CC in Illinois

[openryan]

imported post

Disclaimer: I am not promoting carrying in IL or Chicago for that matter. I am simply posting my experience for the enjoyment of others...

Had to go to Chicago today with the girlfriend, I oc'ed to the gas station, where someone asked me "Is that real" I replied "Yes." She mutters "puuuuuud." This was before crossing into Illinois

We had to travel through a couple rough patches so I cc through the and down town in the loop. I was cc'ing, not one person gave a weird look, no police encounters, nothing of any type. I walked around in excess of 2 hours.

I carry a S&W Sigma 9mm, so its not a 'pocket gun', I carried in a IWB holster.

I would not have done this withy anyone else, my girlfriend was aware of my carrying.

 

[lockman]

imported post

openryan wrote:

Disclaimer: I am not promoting carrying in IL or Chicago for that matter. I am simply posting my experience for the enjoyment of others...

Had to go to Chicago today with the girlfriend, I oc'ed to the gas station, where someone asked me "Is that real" I replied "Yes." She mutters "puuuuuud." This was before crossing into Illinois

We had to travel through a couple rough patches so I cc through the and down town in the loop. I was cc'ing, not one person gave a weird look, no police encounters, nothing of any type. I walked around in excess of 2 hours.

I carry a S&W Sigma 9mm, so its not a 'pocket gun', I carried in a IWB holster.

I would not have done this withy anyone else, my girlfriend was aware of my carrying.

Did you take in the Sears Tower skydeck I hear it is a great view and an experience you will never forget!:lol:

 

[openryan]

imported post

Heh no, I have more common sense than that !

 

[unrequited]

imported post

I thought CC in Illinois was restricted to "fanny pack carry" where the holster is in a fully enclosed container (fanny pack) with ammo separate from gun (any other pocket is fine). IWB though?

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

1. I don't blame you for doing it, but I'm not adventurous enough to do something like that.

2. I wouldn't be talking about it on the internet, or anywhere else for that matter.

 

[openryan]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

1. I don't blame you for doing it, but I'm not adventurous enough to do something like that.

2. I wouldn't be talking about it on the internet, or anywhere else for that matter.

1) I truly was not trying to be adventurous, but the areas I went through were very bad. At one point I had a kid beating on my window trying to sell me skittles and bottled water.

2)I am not sure what the statue of limitations is on this--but I could say with reasonable certainty that they could not prove me guilty after the fact.

I simply posted this for the enjoyment of others, as well as anyone who weighs the risks and benefits of such activities and feels they need to carry, they might be able to weigh this as well.

By no means is this a 'good' idea. But sometimes one may feel it necessary, and I was aware of the areas we were going, and why we were going there. I was not trying to 'show' anyone how bad I am

I know you didn't address this in the post, I am just trying to clarify my motive...

 

[HankT]

imported post

openryan wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

1. I don't blame you for doing it, but I'm not adventurous enough to do something like that.

2. I wouldn't be talking about it on the internet, or anywhere else for that matter.

1) I truly was not trying to be adventurous, but the areas I went through were very bad. At one point I had a kid beating on my window trying to sell me skittles and bottled water.

2)I am not sure what the statue of limitations is on this--but I could say with reasonable certainty that they could not prove me guilty after the fact.

I simply posted this for the enjoyment of others, as well as anyone who weighs the risks and benefits of such activities and feels they need to carry, they might be able to weigh this as well.

By no means is this a 'good' idea. But sometimes one may feel it necessary, and I was aware of the areas we were going, and why we were going there. I was not trying to 'show' anyone how bad I am

I know you didn't address this in the post, I am just trying to clarify my motive...

I think your motives included just wilfully breaking the law because you estimated that the benefit was greater than the risk. That's up to you. That's your judgment.

Butyour risk analysis of postingpublicly what you did and whyyou did is very poor. Anyone can read this forum and people like Citizen, Hawkflyer, et al.,have pointed out that antis read this forum too. Hawk has opined that when someone posts something as you did, it's up to the other forum members to either remain silent (arguably tacit approval) or post an objection or remonstration of it. I choose the latter.

You, being amember of the gun-rights/carry community are an example to all-- of the kind of person who justrationalizes theclear breaking of applicable (thoughobjectionable) law. You do it because you want to. And because you can.

I think the antis, LE, MMMers, press media, and any other critical analysts out therecan fairly conclude that you will violate any law that you don't particularly like--if you think the chance is good that you'll get away with it. I think all those folks can also conclude that since you are part of this owner/carry community that you just might berepresentative ofthe rest of us. The former is your business. The latter mine. I think your posting what you did was poor judgment and you hurt my gun-rights just a little bit.

The last time I went through Chicago I went through some poor neighborhoods. Even jogged through some. I could have had my gun with me. It would have been easy. I elected not to take it with me. The downtown/loop isn't particularly dangerous by the way. It used to be, many years ago.

Another btw...what the helldoes a "kid beating on my window trying to sell me skittles and bottled water" have to do with danger? That's just a kid beating on your window trying to sell you some skittles and bottled water." It's not dangerous.

 

[openryan]

imported post

Well HankT, let me ask you this...

The post where the airman had been shot, which I believe you commented on (I am not sure) The guy could not have his gun there.

Had he had his gun and shot the person, would think think of him as a bad gun owner? I am comfortable with obtaining a gun charge to know that my life is safe.

 

[openryan]

imported post

unrequited wrote:

I thought CC in Illinois was restricted to "fanny pack carry" where the holster is in a fully enclosed container (fanny pack) with ammo separate from gun (any other pocket is fine). IWB though?

You are right, the ammo has to be seperate from a gun, so fanny pack is the easiest way to go about it. I chose a different way.

 

[HankT]

imported post

openryan wrote:

Well HankT, let me ask you this...

The post where the airman had been shot, which I believe you commented on (I am not sure) The guy could not have his gun there.

Had he had his gun and shot the person, would think think of him as a bad gun owner?

Sorry. Don't know what you are talking about.


openryan wrote:

I am comfortable with obtaining a gun charge to know that my life is safe.

I think no one would disagree with your motivation.

But that wasn't the point of my post. If you read it thoroughly, you'll see what the point was.

BTW, what was the "kid beating on my window trying to sell me skittles and bottled water" thing all about? I did not quite get that.

 

[psmartin]

imported post

openryan wrote:

Disclaimer: I am not promoting carrying in IL or Chicago for that matter. I am simply posting my experience for the enjoyment of others...

Sara Brady & Paul Helmke are having joygasms reading this.

It seems irresponsible to be posting about illegal carry. Only the rich/famous/politically-connected are able to break laws in this country, the rest of us are thrown under the bus.

I personally don't see anything wrong with carry in other states if I'm allowed to lawfully carry in my home state, but the law is the law... So when I go to D.C., the gun in locked in the car safe, and the ammo is locked in the trunk.

 

[openryan]

imported post

Well let me try to clarify some points here.

HankT -- I should have clarified this better as in regard to the kid who was beating on my window trying to sell me candy and water. I had pulled up to a stoplight, where kids ~15 or 16 were selling candy and bottled water. These peddlers were not marked as to what orginization they were with, just wearing plain street clothes. I shook my head no as to motion to them that I was uninterested in purchasing their refreshments. Only after this fact did the kid on the other side of the car beat on the window with a bottle of water (I am unaware of why he did this)

Secondly, I can understand the concern for anti's using this as 'evidence' of unlawful firearm possesion, and a lack of responsibility (although protecting myself and loved ones is a whole different set of responsibilities). There is no way I believe I could be successfully prosecuted or linked to an act of which I solely publicized on the interent, after the fact that it had taken place. There is no evidence that this story is even true.

Butyour risk analysis of postingpublicly what you did and whyyou did is very poor. Anyone can read this forum and people like Citizen, Hawkflyer, et al.,have pointed out that antis read this forum too. Hawk has opined that when someone posts something as you did, it's up to the other forum members to either remain silent (arguably tacit approval) or post an objection or remonstration of it. I choose the latter. HankT

I think that this would be poor ammunition for anti's to use. There are much better, concrete examples that they can use. Although it is publicly posted, and it is an illegal act, and may even be not the best way to convey this information, I did. I really don't have a lot to say about this point you made, as I can agree with you on the whole. But I do think this information can be valuable.

openryan wrote:

Well HankT, let me ask you this...

The post where the airman had been shot, which I believe you commented on (I am not sure) The guy could not have his gun there.

Had he had his gun and shot the person, would think think of him as a bad gun owner?

Sorry. Don't know what you are talking about. (HankT)

The post related to a Soldier who was shot. Who could have carried a pistol but did not bring it with due to the illegality. I couldn't find the post, but if someone can cite this for me, please do.

Basically, I would rather be alive and in prison or fighting a gun charge, than shot, or dead. I think most can agree on this, as well as you.

Again, I regret that some of you may take my post in vein. But I truly believe that certain laws are too restrictive on protection of self and loved ones. I weighed the risks well before hand.

HankT--Is your point of the post to negate my public posting of this matter, or the act itself. I am sure you won't answer this, as if you only negated my posting, you would indirectly agree that sometimes the risks are great enough to bypass a certain law.

 

[unrequited]

imported post

psmartin wrote:

So when I go to D.C., the gun in locked in the car safe, and the ammo is locked in the trunk.

Legally, that's still illegal, as peaceable journey means you're not stopping... if there's a chance at ALL I'm going to D.C. for the day the gun stays at home.

Albeit, there'd be no way they could ever force a search on your car without otherwise first suspecting you of something else... but...

 

[cato]

imported post

I have no qualms about civil disobedience over an issue so fundamental the exercise of whichhas been abasic human right for all time and more specifically pre-datedand existed before the founding of our Constitution. I have the privilege of carrying nation wide. I would do soeven without that privilege.

I quote from Parker vs DC decisionpages 20-21: http://www.saf.org/dc.lawsuit/parker.decision.pdf

"The wording of the operative clause also indicates that the right to keep and bear arms was not created by government, but rather preserved by it. Hence, the Amendment acknowledges “the right . . . to keep and bear Arms,” a right that pre-existed the Constitution like “the freedom of speech.” Because the right to arms existed prior to the formation of the new government,see Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 280 (1897) (describing the origin of the Bill of Rights in English law), the Second Amendment only guarantees that the right “shall not be infringed.” Thomas Cooley, in his influential treatise, observed that the Second Amendment had its origins in the struggle with the Stuart monarchs in late-seventeenth-century England."

 

[junglebob]

imported post

I was talking about concealed carry with an officer in a small town in southern Illinois. It started with me asking him about any local ordinances on transportation of firearms. He said there weren't any. We talked a little about concealed carry and he said that the states attorney can issue a CCW permit that is good in his county. Has anyone heard of this? If so are there restrictions other than age and lack of criminal record on who he can issue to? Where is this authority given in Illinois statutes if this is so?

 

[lockman]

imported post

He can issue it if he wants but that will not prevent the state or local police from charging on a state charge for UUW. The permit would have to accompany credentials as an LEO or "peace officer" with the training requirements for LEO's satisfied.

 

[DreQo]

imported post

cato wrote:

I have no qualms about civil disobedience over an issue so fundamental the exercise of whichhas been abasic human right for all time and more specifically pre-datedand existed before the founding of our Constitution. I have the privilege of carrying nation wide. I would do soeven without that privilege.

I quote from Parker vs DC decisionpages 20-21: http://www.saf.org/dc.lawsuit/parker.decision.pdf

"The wording of the operative clause also indicates that the right to keep and bear arms was not created by government, but rather preserved by it. Hence, the Amendment acknowledges “the right . . . to keep and bear Arms,” a right that pre-existed the Constitution like “the freedom of speech.” Because the right to arms existed prior to the formation of the new government,see Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 280 (1897) (describing the origin of the Bill of Rights in English law), the Second Amendment only guarantees that the right “shall not be infringed.” Thomas Cooley, in his influential treatise, observed that the Second Amendment had its origins in the struggle with the Stuart monarchs in late-seventeenth-century England."

Well said. Ya know I wonder what would happen if every gun carrier in the country said screw it and just started carrying everywhere, always. It is our right, after all. Talk about civil disobedience lol.

Here's a question on this subject. Has there ever been a case where one has been charged with illegally carrying a firearm, and they argued that it was their constitutional right? Forgive me if this topic has already been discussed lol.