Man visiting Chicago receives 2 felony charges for possessing firearms in hotel room

[Quavodus]

I wouldn't go to Chicago and take a gun. And I wouldn't go to Chicago. I used to work with a guy that drove to NYC and took his .40 with him. He said as he was leaving, trying to get on Interstate out of the Hell Hole, guys were "washing" windshields with dirty rags. He just put his gun on dash, so the asshole could see it. He moved to next car. 

Edited July 9, 2021 by Quavodus

[chances R]

According to the USCCA reciprocity map.....dude is up Schitt Creek.  Possession of unloaded and cased weapon, rifle or handgun, may be allowed based on Hotel policy.  Same for having in vehicle for a non-resident and abscense of FOID card.

[QuackerSmacker]

6 hours ago, RED333 said:

This is just my opinion, the man’s first mistake was going to Chicago with firearms on his person. The second mistake was leaving a loaded rifle with magazines loaded in a hotel room overlooking a busy street. I just have two words for this 

“DUMB ASS”!!!

DUMB ASS, granted.  But Chicago criminalizes that, and that is wrong.  And the cost to defend being a DUMB ASS is immense.  And that is wrong.  Why is sacrosanct Chicago not subject to all of the normally recognized laws of our country that protect our citizens, including the Bill of Rights?

[Wheelgunner]

I sincerely hope that guy contacts the Firearms Policy Coalition - and that they get involved in the litigation.

[No_0ne]

2 hours ago, QuackerSmacker said:

Why is sacrosanct Chicago not subject to all of the normally recognized laws of our country that protect our citizens, including the Bill of Rights?

For the same reasons that other states and municipalities have restrictions.  The SCOTUS has ruled on many occasions that the individual states can restrict the type and method of "bearing arms".  They have yet to really codify exactly what those restrictions are, or can be, preferring instead to rule (or more often, refuse to take such cases up) on a case-by-case basis.  I doubt that changes anytime soon ...

[Photoguy67]

1 hour ago, No_0ne said:

For the same reasons that other states and municipalities have restrictions.  The SCOTUS has ruled on many occasions that the individual states can restrict the type and method of "bearing arms".  They have yet to really codify exactly what those restrictions are, or can be, preferring instead to rule (or more often, refuse to take such cases up) on a case-by-case basis.  I doubt that changes anytime soon ...

I am not disagreeing with you, however I would love to hear their definition of "shall not be infringed".

[No_0ne]

30 minutes ago, Photoguy67 said:

I am not disagreeing with you, however I would love to hear their definition of "shall not be infringed".

Probably the best way to do that is to read the opinions, both majority and concurring, of the DC and Illinois cases (McDonald and Heller)from a few years back.  That's probably as close as you'll find of the current thinking on the Court.  Another interesting read is the report from the Senate Judiciary committee from 1982, one of the earliest government proclamations that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual's right to bear arms, as opposed to the generally prevailing view of most courts that it represented only a right of state-sponsored militias ...

Edited July 10, 2021 by No_0ne

[FUJIMO]

I've watched the story vary since it first became "breaking news mass homicide avoided" on msm. Almost like its a Wiki story. Maybe he was just wanting to elevate the cities level of homicide. It's hard to stay on top

[dg370]

Avoid blue cities. Maybe when they lose revenue things will change. If the story is true, the individual needs to learn how to secure his weapons. He’s lucky the cleaning staff didn’t sell the weapons. 

[gregintenn]

Were I ever forced to go to Chicago, that's about what my luggage would look like.

[papa61]

been o Chicago once many years ago, I was not impressed, left nothing behind, am not going back to get it.

last time through my 45 minute layover lasted 4 hours due to aircraft maintenance issue. anywhere above the mason-dixon line is out of bounds for me

 

[Cruel Hand Luke]

On 7/9/2021 at 3:40 PM, Erik88 said:

This entire story is odd. I'm sympathetic to a point but I do find it odd that he would bring a loaded .308 rifle into his room. I can understand traveling with a handgun. When I went to Chiraq I took my Glock 19 but I left it in a lock box hidden inside our vehicle since I couldn't legally have it on me. 

To clarify, I don't have an issue with traveling with a long gun. I've done it. But I'm not going to bring a loaded rifle into a hotel and I'm not going to leave it out for hotel staff to find. 

So if you wouldn't bring a rifle into the hotel then you'd leave it in the vehicle unattended in the parking lot? It's coming into the hotel with me (and everything else I don't want stolen) and getting taken with me when I leave the room. I don't even like leaving my clothes in a hotel room unattended....

Now the biggest problem here is that it was in Chicago with their draconian gun laws. If this were Jackson MS, or Memphis Tn, or Savannah GA, or Fort Walton FL, or Harrisburg PA, or Shepherdsville KY, or Little Rock AR or Prescott AZ, or Ann Arbor MI, or any number of other cities I have traveled to either taking or teaching classes or just simply vacationing (with a long gun and loaded mags each time) then this would not be an issue. But the fact that it was A in Illinois and B in Chicago is where this becomes a problem and C if you are going to have to leave it in the room  you are going to need to put the do not disturb sign up and hide it somewhere like behind the fridge or somewhere that the casual observer does not see without having to put forth some effort. 

 

 

[partypilot1]

Sidearm and PDW with four magazines sounds about right for that zone. The question is why it’s in the hotel. 
The threat is outside the hotel room. With the proper concealment he should have had at least the sidearm

[partypilot1]

I have carried a rifle with me a few times. When I’m not with the rifle, it it is in my bag zipped up and the ‘do no disturb’ on the door.

 

[FUJIMO]

Whenever I must leave anything in a room the do not disturb goes out and I make it complicated for a snooper. 

[Alleycat72]

From someone who carries a suppressed AR 10 through a lobby of a motel 5 or 6 times a year, this seems alien to me. To be honest, I usually only have 250-300 rounds on me. The funniest moment was when I was covered head to toe with blood at a Denny's with a white buddy of mine at 3:00 am. We were talking to a black couple for an hour about everything. Great people and great waitress. Not one person batted an eye or asked what the hell was going on. GOD BLESS TEXAS.

[Alleycat72]

There was this one time in Texas...........

[chances R]

1 hour ago, partypilot1 said:

Sidearm and PDW with four magazines sounds about right for that zone. The question is why it’s in the hotel. 
The threat is outside the hotel room. With the proper concealment he should have had at least the sidearm

only if one wants to take a chance on being a permanent guest....

[Erik88]

1 hour ago, Cruel Hand Luke said:

So if you wouldn't bring a rifle into the hotel then you'd leave it in the vehicle unattended in the parking lot? 

In this case, I may. But I also study gun laws before I visit a place. I wouldn't bring a long gun to a Chicago hotel and I certainly wouldn't leave it out for the maid to find. 

[Cruel Hand Luke]

51 minutes ago, Erik88 said:

 But I also study gun laws before I visit a place. I wouldn't bring a long gun to a Chicago hotel and I certainly wouldn't leave it out for the maid to find. 

Agreed.