Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Non-resident Carry Permits?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757

    Non-resident Carry Permits?

    My family will be traveling through Illinois this summer. We really would rather not make the trip, but a relative has to renew a foreign passport, in person, at her consulate's office in Chicago.

    Is it possible for non-residents to apply for and obtain an Illinois concealed carry permit (I already know I can car carry with my home state permit) without having to be in Illinois first? It is at least a four hour drive and there is no way I can spend a weekend in Illinois taking classes from an Illinois instructor, if that is required.

    Thanks!
    Last edited by OC4me; 03-14-2014 at 12:56 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southern Illinois, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    364
    To get a non-resident Illinois carry license you need to take 16 hours of training, you can get 8 hours of credit for NRA basic pistol or better, or for a DD214. If you have that you can take an 8 hour course. I don't know if anyone is doing courses outside Illinois.

    Question are you from Hawaii? Residents of Hawaii are the only ones currently being allowed to apply, supposedly because they have similar mental health reporting laws. The cost is a whopping $300 and expect it to take about 60 days, maybe more to get it.

    If you get the Illinois non-resident license to carry you'll be in a very select group.

    Just noticed your location is Michigan, there is a bill in the legislature to allow residents from about 10 different states to apply. I don't know if Michigan was one of those states. I have my doubts that the bill will pass this year.

    The license to carry class does need to be taken from a instructor certified by the Illinois State Police of which there are quite a few in Illinois. The NRA basic pistol, or better could be taken in your state from an NRA instructor, you'd need a certificate to get credit from an Illinois carry instructor.
    Last edited by junglebob; 03-14-2014 at 02:35 PM.

  3. #3
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    245
    Quote Originally Posted by OC4me View Post
    My family will be traveling through Illinois this summer. We really would rather not make the trip, but a relative has to renew a foreign passport, in person, at her consulate's office in Chicago.

    Is it possible for non-residents to apply for and obtain an Illinois concealed carry permit (I already know I can car carry with my home state permit) without having to be in Illinois first? It is at least a four hour drive and there is no way I can spend a weekend in Illinois taking classes from an Illinois instructor, if that is required.

    Thanks!
    AFAIK the only state that has residents eligible for non-resident permits in Illinois is Hawaii. For now, if you're not from Hawaii, you're SOL.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southern Illinois, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    364
    Quote Originally Posted by Darkshadow62988 View Post
    AFAIK the only state that has residents eligible for non-resident permits in Illinois is Hawaii. For now, if you're not from Hawaii, you're SOL.
    I should mention that you can carry in your car while in Illinois if you have a CHL from your state. There is a parking lot exemption to most CPZ's, not nuclear power plant, not sure about federal buildings. You can leave a loaded handgun concealed in a locked vehicle or locked in the glovebox etc. in a parking lot of a CPZ if you have a CHL from your state. So you don't have to be defenseless in Illinois except when outside your vehicle. Then there is the option of unloaded container transport, called "6 seconds to safety" for when you are outside your vehicle.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southern Illinois, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    364
    I found out that there is a bill in the Illinois legislature to allow a resident of any state that meets the other requirements of the carry law to apply for a non-resident CHL and another bill lowers the fee to$150 for non-residents. I don't think the chances are that good that those bills will pass this year.

  6. #6
    Regular Member cirrusly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    North Dakota
    Posts
    331
    When did the non-resident permits become effectively "no issue"?? Was this part of the ILCS 66/40 "Firearm CC Act" legislation that passed last year? This is the first I've heard about the non-res permits being "no issue."
    I want to keep our founding fathers' visions and rights for this country pure. I implore you to do the same.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southern Illinois, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    364
    Quote Originally Posted by cirrusly View Post
    When did the non-resident permits become effectively "no issue"?? Was this part of the ILCS 66/40 "Firearm CC Act" legislation that passed last year? This is the first I've heard about the non-res permits being "no issue."
    The bill said that non-resident licenses could be issued to residents of states with "essentially similar laws" that was later interpreted to be residents of Hawaii because they have similar mental health reporting laws is what I heard.

    You are good to carry on your states CHL while in your vehicle in Illinois.

    South Carolina has been added along with Hawaii as states whose residents can get a non-resident Illinois CHL.
    Last edited by junglebob; 04-22-2014 at 04:06 PM. Reason: new info

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    El Paso County, Colorado
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by junglebob View Post

    You are good to carry on your states CHL while in your vehicle in Illinois.
    Has anyone figured out what happens if you are doing this--and you are pulled over and ordered to exit your vehicle?

  9. #9
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    245
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveInCO View Post
    Has anyone figured out what happens if you are doing this--and you are pulled over and ordered to exit your vehicle?
    The law doesn't "require" anybody to disclose they are armed. It merely requires that one must inform an officer if asked and provide the appropriate permit/license and let the officer know where the weapon is located. It's a personal decision, but not one to take too lightly as your life my depend on it.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    El Paso County, Colorado
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by Darkshadow62988 View Post
    The law doesn't "require" anybody to disclose they are armed. It merely requires that one must inform an officer if asked and provide the appropriate permit/license and let the officer know where the weapon is located. It's a personal decision, but not one to take too lightly as your life my depend on it.
    I don't see how that answers my question. Basically, the cop just ordered me to commit what, if I am not mistaken, is a felony. Should I say, "uh, no, officer, I can't because..." or does the law actually allow for this?

    When asked to exit your vehicle there's a non-zero chance you will eventually be cuffed and/or terry frisked. At which point, of course, the gun will be found and, rumbling down from Olympus you hear the words: You Carried A Weapon Without A Permit. It's also possible the cop will see a trace of printing (in fact more than likely in my case). It would be interesting to know what the courts would do with this. "Your honor, I was behaving legally (since I have this nice shiny permit from Colorado and I was in my car) until Officer Smith ordered me to commit the crime."
    Last edited by SteveInCO; 03-18-2014 at 08:28 AM.

  11. #11
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    245
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveInCO View Post
    I don't see how that answers my question. Basically, the cop just ordered me to commit what, if I am not mistaken, is a felony. Should I say, "uh, no, officer, I can't because..." or does the law actually allow for this?

    When asked to exit your vehicle there's a non-zero chance you will eventually be cuffed and/or terry frisked. At which point, of course, the gun will be found and, rumbling down from Olympus you hear the words: You Carried A Weapon Without A Permit. It's also possible the cop will see a trace of printing (in fact more than likely in my case). It would be interesting to know what the courts would do with this. "Your honor, I was behaving legally (since I have this nice shiny permit from Colorado and I was in my car) until Officer Smith ordered me to commit the crime."
    First off, IANAL and this is definitely worth asking one about, but...

    this is where it gets complicated because of contradiction in the courts. This would be a fairly good thing to do a comparison for stop and frisk policies. Possession of small quanitities of marijuana in some locations is not a crime, but public display of it is. When people were asked if they had anything the officers would know about, they would say yes, and when the officer asked to see it, they would(willingly) pull it out of their pocket and they would subsequently be arrested for display(not possession). There are other locations where it is illegal to resist an officer, fail to do what an officer asks or even require that an officer be aware of any weapons as a matter of both policy and law. 'Compulsion' is the category of law that in most common law places states that if someone threatens to kill/harm you or another person unless you commit some form of harm yourself then you are not liable for it so long as the harm you commit is significantly less than the potential harm threatened(if you drive away from an accident where no persons were injured because your hostage taker says keep driving or they'll kill/hurt you or a hostage would be a good hypothetical).

    LEO's are given quite a bit of leeway when it comes to using their discretion to do their jobs, doubly so when it comes to protecting self and others. I've never dealt with LEO's in IL, and hopefully never need to, but the times I've interacted with LEO's while armed have been at worst inconvenient(disarming before walking back to their car to sign a speeding ticket) to pleasant(LEO didn't care, just wanted to make sure nobody was hurt and there was no emergency due to the bad weather/road conditions). That being said, I see a LEO being much more reasonable to deal with having been informed through speech rather than through sight. Most everyone here has seen the videos of the rogue cops that seem to have road rage when not informed, but the statistics don't really show such events being anything near common. Each individual person has to make their own decision as to how they think the situation is best handled(because each one is different in its own ways), but, if I have to speak with LEO's(the ones in uniform at least) I always make it known(in as non confrontational a manner as possible) when I'm armed. It makes for a better case afterward when I can show on a recording when and how I informed the LEO and how they responded, if they don't behave reasonably like the vast majority will.

    To answer the question I bolded: The law doesn't say what is allowed, it says what is prohibited. The law often prohibits not just people, but the government(e.g. the bill of rights). Does the law allow for this? I'm honestly not sure. Does the law allow for jury nullification(a jury seeing the facts of a case, coming to the conclusion the defendant did the actions that constitute a crime, and returning a not guilty verdict in spite of the facts)? It doesn't specifically prohibit jury nullification and by virtue of the facts the jury has the ability to do just that(some would argue it is a specific purpose of jury in response to unjust laws). Does the law allow it though? The best option is to avoid the interaction altogether by never giving them RAS/PC in the first place. The next best option is honesty(this includes not being deceptive by omission). The next option is redress through the courts(sue them afterwards). None of those options work for anybody that's dead.

    Like I said, IANAL, but my personal advice is to state that you are armed if you think there is any chance whatsoever, no matter how small, the firearm would be discovered otherwise. It may be a civil rights issue for some, but people always remember what Rosa Parks ended up getting in the end. They seldom seem to remember the two years is took for "justice" to be served. How valuable is your life? How valuable is a year, or two, or more of it? Pick your battles when you can, and hope they don't pick you when you can't.

    In response to the other bolded part: attorneys get the privilege of being able to advise people what to do in such situations and have that person say they were only acting on their attorney's advice as a defense if a problem with their actions arises. That's why it's so hard to get advice from an attorney: their job security it put up as collateral for their advice potentially being wrong. Hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent by individuals to get an education on similar issues and they seldom agree on what laws mean. I'm no idiot, but there are some things I don't think can be answered any time but after the fact, and that's not really helpful to most anyone.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    El Paso County, Colorado
    Posts
    309
    To clarify, when I asked "does the law allow for this" I was trying to ask if the law had anything whatsoever to say about the situation. One way it could hypothetically do so would be to make "ordered by police to do so" an exception to the law prohibiting carry of a gun outside your home. (I don't know how your CC law is worded but it could well be an example of this: an exception to the ban on carrying a gun--it's prohibited except for those who have a permit. Just for instance, that's the way it was engineered in Colorado [as an exception to the ban on concealed carry--open being legal here], but of course Illinois could have done it differently.)

    A bit different from "does the law allow this" which, you correctly point out, is not its job, at least not in the US. The whole thing about an exception to something else that is prohibited, though, is that it tends to turn this logic on its head. It boils down to the law telling you what you are allowed to do, even though it's really just removing one situation from the list of prohibited acts. (I heard somewhere--take that for what it's worth--that an exception even can act to reverse the burden of proof; if you want to claim it in court, you first implicitly admit to the overarching prohibited act ("yes I carried a gun outside my house"), then prove the exception applies to you ("but I have this out of state permit and was in my car"). If you fail to prove the exception, well--you've admitted to the illegal act! Cuidado!)

    Obviously the cleanest way to resolve this conundrum would be to have something in the law that adds "ordered out of the car by law enforcement" to the exception for CC in car with an out of state permit (if it is an exception). But that would make too much sense.

    My personal situation is such that car carry in Illinois, with a requirement to disarm before exiting the vehicle (under normal circumstances) makes the car carry useless anyway (it's not like I drive downtown somewhere where I might be able to use the thing to defend against a carjacker; I am on a freeway not planning to so much as stop), so I almost certainly won't bother.

  13. #13
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    245
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveInCO View Post
    SNIP...
    A bit different from "does the law allow this" which, you correctly point out, is not its job, at least not in the US. The whole thing about an exception to something else that is prohibited, though, is that it tends to turn this logic on its head. It boils down to the law telling you what you are allowed to do, even though it's really just removing one situation from the list of prohibited acts. (I heard somewhere--take that for what it's worth--that an exception even can act to reverse the burden of proof; if you want to claim it in court, you first implicitly admit to the overarching prohibited act ("yes I carried a gun outside my house"), then prove the exception applies to you ("but I have this out of state permit and was in my car"). If you fail to prove the exception, well--you've admitted to the illegal act! Cuidado!)
    ...SNIP
    First off, the real point that we both agree on is that car carry in IL for non-residents is all but useless except for a very few specific situations that are really only likely in more urban areas where most permit holders are going to a be a bit more cautious in their use of a firearm due to an increase likelihood of collateral damage.

    Your example, however, isn't quite right. In order to attack the state's attempt to convict someone of carrying a firearm one doesn't have to admit to the act. The evidence gets to speak for itself as to what occurred. One can attack the state's choice to detain, arrest, and charge a person by showing the exception. Think of it this way: there is a list of all possible actions any person could perform. In that group there is a group of actions that are legally prohibited. The state's responsibility, once it decided to prosecute someone is to prove the actions the state claims a person did are in the group of actions that are legally prohibited and not merely in the list of all possible actions. I'll give an example:

    Pretty much any person can go fishing. It is prohibited to fish without a license. If the state wants to prosecute a person for fishing without a license they need to provide evidence of that person fishing and that person not having a license at the date/time they were fishing. So, to defend against a charge the person could simply show a fishing license that was valid at the date/time they are being prosecuted for fishing without a valid license. That alone is their defense: they couldn't have been fishing without a license because they had a license. They don't have to prove they weren't fishing. They don't have to mention fishing at all, just that they had a valid fishing license.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •