Illinois Gun Laws Pamphlet. Marxist Malapropisms, or How to Beat a Concealed Carry Rap.

Illi­nois Gun Laws Pam­phlet. Marx­ist Mala­propisms, or How to Beat a Con­cealed Carry Rap.

Con­trol! The govt. oozes lies and mis­lead­ing pro­pa­ganda to make you believe they con­trol you. I saw a link to the Illi­nois Gun Laws pam­phlet, and decided to take a look at the usual pap dis­sem­i­nated by “Com­mon ques­tions and answers” pub­li­ca­tions. Let’s take a look at this:

First. we are directed to CRIMINAL OFFENSES
(720 ILCS 5/) Crim­i­nal Code of 1961.
We must look to the def­i­n­i­tions sec­tion to under­stand what, and whom, we are seek­ing to reg­u­late or punish:

(720 ILCS 5/Art. 2 head­ing)
ARTICLE 2. GENERAL DEFINITIONS

(720 ILCS 5/2‑0.5) (was 720 ILCS 5/2‑.5)
Sec. 2‑0.5. For the pur­poses of this Code, the words and phrases described in this Arti­cle have the mean­ings des­ig­nated in this Arti­cle, except when a par­tic­u­lar con­text clearly requires a dif­fer­ent mean­ing.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)

(720 ILCS 5/2‑7.1)
Sec. 2‑7.1. “Firearm” and “firearm ammu­ni­tion”. “Firearm” and “firearm ammu­ni­tion” have the mean­ings ascribed to them in Sec­tion 1.1 of the Firearm Own­ers Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion Card Act.
(Source: P.A. 91‑544, eff. 1‑1‑00.)

The Firearm Own­ers Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion Act is lim­ited in scope, and falls within the author­ity of the “Police Power” of the State. I dis­cuss police power in one of my pre­vi­ous posts, but keep in mind that it is NOT con­sti­tu­tion­ally derived power, but rather assumed power for the state to reg­u­late for the health, safety, wel­fare, and morals of the cit­i­zens as such may per­tain to “com­mer­cial activ­i­ties”. For instance, look­ing at the FOID act, we see that all of the objects of the reg­u­la­tion per­tain to the com­mer­cial acts of sell­ing or buy­ing firearms. Look at the word­ing care­fully. I’ll empha­size with CAPS:

(430 ILCS 65/1) (from Ch. 38, par. 83‑1)
Sec. 1. It is hereby declared as a mat­ter of leg­isla­tive deter­mi­na­tion that in order to pro­mote and pro­tect the health, safety and wel­fare of the pub­lic, it is nec­es­sary and in the pub­lic inter­est to pro­vide a sys­tem of iden­ti­fy­ing per­sons who are not qual­i­fied to acquire or pos­sess firearms, firearm ammu­ni­tion, stun guns, and tasers within the State of Illi­nois by the estab­lish­ment of a sys­tem of Firearm Owner’s Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion Cards, thereby estab­lish­ing a prac­ti­cal and work­able sys­tem by which law enforce­ment author­i­ties will be afforded an oppor­tu­nity to iden­tify those per­sons who are pro­hib­ited by Sec­tion 24‑3.1 of the “Crim­i­nal Code of 1961″, as amended, from acquir­ing or pos­sess­ing firearms and firearm ammu­ni­tion and who are pro­hib­ited by this Act from acquir­ing stun guns and tasers.
(Source: P.A. 94‑6, eff. 1‑1‑06.) — ALL THIS DOES IS PROVIDE FOR A SYSTEM FOR IDENTIFYING, BUT DOES MAKE IMPOSE ANY REQUIREMENT FOR LICENSING OR REGISTERING. ALSO, IT PROVIDES A SYSTEM OF IDENTIFYING PERSONS WHO ARE NOT QUALIFIED, AS OPPOSED TO WHO IS QUALIFIED. THIS IS TO SAY, THAT YOUR NATURAL RIGHT TO POSSESS THE MEANS TO PROVIDE FOR YOUR PROTECTION HAS BEEN REPLACED WITH THE PRESUMPTION THAT YOU ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO POSSESS FIREARMS. BY THAT FACT, YOUR APPLICATION FOR AND POSSESSION OF A FOID CARD IDENTIFIES YOU AS SOMEONE WHO IS NOT QUALIFIED, AND THERFORE NEEDING THE STATE’S PERMISSION. YOU WOULD THINK THAT POSSESSING A FOID CARD WOULD IDENTIFY YOU AS SOMEONE WHO IS QUALIFIED, BUT THE LAW IS STATING THAT POSSESSING THE FOID CARD IDENTIFIES YOU AS SOMEONE WHO IS NOT QUALIFIED.
So, who are they addressing?

“Fed­er­ally licensed firearm dealer” means a per­son who is licensed as a fed­eral firearms dealer under Sec­tion 923 of the fed­eral Gun Con­trol Act of 1968 (18 U.S.C. 923). COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY

“Gun show” includes the entire premises pro­vided for an event or func­tion, includ­ing park­ing areas for the event or func­tion, that is spon­sored to facil­i­tate the pur­chase, sale, trans­fer, or exchange of firearms as described in this Sec­tion. COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY

“Gun show ven­dor” means a per­son who exhibits, sells, offers for sale, trans­fers, or exchanges any firearms at a gun show, regard­less of whether the per­son arranges with a gun show pro­moter for a fixed loca­tion from which to exhibit, sell, offer for sale, trans­fer, or exchange any firearm. AGAIN, COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY

The FOID Act does not iden­tify or define OFFENSES com­mited pur­suant to the act, aside from a petty offense.

So, it is clear that the FOID card is a Com­mer­cial Firearms License for use within the State of Illi­nois, and does not apply to pri­vate Cit­i­zens who pos­sess their own firearms for per­sonal use and pro­tec­tion. Mov­ing on to the crim­i­nal statute.

(720 ILCS 5/1‑2) (from Ch. 38, par. 1‑2)
Sec. 1‑2. Gen­eral pur­poses. The pro­vi­sions of this Code shall be con­strued in accor­dance with the gen­eral pur­poses hereof, to:
(a) For­bid and pre­vent the com­mis­sion of offenses; THE FOID ACT DOES NOT LIST ANY OFFENSES OTHER THAN A PETTY OFFENSE, WHICH IS NOT CRIMINAL IN NATURE AND INAPPLICABALE TO THIS STATUTE.
(b) Define ade­quately the act and men­tal state which con­sti­tute each offense, and limit the con­dem­na­tion of con­duct as crim­i­nal when it is with­out fault;
© Pre­scribe penal­ties which are pro­por­tion­ate to the seri­ous­ness of offenses and which per­mit recog­ni­tion of dif­fer­ences in reha­bil­i­ta­tion pos­si­bil­i­ties among indi­vid­ual offend­ers;
(d) Pre­vent arbi­trary or oppres­sive treat­ment of per­sons accused or con­victed of offenses.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)

(720 ILCS 5/1‑3) (from Ch. 38, par. 1‑3)
Sec. 1‑3. Applic­a­bil­ity of com­mon law. No con­duct con­sti­tutes an offense unless it is described as an offense in this Code or in another statute of this State. How­ever, this pro­vi­sion does not affect the power of a court to pun­ish for con­tempt or to employ any sanc­tion autho­rized by law for the enforce­ment of an order or civil judg­ment.
(Source: P.A. 79‑1360.) AGAIN, THE FOID ACT DOES NOT DEFINE ANY OFFENSES, AND THE COMMON LAW DOES NOT APPLY DUE TO THE LACK THEREOF.

Look­ing fur­ther to the def­i­n­i­tions of (720 ILCS 5/Art. 2 head­ing)
ARTICLE 2. GENERAL DEFINITIONS

(720 ILCS 5/2‑4) (from Ch. 38, par. 2‑4)
Sec. 2‑4. “Con­duct”.
“Con­duct” means an act or a series of acts, and the accom­pa­ny­ing men­tal state.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.) SO YOU HAD A CONCEALED WEAPON. WHAT WAS YOUR MENTAL STATE AT THE TIME? TO COMMIT A CRIME, OR EXERCISE A CONSTITUTIONAL, GOD-GIVEN RIGHT? EXERCISING A RIGHT IS NOT A STATE OF MIND CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME.

(720 ILCS 5/2‑15) (from Ch. 38, par. 2‑15)
Sec. 2‑15. “Per­son”.
“Per­son” means an indi­vid­ual, pub­lic or pri­vate cor­po­ra­tion, gov­ern­ment, part­ner­ship, or unin­cor­po­rated asso­ci­a­tion.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.) THIS SHOULD BE INTERESTING. ARE YOU A PERSON? GENERALLY THE WORD INDIVIDUAL WOULD MEAN A REAL PERSON, OR PEOPLE, BUT USED WITH THE OTHER WORDS GIVES IT THE MEANING OF BEING AN ARTIFICIAL ENTITY, SUCH AS A CORPORATION OR OTHER GOVERNMENT-CREATED ENTITY. PERSON DOES NOT ALWAYS MEAN PEOPLE.

So, what con­sti­tutes a “crime”?

(720 ILCS 5/4‑2) (from Ch. 38, par. 4‑2)
Sec. 4‑2. Pos­ses­sion as vol­un­tary act.
Pos­ses­sion is a vol­un­tary act if the offender know­ingly pro­cured or received the thing pos­sessed, or was aware of his con­trol thereof for a suf­fi­cient time to have been able to ter­mi­nate his pos­ses­sion.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)

(720 ILCS 5/4‑3) (from Ch. 38, par. 4‑3)
Sec. 4‑3. Men­tal state. THIS MUST BE PROVEN IN COURT!!!
(a) A per­son is not guilty of an offense, other than an offense which involves absolute lia­bil­ity, unless, with respect to each ele­ment described by the statute defin­ing the offense, he acts while hav­ing one of the men­tal states described in Sec­tions 4‑‑4 through 4‑‑7.
(b) If the statute defin­ing an offense pre­scribed a par­tic­u­lar men­tal state with respect to the offense as a whole, with­out dis­tin­guish­ing among the ele­ments thereof, the pre­scribed men­tal state applies to each such ele­ment. If the statute does not pre­scribe a par­tic­u­lar men­tal state applic­a­ble to an ele­ment of an offense (other than an offense which involves absolute lia­bil­ity), any men­tal state defined in Sec­tions 4‑‑4, 4‑‑5 or 4‑‑6 is applic­a­ble. WE WILL LOOK AT THESE SECTIONS.
© Knowl­edge that cer­tain con­duct con­sti­tutes an offense, or knowl­edge of the exis­tence, mean­ing, or appli­ca­tion of the statute defin­ing an offense, is not an ele­ment of the offense unless the statute clearly defines it as such.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)

(720 ILCS 5/4‑4) (from Ch. 38, par. 4‑4)
Sec. 4‑4. Intent. NOPE, INTENT IS NOT MENTIONED IN THE OFFENSE SECTION.
A per­son intends, or acts inten­tion­ally or with intent, to accom­plish a result or engage in con­duct described by the statute defin­ing the offense, when his con­scious objec­tive or pur­pose is to accom­plish that result or engage in that con­duct.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.) OKAY, SO YOU INTEND TO CARRY A CONCEALED WEAPPON UNDER THE EXERCISE OF YOUR CONSTITUTIONALY PROTECTED RIGHT.

(720 ILCS 5/4‑5) (from Ch. 38, par. 4‑5)
Sec. 4‑5. Knowl­edge. THE CRIMINAL ACT STATES “KNOWINGLY”. LET’S LOOK AT “KNOWINGLY”.
A per­son knows, or acts know­ingly or with knowl­edge of:
(a) The nature or atten­dant cir­cum­stances of his con­duct, described by the statute defin­ing the offense, when he is con­sciously aware that his con­duct is of such nature or that such cir­cum­stances exist. Knowl­edge of a mate­r­ial fact includes aware­ness of the sub­stan­tial prob­a­bil­ity that such fact exists.
(b) The result of his con­duct, described by the statute defin­ing the offense, when he is con­sciously aware that such result is prac­ti­cally cer­tain to be caused by his con­duct.
Con­duct per­formed know­ingly or with knowl­edge is per­formed wil­fully, within the mean­ing of a statute using the lat­ter term, unless the statute clearly requires another mean­ing.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)

(720 ILCS 5/4‑ (from Ch. 38, par. 4‑8)
Sec. 4‑8. Igno­rance or mis­take. (a) A person’s igno­rance or mis­take as to a mat­ter of either fact or law, except as pro­vided in Sec­tion 4‑3© above, is a defense if it neg­a­tives the exis­tence of the men­tal state which the statute pre­scribes with respect to an ele­ment of the offense.
(b) A person’s rea­son­able belief that his con­duct does not con­sti­tute an offense is a defense if:
(1) The offense is defined by an admin­is­tra­tive reg­u­la­tion or order which is not known to him and has not been pub­lished or oth­er­wise made rea­son­ably avail­able to him, and he could not have acquired such knowl­edge by the exer­cise of due dili­gence pur­suant to facts known to him; or
(2) He acts in reliance upon a statute which later is deter­mined to be invalid; or
(3) He acts in reliance upon an order or opin­ion of an Illi­nois Appel­late or Supreme Court, or a United States appel­late court later over­ruled or reversed;
(4) He acts in reliance upon an offi­cial inter­pre­ta­tion of the statute, reg­u­la­tion or order defin­ing the offense, made by a pub­lic offi­cer or agency legally autho­rized to inter­pret such statute.
© Although a person’s igno­rance or mis­take of fact or law, or rea­son­able belief, described in this Sec­tion 4‑‑8 is a defense to the offense charged, he may be con­victed of an included offense of which he would be guilty if the fact or law were as he believed it to be.
(d) A defense based upon this Sec­tion 4‑‑8 is an affir­ma­tive defense.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)
IGNORANCE OR MISTAKE IS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, BASED ON THE ABOVE CONDITIONS. HOWEVER, BELIEF THAT THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS FOR THE CARRYING OR POSSESSING OF A FIREARM, EXCEPT WHERE THE POLICE POWER, WHICH APPLIES TO COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY RELATING TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY, WELFARE AND MORALS, APPLIES.

I would go into more detail, but this would make for a very lengthy post. All I can say is, read the law. All of the law. Def­i­n­i­tions and intent as well. The law does not pro­vide penal­ties for open carry, only con­cealed carry, and then under spe­cific cir­cum­stances. I think a weapons charge under this statute, based on open carry, is able to be beaten, with the proper attor­ney who actu­ally looks at the law and chal­lenges the sys­tem based on what the law says, and uses proper case law and prece­dent, avoid­ing any men­tion of United States cit­i­zen­ship or allud­ing to hav­ing engaged in a com­mer­cial activ­ity. Once you pos­sess the FOID card, and then vio­late the statute, you are nailed because pos­sess­ing the FOID card is the nexus that lends the pre­sump­tion that you are, in fact, requred to have one and there­fore engaged in a com­mer­cial activ­ity. Once you place your­self under the autor­ity of the police power, your con­sti­tu­tional rights are gone, and the U.S. cit­i­zen­ship priv­iledges apply, which do not include the sec­ond amend­ment. If any­one is inter­ested in learn­ing how U.S. cit­i­zen­ship means waiv­ing your sec­ond amend­ment rights just let me know and I’ll show you a Pow­er­Point pre­sen­ta­tion detail­ing this fact. You can also look up 14th Amend­ment and Incor­po­ra­tion Doc­trine. The Incor­po­ra­tion Doc­trine says that courts do not con­sider all of the Bill of Rights to be “fun­da­men­tal rights”, and have not con­sid­ered the sec­ond amend­ment to be a right of U.S. cit­i­zen­ship.
Is any­one ready to take up arms yet? It’s about time!