Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/7/2001 4:30:58 AM EDT
JOHN HORSTRAM ARRESTED FOR FANNY PACK CARRY! BOND SET AT $250,000! [url]http://www.concealcarry.org/[/url] John Horstman set out on a six-hour bicycle ride July 24. As he rolled east across the Illinois Prairie Path bridge near West Chicago, a DuPage County sheriff's officer stopped him. Now, Horstman is embarking on a legal and political odyssey that may be the test case for an ambiguous clause in the state's gun-control law. The officer searched Horstman and found a Taurus 9 mm handgun in his backpack. Horstman says it was unloaded and slipped safely in a Velcro pocket in the zipped black leather carrying case in his backpack. But to authorities, that matters little. Horstman, they say, was carrying a concealed weapon, and that is illegal in Illinois. At the heart of People of the State of Illinois vs. John Horstman is a clause in the state law that gun owners have rallied around in recent months. The clause allows registered owners to carry an unloaded gun "enclosed in a case, firearm carrying box, shipping box or other container." Gun advocates contend the language allows registered owners to carry a gun in specially designed fanny packs and similar cases. Legal experts cannot agree on what the law says.
Link Posted: 8/7/2001 4:48:28 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/7/2001 5:03:11 AM EDT
Oslow, Thanks for the heads up. I'm going to attend, and I'm spreading word around to encourage other gun owners to do the same. Although I don't feel a strong need to carry where I live and work, we're dealing with human rights and legal precedent that can determine the course for the entire state of Illinois. Richardson.
Link Posted: 8/7/2001 7:43:15 AM EDT
What makes it even worse is that the LEO's had a description of the actual flasher & of course he looks nothing like John Horstman. Another fine example of what can happen to you when you live in a police state. [:X*][:X*][:X*] ColtShorty GOA KABA COA JPFO SAF NRA "I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I require the same from them."
Link Posted: 8/7/2001 8:42:43 AM EDT
I've always been a LEO supporter or perhaps I've just been against the bad guys and thought the LEO's were on my side. I'm getting confused about who the bad guys are.
Link Posted: 8/7/2001 8:54:16 AM EDT
Hey, I been emailing all that I know about this, and I put up the pages on this at my local gun store, Village Sports. I am also going to donate $50 for the legal fees. This needs to be won in the courts, and get this state on the right track. Legal fees are $$$, all in Illinois should help out. c-rock
Link Posted: 8/7/2001 9:11:06 AM EDT
There is going to be a rally at the Dupage County Courthouse in Wheaton, IL on August 20 at 1:00pm. I plan on being there, I hope to see some of you guys there too. Steve
Link Posted: 8/7/2001 9:11:37 AM EDT
DuPage County Judicial Center Room No, 4014 505 N. County Farm Road Wheaton Illinois 60187 (Map to Judicial Center) [url]http://www.concealcarry.org/[/url] Monday August 20th, 1:00pm, Arraignment at 1:30pm (Allow plenty of time for PARKING and SECURITY CHECKS!) [green]I probably won't make it to Wheaton, but I [b]WILL[/b] be sending money.[/green] You can make checks out to CONCEALED CARRY, INC. DEFENSE FUND and mail them to CONCEALED CARRY, INC. DEFENSE FUND, PO BOX 4597, OAK BROOK, IL 60523-2708.
Link Posted: 8/7/2001 10:55:29 AM EDT
[b]Alert - Charges are dropped against Mr. Horstman![/b] At 12:10pm, Aug 7th 2001, Concealed Carry, Inc. was contacted by DuPage County State's Attorney Joe Birkett. Mr. Birkett stated as follows: 1) He supports concealed carry, but concealed carry is not Illinois law. 2) He has personally reviewed the case and upon that review has determined the case cannot go to trial. All charges to be dropped, Mr. Horstman can have is property back. 3) Mr. Birkett is contacting Mr. Horstman's defense attorney as we speak to inform of his office's decision. On one hand it would have been great to have had our test case, but I can see the State of Illinois simply did not want to do that. Further, Mr. Horstman has suffered enough and it is because of your hard work in energizing gun owners to support Mr. Horstman on Aug 20th that the State's Attorney took a personal interest in this case. In short, without firing a shot, we have made our point. I think we can declare victory without being smug and I think we can also appreciate the willingness of State's Attorney Birkett to do the right thing if his attention is focused on the problem. Now, do not rest. We must be vigilant. If you had not taken an active roll Mr. Horstman would have been rolled up in the juggernaut of the judicial system and spit into prison. Mr. Horstman still represents all gun owners and the hell he went through should never happen to another gun owner in this state. We will schedule a rally for Mr. Horstman soon so that you can meet him and hear his story first hand. Thank you patriots one and all. John Birch President Concealed Carry, Inc. PO BOX 4597 OAK BROOK IL 60522-4597 Tel: 630 986-8550 Fax: 815 327-1152 www.concealcarry.org MOLON LABE - COME AND GET THEM
Link Posted: 8/7/2001 11:35:10 AM EDT
Good to hear!!! Thing is, he will still lose his FOID, and he will most likey lose the gun also, since no FOID, no Guns. (Like losing a FOID stopped a Registered Sex offender from keeping his) A FOID can be revoked by the Police if they so choose. My FFL was telling meabout this yesterday. A FFL around here went out of Business, the ATF got the yellow forms. Chicago ATF noticed people from Chicago bought handguns. They went to everyone's house in Chicago, and ask to see the handguns. Those that complied, got arrested. The judge in the case thru it out afterwards, but they still could not get their FOID's. I hope am I very fucking wrong on this. Good to hear, and I guess the game with the Anti's in Illinois keeps on going. c-rock
Link Posted: 8/7/2001 11:57:57 AM EDT
Glad to hear it Mr. Birch! During the Taste of Chicago a friend and I both wore our fanny packs. We wanted to see if the Cops would try to search them. We didn't carry any weapons, but thought it would be an interesting experiment anyway. Apparently Mr. Daley did not have the guts to search them because we met with no problems, but some women who may have been anti gun nuts confronted us. That was pretty cool. What Rush says is true: Feminist Gun-Control Nazis are ugly.
Link Posted: 8/7/2001 11:58:03 AM EDT
c-rock I'm guessing you are wrong. He gets his FOID and his shooter. I hope the cops involved get athlete's foot on their nutsacks. (No hard feelings though, you dickheads)
Link Posted: 8/7/2001 12:10:54 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Oslow: c-rock I'm guessing you are wrong. He gets his FOID and his shooter. )
View Quote
They said he can get his property back, that does not mean he will get his FOID, which then means he will not get his gun back. A government Department must OBEY the laws in question. Which means you must have a FOID to get it. I really hope I am wrong, but the FOID laws are hard to understand. For example, when you sign your FOID, you admit to them that you UNDERSTAND all of the Illinois Gun laws. Meaning the transport, the selling, shooting, what types, etc. So if you broke one, they can go after you even harder than those without one, cause you stated before that, you know, and understand all of them already. Did you get a list of them when you got your FOID in the mail? I didn't. So how are you going to know the hundreds and thousands out there in this state? Again, I hope the dude did not lose his FOID, but it is possible, since he got it revoked at the Bail Hearing, he might not get it back. When did you ever know government to give back anything to someone? I rest my case. c-rock
Link Posted: 8/7/2001 2:01:12 PM EDT
John Birch went to a 3:00pm press conference. We will know more after then. It is my understanding he is getting all his guns back, he can't get them back without his FOID. Steve
Link Posted: 8/7/2001 2:20:31 PM EDT
One thing I noticed in the earlier reports-- Horstman was carrying magazines in his belt, which is probably what gave the police probable cause to search his belongings and find the gun. Probably would have been smarter to have the magazines in a separate part of a backpack from the container holding the guns. AFARR
Link Posted: 8/7/2001 4:06:27 PM EDT
No, the mags were not visable until the officers lifted his search. Everything he had was unseen until the search. Loaded mags are not illegal and hence no evidence of a crime. One other reason why they are not prosecuting. Steve
Link Posted: 8/7/2001 5:25:49 PM EDT
FYI - Chicago Tribune, Sun-Times and the Dailyherald will be running stories tomorrow on the dropping of the charges, for your reading pleasure! :)
Link Posted: 8/7/2001 6:19:50 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/7/2001 7:32:52 PM EDT
I celebrated by going out and firing off several hundred rounds (I had some help). My AR was smoking. [bounce]
Link Posted: 8/7/2001 7:53:34 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SCR1: Loaded mags are not illegal and hence no evidence of a crime.
View Quote
That is like saying ski mask are legal and hence no evidence of a robbery. Having loaded mags on your belt would lead a reasonable person to believe you may also have a gun. If said gun is not in plain veiw than its reasonable to believe it may be concealed.
Link Posted: 8/8/2001 2:44:32 AM EDT
Ski masks are legal and hence no evidence of a robbery. As far as I know anyway. Could I be stopped by police for wearing a ski mask? What if I had a ski mask under the seat of my car. Carrying a pistol in plain view would be illegal. Loaded or unloaded. Unless you are a policeman and then you need to be armed to protect yourself against all those people that the rest of us don't need to worry about. Carrying an unloaded pistol in a case is not illegal (depending on where you are of course) so even if the cops had a reason to stop a guy on a bicycle and then could claim some reason to search his person, that should have been the end of it.
Link Posted: 8/8/2001 7:39:50 AM EDT
Originally Posted By LawDawg:
Originally Posted By SCR1: Loaded mags are not illegal and hence no evidence of a crime.
View Quote
That is like saying ski mask are legal and hence no evidence of a robbery. Having loaded mags on your belt would lead a reasonable person to believe you may also have a gun. If said gun is not in plain veiw than its reasonable to believe it may be concealed.
View Quote
I think it is clear the SA is afraid of a lawsuit on the Violation of search and seizure laws. There was no probable cause to search him at all. He did not resemble the scetch of the flasher at all. The SA is trying to avert a Civil Lawsuit against the arresting officers, ASA and who ever else Mr. Horstman's attorney feels violated his rights. I believe you stated before that you are a police officer (I believe), so I can understand your apprehension, but this man (as the SA has stated) should never been arrested in the first place. How about excessive bail? $250,000? This case is ripe to make Mr. Horstman a rich man and those officers very, very poor.
Link Posted: 8/8/2001 8:11:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/8/2001 8:08:57 AM EDT by 5subslr5]
I was reading along peacefully believing this to be primarily an Illinois issue but with possible national over-tones. (Also considering how to squeeze $50.00 out of my budget to help.) Then I read the "lawdawg" post and by blood pressure elevated. (Every response that I like "must" constitute a flame.) I guess I'll just ask a question - LawDawg, "were you born with that logic(?) or have you received advanced training in idiocy ??"
Top Top