Founder Shaun Kranish arrested for fannypacking

Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 6:11 pm

I hope bob's right about that.

I just wanted to remind everyone that the reason I don't talk much about this is because I really CAN'T. "Anything you say can and will be used against you..." as it is said. So just keep that in mind and understand why I'm quiet on this subject.

Thanks for your continued support. I hope this will be over soon.

Private Joined: Sep 14, 2005 Posts: 126

If/when this crap gets dismissed, I would, in the next 5 minutes, file suit against the mall. I know SAK can't respond to this, but the thought of getting those low lifes would keep me going.

Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 10:28 am

Spec4 wrote:

If/when this crap gets dismissed, I would, in the next 5 minutes, file suit against the mall. I know SAK can't respond to this, but the thought of getting those low lifes would keep me going.

Since he has some fine legal talent, I think it might be best if he listens to the legal talent as far as legal strategies go, rather than us amateurs.

Corporal Joined: Sep 20, 2005 Posts: 788

I hope SAK can get his money back if he sues the mall. It is a shame that a college student has to deal out so much money for something like this and it shows why law-abiding gun owners have always been private with their guns.

The more anti Illinois gets the more private gun owners will be and there may be a point where gun owners and the black market line may be no more, because we will all be criminals for owning a gun.

Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 12:05 pm

We had an appearance yesterday and it went really great. Although nothing happened as usual, we really got to lay the case out before the judge. Walter did a phenomenal job with all of his motions and everything.

The prosecutor we've had is going into private practice, so my case will be assigned to someone else. We agreed on giving them until February 23rd before the next court appearance. Whoever inherits this case won't be happy I'm sure! Walter has made weeks worth of work for them. He has challenged my charges and even the statute itself on pretty much every basis.

Whoever the unlucky SOB is who gets this case will be spending some time. Of course all of this is paid for with our tax dollars. THIS IS YOUR TAX MONEY HARD AT WORK KEEPING DANGEROUS PEOPLE LIKE ME OFF THE STREETS. Shocked

Private Joined: Jan 03, 2006 Posts: 265

Hopefully this is the turning of the tide.

SAK wrote:

THIS IS YOUR TAX MONEY HARD AT WORK KEEPING DANGEROUS PEOPLE LIKE ME OFF THE STREETS. Shocked

As they say on FARK: "Still no cure for cancer..."

Corporal Joined: Sep 20, 2005 Posts: 788

your case is pretty important because anyone who get arrested for a similar case can use your case. Also the same holds true if you lose as well. So it is an important case and they know it.

Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 4:34 pm

Quote:

your case is pretty important because anyone who get arrested for a similar case can use your case. Also the same holds true if you lose as well. So it is an important case and they know it.

I'm sorry, but as has been noted here several times, that's simply not how the law, and legal precedents, work. Only a reviewing court opinion has any binding value in other cases.

Here, if Shaun is ever tried and found not guilty, there will be no appeal. (Unless the circuit court finds the statute unconstitutional, which won't happen.) Thus, there will be no precedent set if he wins. Only if he loses, takes an appeal, prevails on appeal, and the appellate court files a published opinion (80% are not) will any kind of precedent then be set. But I would guess that the State will do whatever is necessary to ensure that never happens.

Whatever else this case means, at the trial stage it means nothing to future defendants.

Newbie Joined: May 21, 2006 Posts: 23

In court---NO. You are quite right. But a string of victories--even when charges are brought and then dismissed as was the case with John Horstman and Vana Haggerty--gives strength and bargaining power. This is particularly true when a defendant is able to sue and win damages--as did John Horstman.
Small consolation, I admit, but the prosecution's lack of ability to prevail is nevertheless important.

(Further, I believe to this day, that the reason that the states attorney in Marion County decided that he did not "want" to run for re-election was due in large part to the efforts of the people (John Birch) who showed up at the courtroom and did not allow the matter to be handled quietly in the Vana Haggerty case.)

Together, we can make a difference.

Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 8:28 am

The bottom line is that usually in our criminal justice system, eventually the "right" thing happens. But what happens along the way can be mighty unpleasant.

That is where political pressure needs to be applied. The courts like to pretend they are not political, but the reality is that there is politics in everything.

Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 9:58 pm

I am going to interupt here and ask a question or maybe make it 2 that may have already been answered elsewhere....

Has an opinion re the legality of "fanny pack" carrying been addressed/rendered by the Attorney General of Illinois?

if not,

Might or Could a states attorney of one, or maybe several of the counties request such an opinion?

Thanks and regards, Danl Question

Initiate Joined: Nov 02, 2006 Posts: 45

someon on illinois carry asked the il attourney gen. if fannypacking was legal, they refered him to the il state police who would not give them a straght answer Rolling Eyes

Private Joined: Sep 20, 2005 Posts: 287 Location: Dolton

you not gonna get a straight answer..if it is in fact legal to fanny pack..
do you think they is gonna tell us that?

Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 11:30 pm

I personally don't see how any interpretation of the statute could be construed to say fannypacking is illegal. Granted they make it difficult to understand, and they do it on purpose. But frankly, I don't see how ANYONE could argue that the statute doesn't mean what it says. The statute says unloaded, enclosed in a case, firearm shipping box, OR OTHER CONTAINER, by the holder of a valid FOID card? What more do you want?

They even went the extra mile when drafting the legislation to (my belief is that this was their intent) protect people like you and I (non-criminals) from wrongful prosecution. They went out of their way to make sure that any container that ecloses the unloaded firearm is acceptible.

Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 12:52 am

SAK wrote:

I personally don't see how any interpretation of the statute could be construed to say fannypacking is illegal. Granted they make it difficult to understand, and they do it on purpose. But frankly, I don't see how ANYONE could argue that the statute doesn't mean what it says. The statute says unloaded, enclosed in a case, firearm shipping box, OR OTHER CONTAINER, by the holder of a valid FOID card? What more do you want?

They even went the extra mile when drafting the legislation to (my belief is that this was their intent) protect people like you and I (non-criminals) from wrongful prosecution. They went out of their way to make sure that any container that ecloses the unloaded firearm is acceptible.

I agree, however if 2 or 3 County level states attorneys requested an opinion as to whether the fanny pack style is legal or illegal, we might be able to put some pressure on these people to interpret the law with the plain language quoted in your post SAK. There are surely at least 3 States Attorneys who would go together and request an opinion/clarification.

Regards, Danl