close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

IL carry on owned rental property

Discussion in 'Carry Issues' started by Liqud8tr, Jan 4, 2013.

  1. Liqud8tr

    Liqud8tr

    4
    0
    Oct 25, 2011
    I have a valid Illinois FOID card and own several apartment buildings.

    Is it legal for me to concealed/open carry while on rental property that I own?

    Thanks in advance for your help.
     
  2. Gunnut 45/454

    Gunnut 45/454

    12,129
    9
    Jun 20, 2002
    Does IL law allow you to carry in your own home? In other words you need to read IL law and find out! Seeing that they charge you for defending yourself in your own home I doupt it!:whistling:
     

  3. RPVG

    RPVG

    672
    0
    Oct 6, 2012
    Orlando, FL
    That's what I was thinking. However, these apartments are not his own home. They're someone else's home.
     
  4. isp2605

    isp2605

    1,533
    40
    Oct 2, 2002
    IL
    Instead of people speculating or offerring opinions that have no basis in law, why don't they read the IL statute before making posts:

    (720 ILCS 5/24-1)
    Sec. 24-1. Unlawful Use of Weapons.
    (a) A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowingly:
    (4) Carries or possesses in any vehicle or concealed on or about his person except when on his land or in his own abode, legal dwelling, or fixed place of business, or on the land or in the legal dwelling of another person as an invitee with that person's permission, any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm,
     
  5. Kanrok

    Kanrok

    2
    0
    Mar 13, 2012
    I would say no.

    The salient statute states as follows:
    "(a) A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowingly:...
    ...(4) Carries or possesses in any vehicle or concealed on or about his person except when on his land or in his abode or fixed place of business any pistol, revolver...or other firearm."
    (See 720 ILCS 5/24-1).

    There are very few appellate cases interpreting what "fixed place of business" means under this statute.

    There is a federal court decision right on point. See Marshall v. Walker, 958 F.Supp. 359 (N.D. Ill., 1997).

    You can read the decision here: http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/marshall_v_walker.txt

    Essentially, the federal district court, interpreting Illinois law concluded that an apartment building was not a "fixed place of business" under Illinois law.

    The court similarly concluded that the person carrying the gun was not "on his land" under Illinois law.

    Hence an apartment building is not a place where you can carry a weapon.

    While this case is not binding on state courts in Illinois (the courts where unlawful use of weapons charges would be heard), it can be used as persuasive authority.

    Bottom line, wait until the state legislature straightens out the concealed carry law in Illinois before attempting to carry at your apartment building.

    The safest course of action is not to be the test case.
     
  6. Bren

    Bren NRA Life Member

    43,419
    10,960
    Jan 16, 2005
    Kentucky
    How he's getting to the rental property without violating that may be aniother issue.
     
  7. isp2605

    isp2605

    1,533
    40
    Oct 2, 2002
    IL
    Not exactly. Read it again. In re case Marshall was either in a parking lot or alley, the court did not know but speculated he was on public easement, but he wasn't within the building at the time.

    IL law is clear in that regard. Unloaded and in a case.
     
  8. steveksux

    steveksux Massive Member

    20,008
    2,120
    Jul 12, 2007
    That makes more sense he wasn't in the building. Can't imagine how an apartment building you own would not be a "fixed place of business" unless you're rental empire consists of mobile homes in a trailer park...

    Seems somewhat like a catch 22 though. Can he get from unloaded and locked in a case in the car to loaded and inside the building without breaking the law. Can you carry the pistol unloaded in a case through the parking lot?

    Randy
     
  9. isp2605

    isp2605

    1,533
    40
    Oct 2, 2002
    IL
    Not so much is place of business exception but more so the exception " except when on his land..."
    As long as it's unloaded and in a case to his property it meets IL statute. Once on his property then he meets the exception in (a)(4).
     
  10. Gunnut 45/454

    Gunnut 45/454

    12,129
    9
    Jun 20, 2002
    isp2605
    But if he used it to defend himself he would be prosecuted! Just like the Old guy in ****cago! Defending himself in his own home! And the Federal court said -rentals are not personal property! As been said he'd be better off waiting for the CCW law or better yet when the legistlature fails to do it's job Constituional carry! As we've seen lately though they are working on making must carry weapons illegal to own so it might be a mute point!:whistling:
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2013
  11. isp2605

    isp2605

    1,533
    40
    Oct 2, 2002
    IL
    Really? And you know this how? How many shooting cases have you investigated? How many complaints have you filed? How many times have you been to court on such cases? Just curious if you really know or if you're just parroting a lot of internet BS that you've read and believed. Let's stick with facts and not interject unsubstantiated personal comments that have no basis of fact in the real world. Just because you think something doesn't make it true. Case history will prove you wrong.

    Are you referring to the case where the resident had an unregistered firearm he used to protect his home and the court ruled that even tho the weapon was not legally registered the homeowner could not be prosecuted for the unregistered weapon? That case? So what's your point? He wasn't prosecuted and the court sided with him. So did the legislature later on.
    Before citing a vague reference to a case you really should understand the case and the outcome.

    You need to read the Marshall case again. In re case Marshall was found by the court to be on public easement, either a parking lot or alley.
    In Marshall he was not prosecuted. The re case was not a criminal case but a civil suit. You do understand the difference don't you? Maybe not. Marshall brought the civil suit which, to simplify, alleged the officers did not have probable cause to arrest him. The burden of proof was on Marshall to present the reasons why he believed he should not have been arrested. If you read the ruling again you'll see there were several times the court made reference to Marshall could have said this or that but didn't. Basically what the court was saying is Marshall's attorney could have used other arguments which might have been more valid than the ones filed.

    I know legal cases are difficult for the ininitiated to understand and when people who don't have a clue about the legal system, but think they do because they watch TV, try reading them they interject erroneous information and think they know what they're talking about.
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2013
  12. Kanrok

    Kanrok

    2
    0
    Mar 13, 2012
    From the Marshall case:
    "Plaintiff claims that he was at the rear of his building and
    that defendants threw him onto a car. It may be that he was in the
    alley adjoining his building. If he was in the alley or on any land
    to which a public easement applied, clearly, the "on his land"
    exception would not apply. See Carter, supra; West, supra, See
    also People v. Marrow, 210 Mich.App. 455, 534 N.W.2d 153, 156-57
    (1995), aff'd, 554 N.W.2d 901 (Mich. 1996) (portion of the driveway
    of defendant's home to which a public easement applied is not "his
    home" or "other land he possesses"). It's possible, however, that
    plaintiff was in a parking lot or on land adjacent to the building,
    but not within an alley or other public easement. Construing the
    alleged facts in plaintiffs favor, this must be assumed to be true.
    The only reasonable inference to draw, however, is that plaintiff
    was in an area with open access to the public easement. It
    certainly was an area open to the tenants of his building. In light
    of the purposes of the statute and the narrow construction that has
    been given to the exceptions, it is believed that Illinois courts
    would hold that the exception did not apply."


    Again, this is a federal court decision and is not binding on Illinois state courts. It is persuasive authority.

    Bottom line, I would not be advising rental property owners to carry weapons at their rentals. Too much wiggle room. So to answer the OP's question, I would not advise carrying your weapon at your rental property. That is, unless you wish to be a test case. Especially in Chicago and the collar counties. Wait until the CC law gets straightened out. That is all.