search
top

Don’t Take Legal Advice From Bloggers

Both Thirdpower and John Richardson are speaking about an assertion that’s appeared in the blogosphere that Illinois is now a Constitutional Carry state. I’d take anything you hear on the Internet (and I don’t exempt myself from this) as pretty much the polar opposite of actual legal advice. In other words, don’t think because a blogger says you can do X, that means it’s OK to actually go out and do it.

I try very hard to get things right, but firearms law is complex, and I’ve made my share of mistakes over the years. Even if you read blogs run by lawyers, they may be attorneys, but they aren’t your attorney. Do your own research, consult with your own counsel, and go from there. Our goal is to try to educate, and not to offer advice on whether a certain action may or may not get you arrested. Remember there are precious few petty offenses and misdemeanors when it comes to gun violations, and too many armchair “experts” out there to rely on what you see on the Internet.

8 Responses to “Don’t Take Legal Advice From Bloggers”

  1. SPQR says:

    Yep, pretty bad advice out there and that’s just one reason I don’t read TTAG….

  2. The recent decision overturning a conviction for carrying a concealed weapon was because the law as it was then made no provision for obtaining a license. The idiots in Illinois have since passed a licensing law that in a few more months, will allow you get a permit. Don’t be stupid and think that you can carry with impunity in the meantime.

  3. Andy B. says:

    I would also issue my frequent warning that in the United States, you don’t have any more rights than you can afford to access in court — and that usually ain’t cheap.

    What I mean is, that you may read in a newspaper — let alone a blog — that some level of government “can’t” do this or that because of a recent court decision. That doesn’t mean they “won’t” do it, and if you are the target, no matter how elementary the legal question seems, it is going to cost you a lot of time and treasure to prove that they “can’t” do it. And it will cost the guy behind you a lot, too, when they do it to him tomorrow.

    I learned that lesson almost fifty years ago when the papers reported that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had ruled that municipalities could not enact their own firearms or hunting laws. So, figuring my township’s local hunting ordinances were out the window, I abandoned my former security practices, went hunting, and pretty promptly got arrested — and convicted. I of course prevailed upon appeal, but it was expensive. And people were still being arrested under ordinances municipalities “couldn’t” pass, more than twenty years later. I suspect they still are.

    • Sebastian says:

      I would also issue my frequent warning that in the United States, you don’t have any more rights than you can afford to access in court — and that usually ain’t cheap.

      Yep. It’s a sad truth.

    • Sebastian says:

      Generally speaking, there’s only punishment and no reward for blazing through new legal territory. The civil rights acts demand “clearly established precedent” before you can strip away immunity and really punish government agents for pushing the limits…. and that’s only in some cases… judges and prosecutors enjoy absolute, rather than qualified immunity.

      This is one of those arguments that’s as old as the Republic, but it’s an important one. I think very few people realize how much the deck is stacked against the citizen in favor of those who administer the law.

  4. Woody says:

    I would never take any legal or medical advice from someone on the internet.

  5. Jack says:

    Also even *if* it were valid that would not be Permitless Carry.

    In Ill. you still need a FOID card to even own a gun. And thus “FOID carry” as it’s called would still be a permit.

    Granted it’s a Shall-Issue Permit that doesn’t have a training requirement, but that’d be Indiana-style Carry. Not Permitless/Constitutional Carry.

  6. Glen says:

    There is no such thing as “constitutional carry.” Using this term to mean permitless carry – and attaching it to a specific mode of carry (open or concealed) – has sown endless confusion amongst the ranks of pro-gun rights community.

top