-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
OK Then, I will be going back to the old way.
Leaving my guns at home.
BTW It is my understanding of Chicago law that it is a gun free zone.
No guns. No excuses. Even locked in the trunk in a lock box will not help you avoid a firearms violation while in the city limits.
Is that true?
GuyRelford
Master
I have never read Chicago's laws specifically so I can't answer that, but I have heard something similar. Nonetheless, the "Notwithstanding" clause of the Gun Owners Protection Act ("Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof,") should protect you if you're just passing through Chicago, and are otherwise in compliance with the federal statute. Of course, that doesn't mean that you won't get arrested by a well-meaning LEO who just doesn't understand federal law. (Or prosecuted by a politically-motivated local DA who doesn't care.)
hammeralan
Plinker
If it is legal then I will always be carrying but if it is not then I won't, its just that simple for me. So in IL I would never. There is just to much risk that you might get caught. Plus the reason I carry is for protection and if I would actually have to protect myself there then I would go to jail anyways. I just can't justifiy it.
I take a handgun into Illinois EVERY DAY.
However, I remove the magazine and the round from the chamber. I put the ammo in my glove box. I put the gun in a small SAFE that is locked and out of reach.
My morning drive takes me from Indiana to Illinois and then back into Indiana. I reverse that commute to go home.
It is my understanding that I am complying with the federal safe transport laws.
GuyRelford
Master
Here's the federal statute - the Gun Owners Protection Act of 1986:
"18 USC § 926A. Interstate transportation of firearms
Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console."
Thanks for the actual wording.
Looks like I need to store the ammo in someplace OTHER than the glove box!
Otherwise it appears that my procedures are within the federal guidelines.
This is the safe I use:
Looks like I need to store the ammo in someplace OTHER than the glove box!
Otherwise it appears that my procedures are within the federal guidelines.
This is the safe I use:
greyhound47
Expert
I used to work in a max security prison. There was nothing about that place that made me want to go there as an inmate. heck no I would not carry in IL. IL has lost money too because I tend to not go anywhere where I can be legally disarmed.
I see many people saying" I wouldn't break the law" carrying in Illinois is unlawful...nope, I wouldn't do it. I have a question? Do you ever speed? Did you ever go through a red light that you thought was too long? Did you ever drive home after drinking...when you know you shouldn't be driving?
The list goes on..and on. I lived in Illinois till about 5 years ago and all I am saying is you do what you feel is necessary.
The list goes on..and on. I lived in Illinois till about 5 years ago and all I am saying is you do what you feel is necessary.
No, they're not. Your journey originates in Indiana in the morning and ends in Illinois where you are not legal to possess. Your only purpose in being in Illinois must be travelling or stops incidental to travelling for FOPA to apply. Any other purpose, such as work or play, takes you out of FOPA protection.
Last edited:
PatMcGroyne
Sharpshooter
Lots of opinions. One Constitution.
No state, for ever, can trump the U.S. Constitution. Yes, they will try, as long as they can hold out, but We Have Them Surrounded.
OP: As most of you know, Illinois does not accept any other states handgun licenses/permits.
Scudder, et al:
This is not a flame. But there is only ONE Supreme Law in America, from the Atlantic, through the Pacific, up to the Aleutian Sea: The Constitution. It declares MY God-Given Right To Keep And Bear. End of discussion. Now, the discussion may be over, but the court-battle has only begun. It is totally false that the statements are mutually exclusive, in view of the fact that ONLY ONE is Constitutional, and unvarying dependent upon the whim of voters and legisliars. (sic)
To sum up some points: "Until the law is overturned, it's still the law." Nope. "By definition, if you ignore it you aren't 'law-abiding' ." Nope.
"A lot of people claim that the right to bear arms is their GOD GIVEN right, and I was wondering how many people were serious about it." I don't CLAIM to have God-given rights -- I DO have GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS!
"You can't pick and choose which laws you want to obey." NOPE. It may have to be called 'passive-aggressiveness', or 'civil disobedience', buy no-one has to obey unConstitutional 'laws.'
Yes, one CAN choose which "laws" they will obey; any latent-military here who purposfully did NOT obey a command because it was not lawful?? I did that several times between 1966 and 1968 in 'Nam. Did some Brig for that, but it was expunged and I got commended. Best "attaboy" feeling a man can have is to know that CINCPAC commends a man's actions.
Now, let us suppose I worked on AmTrak and lived in Indiana, but reported to work in Chicago. Consider this recent news-release: (( and a kind e-mail of thanks to the senators who "reached across the aisle, because of the feared 'NRA Backlash' and voted for US would be a nice gesture.))
Senate Votes to Allow Guns on Amtrak
Proposal Would Deny Railroad $1,600,000,000 Subsidy Unless
It Changes "No-Weapons" Policy Established after 2004 Madrid Train Bombings. (AP) The Senate voted Wednesday to permit passengers on the Amtrak passenger railroad to transport handguns in their checked baggage.
The proposal, approved by a 68-30 vote, seeks to give Amtrak riders rights comparable to those enjoyed by airline passengers, who are permitted to transport firearms provided that they declare they are doing so and that the arms are unloaded and in a securely locked container.
"Americans should not have their Second Amendment rights restricted for any reason, particularly if they choose to travel on America's federally subsidized rail line," said Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., who made the proposal.
Wicker's amendment would deny the railroad its $1.6 billion taxpayer subsidy unless it changes the gun policy.
Current Amtrak policy, put in place after the bombings of passenger trains in Madrid five years ago, prohibits weapons, including firearms, from being carried on its trains.
Prior to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Amtrak permitted firearms to be carried on its trains so long as they were separately secured in locked baggage or carrying cases. But it added restrictions on carrying weapons after 9/11 and imposed a total ban on all weapons after the Madrid bombings.
Wednesday's vote was the latest in a string of victories for gun rights activists in the Senate despite Democrats' sizable majority. Some 27 Democrats, including Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, voted for the amendment, many from western or southern states. Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who aligns with Democrats and is one of the chamber's most liberal members, also voted on the pro-gun rights side.
Opponents of changing the policy back, such as Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., ( WHY is this jerk still in office??) say it would be too costly and burdensome to return to the old policy. Durbin said that "Amtrak doesn't have the security infrastructure, the processes or the trained personnel in place to ensure that checked firearms would not be lost, damaged, stolen or misused." ((So just give an out-of-work sky-marshal a ticket to ride!))
The chief author of the underlying transportation appropriations bill, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said implementing the policy would be too costly.
"Amtrak would have six months to build a process for checking and tracking firearms. It would have to find the manpower necessary to screen and guard firearms and it would have to purchase the equipment necessary," Murray said. "If they do not comply, Amtrak will shut down."
Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said he "doesn't have problems with people transporting guns on trains so long as steps are taken to make sure they're secured and properly stowed."
He added that some senators are eager to get back in good stead with the National Rifle Association after crossing the group by voting to confirm Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court and to defeat a proposal to permit people with concealed weapons permits to carry hidden guns outside their home states.
No state, for ever, can trump the U.S. Constitution. Yes, they will try, as long as they can hold out, but We Have Them Surrounded.
OP: As most of you know, Illinois does not accept any other states handgun licenses/permits.
Scudder, et al:
This is not a flame. But there is only ONE Supreme Law in America, from the Atlantic, through the Pacific, up to the Aleutian Sea: The Constitution. It declares MY God-Given Right To Keep And Bear. End of discussion. Now, the discussion may be over, but the court-battle has only begun. It is totally false that the statements are mutually exclusive, in view of the fact that ONLY ONE is Constitutional, and unvarying dependent upon the whim of voters and legisliars. (sic)
To sum up some points: "Until the law is overturned, it's still the law." Nope. "By definition, if you ignore it you aren't 'law-abiding' ." Nope.
"A lot of people claim that the right to bear arms is their GOD GIVEN right, and I was wondering how many people were serious about it." I don't CLAIM to have God-given rights -- I DO have GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS!
"You can't pick and choose which laws you want to obey." NOPE. It may have to be called 'passive-aggressiveness', or 'civil disobedience', buy no-one has to obey unConstitutional 'laws.'
Yes, one CAN choose which "laws" they will obey; any latent-military here who purposfully did NOT obey a command because it was not lawful?? I did that several times between 1966 and 1968 in 'Nam. Did some Brig for that, but it was expunged and I got commended. Best "attaboy" feeling a man can have is to know that CINCPAC commends a man's actions.
Now, let us suppose I worked on AmTrak and lived in Indiana, but reported to work in Chicago. Consider this recent news-release: (( and a kind e-mail of thanks to the senators who "reached across the aisle, because of the feared 'NRA Backlash' and voted for US would be a nice gesture.))
Senate Votes to Allow Guns on Amtrak
Proposal Would Deny Railroad $1,600,000,000 Subsidy Unless
It Changes "No-Weapons" Policy Established after 2004 Madrid Train Bombings. (AP) The Senate voted Wednesday to permit passengers on the Amtrak passenger railroad to transport handguns in their checked baggage.
The proposal, approved by a 68-30 vote, seeks to give Amtrak riders rights comparable to those enjoyed by airline passengers, who are permitted to transport firearms provided that they declare they are doing so and that the arms are unloaded and in a securely locked container.
"Americans should not have their Second Amendment rights restricted for any reason, particularly if they choose to travel on America's federally subsidized rail line," said Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., who made the proposal.
Wicker's amendment would deny the railroad its $1.6 billion taxpayer subsidy unless it changes the gun policy.
Current Amtrak policy, put in place after the bombings of passenger trains in Madrid five years ago, prohibits weapons, including firearms, from being carried on its trains.
Prior to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Amtrak permitted firearms to be carried on its trains so long as they were separately secured in locked baggage or carrying cases. But it added restrictions on carrying weapons after 9/11 and imposed a total ban on all weapons after the Madrid bombings.
Wednesday's vote was the latest in a string of victories for gun rights activists in the Senate despite Democrats' sizable majority. Some 27 Democrats, including Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, voted for the amendment, many from western or southern states. Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who aligns with Democrats and is one of the chamber's most liberal members, also voted on the pro-gun rights side.
Opponents of changing the policy back, such as Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., ( WHY is this jerk still in office??) say it would be too costly and burdensome to return to the old policy. Durbin said that "Amtrak doesn't have the security infrastructure, the processes or the trained personnel in place to ensure that checked firearms would not be lost, damaged, stolen or misused." ((So just give an out-of-work sky-marshal a ticket to ride!))
The chief author of the underlying transportation appropriations bill, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said implementing the policy would be too costly.
"Amtrak would have six months to build a process for checking and tracking firearms. It would have to find the manpower necessary to screen and guard firearms and it would have to purchase the equipment necessary," Murray said. "If they do not comply, Amtrak will shut down."
Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said he "doesn't have problems with people transporting guns on trains so long as steps are taken to make sure they're secured and properly stowed."
He added that some senators are eager to get back in good stead with the National Rifle Association after crossing the group by voting to confirm Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court and to defeat a proposal to permit people with concealed weapons permits to carry hidden guns outside their home states.
MyGlockRocks19
Expert
The Constitutionality of Illinois's firearms laws aside (I also think they're unconstitutional)....they are laws, and until they are found as such they remain in force. I won't carry in Illinois....in fact, I'll simply not go to that state so it never becomes an issue.
A state that requires you to have an ID card just to own a gun....they must get their legislation by the crate, straight off the Failboat.
Now, if some rich gun owner with plenty of cash for legal fees wants to do so, and become a test case....I'll send them a nice thank you card when the laws ARE struck down. But a broke *** guy like me doesn't have the liquidity to fight such a battle.
A state that requires you to have an ID card just to own a gun....they must get their legislation by the crate, straight off the Failboat.
Now, if some rich gun owner with plenty of cash for legal fees wants to do so, and become a test case....I'll send them a nice thank you card when the laws ARE struck down. But a broke *** guy like me doesn't have the liquidity to fight such a battle.
PatMcGroyne
Sharpshooter
Dear GlockRock. " Now, if some rich gun owner with plenty of cash for legal fees wants to do so, and become a test case....I'll send them a nice thank you card when the laws ARE struck down. But a broke *** guy like me doesn't have the liquidity to fight such a battle."
Spoken like a real guy I DON'T want at MY six!!!! Ever hear of the power of numbers? Worked in organizing MLKs Street-sweepers and House-maids and Bell-boys in the 50s and 60s. What makes you think I don't care as much about YOUR rights as I do MY OWN!!?!? I'mnot rich either, getting along on >$1100/mo. But it is the 1000s of men like me who paid for your rights (Sorry; I don't know how old you are) who MUST hang together in the escalation to 2010, or we'll all hang alone when the 1st & 2d amendments are shredded. THIS IS WHAT I MEAN: if sufficient ILINI (let's call them 'militia-men') literally overwhelmed the system, determined to get THROUGH it, something would be done. First, hypocritical politicians would get called what they are: traitors to the Constitution. The new legislators would take their places (Ten years, at the longest) and THEN the unConstitutional "law" would be stricken. I probanly won't be here then, but I'll arrange for a special bolt-of-lightning to be sent to the dome of the state-house. How many men here are willing to forsake their "six" and go for the prize?? Pat.
Spoken like a real guy I DON'T want at MY six!!!! Ever hear of the power of numbers? Worked in organizing MLKs Street-sweepers and House-maids and Bell-boys in the 50s and 60s. What makes you think I don't care as much about YOUR rights as I do MY OWN!!?!? I'mnot rich either, getting along on >$1100/mo. But it is the 1000s of men like me who paid for your rights (Sorry; I don't know how old you are) who MUST hang together in the escalation to 2010, or we'll all hang alone when the 1st & 2d amendments are shredded. THIS IS WHAT I MEAN: if sufficient ILINI (let's call them 'militia-men') literally overwhelmed the system, determined to get THROUGH it, something would be done. First, hypocritical politicians would get called what they are: traitors to the Constitution. The new legislators would take their places (Ten years, at the longest) and THEN the unConstitutional "law" would be stricken. I probanly won't be here then, but I'll arrange for a special bolt-of-lightning to be sent to the dome of the state-house. How many men here are willing to forsake their "six" and go for the prize?? Pat.
MyGlockRocks19
Expert
I'm 27, and the very LAST thing I need is a felony charge hanging over my head.
If you're talking about an organized protest or movement, that changes the situation a bit. But what I'm NOT going to do, is cross the state line into Illinois by myself, and try to convince them that I have a right not to abide by their laws.
You intimated that you'd served in our armed forces...well, as a former soldier, I don't have to explain to you the stupidity of taking on a numerically superior force that has a tactical advantage....the politicians and leftists would hold the theoretical high ground against a lone citizen, unless he had a LOT of money available for his legal defense, OR a large organization at his back.
Just because I wouldn't potentially throw my freedom away to prove a point doesn't mean I'd be a bad guy to have at your six....I just know the usefulness of picking your battles, and picking how and where you fight them. Yes, the laws are unconstitutional, and yes the politicians are corrupt traitors...but they'll not be moved without a significant amount of effort, on the part of a great number of people.....not my punk ***, alone, with a pocket copy of the Constitution.
You're right about one thing....the power of numbers. Thats how change is effected. But I'll tell you this....I'm not putting MY *** on the line for the citizens of the state of Illinois, unless they're willing to do the same. If they want to organize to oppose this, I'll support them....but they don't seem to be too interested in doing that right now.
So you don't have an IN CHL permit either huh?
If you would please read the first post, it will be clear that I am not.
No way, Jose! The legal hell would just be too expensive and life-changing. I won't even think of having a gun in the trunk disassembled while in Chicago because it won't do me any good for one, and it could get stolen for another. I very seldom visit other parts of Illinois and when I do it's only for brief periods so I don't carry there either.
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
d.kaufmanStill Here -
Cameramonkeywww.thechosen.tv
Members online
- d.kaufman
- Gascitykid
- LokhXIV
- nhgluff
- jtmiller951
- ws6guy
- Mr. Habib
- Indianajeff
- Demoderb1989
- tsilveus
- Cameramonkey
- Gabriel
- Emerson Dambiggins
- SomeOld Guy
- patience0830
- Mfoster20
- rbhargan
- Cavman
- Snapdragon
- carsgunsandgirls
- maxipum
- Longhair
- gpasp101
- abeguzmanmarine
- Wolfhound
- Principal Skinr
- darkkevin
- DeadeyeChrista'sdad
- hereforthecootbash
- jt1975
- jcole123
- mmpsteve
- joshf63a
- indyblue
- Gena_Allen
- CPE1704TKS
- Defensive Shooting Concepts
- Jmtbug21
- Will0369
- MC1983
- KG1
- Altrex
- radar8756
- MrSmitty
- loudgroove
- Phil502
- ancjr
- Doug28450
- INPatriot
- bobzilla