hilarious! Haven't these people heard about CHANGING A BARREL?????
$120? We're only $20 a year. $85 for FIVE years, and I've never heard of "ConcealCarry.org".
If I had a choice on how to spend $120 in a year on gun rights statewide orgs, I'd pitch in $20 for MCRGO, and then put $100 toward MCRGO-PAC(to elect good officials).
Neither had I but I did a search on conceal carry in Illinois.
This organization is IL based. We have a somewhat half CCW.
Basically it is a can carry but unloaded Safe Neighborhood Act passed in may of 2000.
Cops are arresting IL citizens who excerise their rights under this new law.
Concealcarry will defend you if you are a memmber.
Believe me guys this is CHEAP.
The membership roles continue to grow. IL is a preempt state for laws. IT mean any local government can preempt a state statue, and it applies to gun laws. We got hundreds of them. It is a trap on the 2nd rights.
So before you knock John Birch concealedcarry.org, walk a mile in in shoes.
The State NRA is 40 years behind the battle on CCW. But I must give them credit as they are picking up the pace.
Semper Fi
Chicagofarmer
Excellent point. I have never noticed this, but its true. 90% spinning the media news is forming the questions to give you the answer you want.
Excellent pickup.
Semper Fi
Chicagofarmer
I have met with the head of CC, not impressed at all. IMHO he will get some fool killed with his method of getting CC in Illinois. With all the trigger happy thugs cops in Chicago, his "fanny pack carry" is asking for getting shot.
If you live through the arrest procedure.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
the anals are tough!!
anything to intimidate
I have met with the head of CC, not impressed at all. IMHO he will get some fool killed with his method of getting CC in Illinois. With all the trigger happy thugs cops in Chicago, his "fanny pack carry" is asking for getting shot.
It sounds like you are all hat and no cattle as Bush would say. I would suggest read the State of Illinois State police website for proper carry in IL.
http://dnr.state.il.us/gunbroc.htm
*Illinois State Police publication for Firearms carry*
* Hell I just include it so you will have no excuse for not reading it. You are blowing smoke out your a$$. *
If you have any further questions just drop me a note. We need all of us in this battle wheather you agree with there personality or not.
Semper Fi Guy.
Hell I just include it so you will have no excuse for not reading it. You are blowing smoke out your a$$.
Transport Your Gun Legally
This document outlines the 3 Illinois Statues governing firearms in Illinois.
Commonly Asked Questions on Transporting Firearms
Illinois State Department of Police Department of Natural Resources Sam W. Nolen Director Brent Manning Director Unless specifically exempted by statute, any Illinois resident who acquires or possesses firearms or firearm ammunition within the state must have in their possession a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) card issued in his or her name.
Answers provided to the following questions are meant only to give general guidance regarding transporting firearms and ammunition. The answers do not and are not meant to replace statutory language.
How can I legally transport a firearm on “my person” or in “my vehicle”?
Three statutory codes regulate the possession, transfer, and transportation of firearms -- the Criminal Code, the Wildlife Code, and the Firearm Owner's Identification Act.
Under Unlawful Use of Weapons (UUW) in the Criminal Code, persons who have been issued a valid FOID card may transport a firearm anywhere in their vehicle or on their person as long as the firearm is unloaded and enclosed in a case, firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container. Firearms that are not immediately accessible or are broken down in a non-functioning state may also be carried or transported under the Criminal Code. The Wildlife Code, however, is more restrictive. It requires that all firearms transported in or on any vehicle be unloaded and in a case.
Because of this, it is recommended that, in order to be in compliance with all statutes, all firearms be transported:
1. Unloaded and,
2. Enclosed in a case, and
3. By persons who have a valid FOID card.
Unless specifically exempted from UUW, a person commits a Class 4 Felony if he or she carries or possesses a firearm contrary to the aggravated UUW law of the Criminal Code (i.e., unlawfully carries on their person or illegally transports a firearm in a vehicle) AND one or more of the following aggravating factors apply:
(1) The firearm possessed was uncased, loaded, and immediately accessible at the time of the offense;
(2) The firearm possessed was uncased, unloaded, and the ammunition for the weapon was immediately accessible at the time of the offense;
(3) Does not have a valid FOID card;
(4) Was previously adjudicated of a Felony as a juvenile;
(5) Was engaged in a Misdemeanor violation of the Cannabis Control Act or the Controlled Substances Act;
(6) Is a member of a street gang;
(7) Has had an order of protection against them in the last two years;
(8) Was engaged in the commission or attempted commission of a Misdemeanor involving the use of violence against another person or the property of another; or
(9) Is under 21 years of age and in possession of a handgun, unless the person is engaged in hunting activities under the Wildlife Code.
What constitutes a legal "case"?
The Criminal Code refers to "a case, firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container." However, the Wildlife Code is more specific, defining case as "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."
How do the differences in these two laws affect me for the purposes of the Unlawful Use of Weapons law?
It is recommended that persons transport their firearms only unloaded and in a case in order to be fully compliant with all statutes. A firearm transported in a container other than a case while engaged in activities covered by the Wildlife Code could subject an individual to a charge of Class B Misdemeanor under the Wildlife Code, but would not be considered Unlawful Use of Weapons if the container were a "firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container" as provided in the Criminal Code.
If I fail to zip up the case entirely, will I be guilty of a felony?
No, as long as the firearm is unloaded, and none of the aggravating factors of the Unlawful Use of Weapons law are present. The way to avoid this situation is to make sure firearm cases are completely zipped or otherwise completely fastened shut.
What is immediately accessible? “This is for uncased firearms authors comment”
The test is if a reasonable person would conclude that the firearm is located within relatively quick reach. It is a Class 4 Felony to have an uncased, loaded firearm immediately accessible. It is recommended that firearms be unloaded and enclosed in a case, and possessed by an individual with a valid FOID card when being transported.
What is broken down in a non-functioning state?
The firearm is disassembled, making it inoperable, e.g., slide or barrel removed.
Does a firearm have to be broken down to be legal? ”NO!”
No. However, it is recommended that to transport a firearm it be unloaded and encased, and possessed by the holder of a valid FOID card.
How can I legally transport my firearm in my Sports Utility Vehicle (SUV),
pickup truck, van, station wagon, or even a motorcycle?
The surest way is to have the firearm unloaded and enclosed in a case, and to make sure your FOID card is valid. How do I transport a firearm through an Illinois community with an ordinance that prohibits firearms or handguns?
Illinois' Unlawful Use of Weapons law does not preempt local ordinances from banning firearms. Persons carrying or transporting firearms through such communities could be subject to local firearm ordinances. Federal law does attempt to provide limited protection in these circumstances, but when transporting firearms in unfamiliar communities, it is a good idea to check with authorities on local law.
If a nonresident is coming to Illinois to hunt and would like to bring their firearm, how do they legally transport it? Nonresidents must comply with the gun case law as described above. Additionally, the firearm must not be immediately accessible or must be broken down in a non-functioning state.
What if I leave a firearm in my vehicle (regardless of location) and a family member, without a valid FOID card, is driving the vehicle without me and is stopped by police and the firearm is found?
The law states a person must "knowingly" violate the law. The assumption in the question is that the family member was unaware of a firearm's presence. However, at a traffic stop, you should expect the officer to handle the situation at face value, take enforcement action accordingly, and let the court settle the matter. Depending on the situation, the charge could be a Class 4 Felony. Don't put a family member in that position.
How can I legally transport ammunition?
Illinois law requires that residents possessing ammunition must have a valid FOID card. Transporting an unloaded, uncased firearm with ammunition immediately accessible is a Class 4 Felony, unless the firearm is not immediately accessible or is broken down in a non-functioning state.
The location of ammunition being transported, including ammunition being transported in loaded magazines, is not regulated if the firearm is possessed or transported lawfully.
Is it illegal to have ammunition in the case with the firearm?
No, if the firearm is unloaded and is properly enclosed in a case and the individual possessing the firearm and ammunition is in possession of a valid FOID card.
Can I transport a firearm in a gun rack in the back window of my truck?
Yes, if the firearm is unloaded and encased, and you are a resident with a valid FOID card. One thing to consider -- a gun displayed in a window could invite theft.
Can I keep a firearm in my hotel room when I travel?
Yes, assuming no local ordinance applies. The critical question is how the firearm was carried into the room and transported in a vehicle. Those actions must be done lawfully.
I have a friend/relative who has a "conceal and carry" permit issued in the state in which they reside. Is the permit recognized in Illinois?
No. Nonresidents are subject to Illinois law, restrictions, and penalties, and should be familiar with them if the nonresident plans to bring a firearm into the state.
What constitutes "unloaded" for a muzzle loading firearm?
(17 Ill. Admin. Code, Ch. I, Sec 660.30 - 5) provides a definition for an unloaded muzzle loading firearm as follows: Removal of percussion cap or removal of prime powder from frizzen pan with frizzen pan open and hammer all the way down or removal of prime powder from flashpan and wheel un-wound or removal of prime powder and match with match not lit shall constitute an unloaded muzzle loading firearm.
See the Reprint from Outdoor Illinois - July 2000 "...answers to some commonly asked questions"
For more information contact: Illinois State Police at 217-524-2525
FOID Office at 217-782-7980 http://www.state.il.us/isp
Department of Natural Resources 217-782-6431, http://dnr.state.il.us/gunbroc.htm
I think you mean that there is a good argument for amending the Constitution to allow banning of private possession of nuclear weapons. As the Constitution reads today, keeping and bearing nuclear weapons is protected.
I guess insisting on the right to own a long range "hig powered, rifle with a 'scope, i.e. a "sniper" rifle, discredits the right to own a pistol or shotgun then? Besides you can own a a machine gun, it's just that the right to do so has been infringed with a bunch of paperwork and a heavy fee, original prohibitively heavy. In most states that is, in some the right has been completely abrogated.
You do have the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, if there is a fire. If there is no fire, you are endangering others, not merely exercising free speech. Similar arguments hold for libel and slander not being protected by the 1st amendment. You can only refuse to testify if by so doing you will tend to incriminate yourself in a criminal case, just like it says there in the fourth amendment. Otherwise it's a contempt of court offense, for which the judge can fine you ro throw you into jail.
The second amendment doesn't say "except machine guns", and in the time it was written, some people owned ships armed with cannon, as close the ultimate weapon as existed at the time. Some groups and individuals owned just the cannons too of course. There is no "except for cannon" exception either.
The thing that really weakens the right to keep and bear arms it dredging up the ridiculous, "what about atom bombs?" Anyone who could afford one, and wanted one, would not likely be detered by any law anyway. If H. Ross or Bill Gates wanted one, and knew where to buy one, would some law stop him? Probably not. But for the record. There is no exception for "just too terrible" arms either.
The heaviest available at the time in fact. And if folks don't like the notion of private individuals owning today's heavy military equipment, they should be out amending the Constitution to allow regulation of it's ownership, not advocating or actually violating the Constitution.
Holding the status quo, after decades of infringment of the RKBA, isn't good enough, the unconstituional infringements must be rolled back. If not now, when?
REALITY CHECK:
1 - The DA's Office considers a fanny pack to be a holster, not a case.
2 - Any LEO that finds you with a weapon loaded or not will treat you as an armed criminal, meaning you are likely to be shot.
3 - Getting back to Birch's group. What does Birch stand to lose if one of his members get arrested for fanny pack carry? Money. Just money spent defending the case.
What does the member stand to lose?
1-Life. Some cops get a bit too nervous when finding an armed person. Shoot first and let God sort it out applies here.
2-Jail time. At the least until arraigned and bail is posted. (if you can afford bail, for that matter, make it if you are allowed bail)
3-FELONY Conviction very possible outcome which leads to
4-LOSS OF ALL 2nd AMMENDMENT RIGHTS
Is his scheme worth it?
Your efforts are far better spent supporting the Family and Personal Protection Act. If I remember correctly it is HB-301.
The American Heritage Dictionay defines regulate :
1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law. 2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature. 3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning. 4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.
Your explanation has merit. I don't recall seeing this explanation before. thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.