PDA

View Full Version : Visiting Gun Owners Can Carry (transport) in Illinois: Supreme Court


wazdat
04-08-2011, 1:24 PM
Seems some courts "Get it". :D

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/illinois-supreme-court-foid-119493094.html


Opinion here.

http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2011/April/109130.pdf

N6ATF
04-08-2011, 1:28 PM
WOAH YEAH!

Alaric
04-08-2011, 1:35 PM
As long as an out-of-state visitor has properly registered their guns in their home state, they may legally transport them in Illinois without a license here, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled this week.

What about states like CA that don't have "gun registration", or who have handguns that were purchased prior to registration?

Also, will this apply to, say, Californians who carry out of state on a Utah or Florida non-resident CCW?

This is a win, but it opens up more questions than it resolves - as usual.

Southwest Chuck
04-08-2011, 1:46 PM
The decision was a unanimous one as well. We are making progress. :D

goodlookin1
04-08-2011, 1:48 PM
That is a strange statement, indeed. That leaves it up to Illinois to check into whether they were legally "registered" to them! How the heck are they going to look that up? Especially if there's no registration requirement in the state in which it was purchased?

This sounds like it could get really messy

LockJaw
04-08-2011, 1:54 PM
Very short on details. Looking forward to reading how the legal eagles interput this ruling.

G60
04-08-2011, 2:03 PM
The title of the article is a bit misleading. It's not about 'carry', the decision is about transport.

safewaysecurity
04-08-2011, 2:18 PM
The media makes mistakes. It's not about registration I don't think. As long as it is legally possessed. Also not about carry but rather transport under IL law.

CalBear
04-08-2011, 2:28 PM
The court's decision was based on interpretation of Illinois state law and the details of the trial. There was no involvement of 2nd amendment case law -- this was strictly about Illinois law.

Basically, he was charged with two counts of Felony Aggravated Possession:
Count I - the "firearm possessed was uncased, loaded and immediately accessible at the time of the offense,"
Count II - "the person possessing the firearm has not been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner’s Identification Card."

The court struck down count I, because they found the back armrest area qualified as an enclosed case, and thus the state failed to prove all aspects necessary for that count.

The court struck down count II, because they said his FOID requirement had been met. They read the FOID act and saw that it exempted out of state residents who had satisfied permit / registration requirements in their home state. They disagreed with the other courts that the FOID act and aggravated possession sections of the penal code should not be read in tandem. They said the FOID act clearly defines that being in accordance with one's own state's laws is equivalent to a FOID card for non-residents. Thus the guy was OK, and there was no requirement to possess any Indiana card, either.

The court disagreed that misdemeanor possession would apply should the aggravated felony counts be struck down. They said since the jury returned a general verdict, it could not be deduced that the jury unanimously agreed on count I, which would form a basis for the misdemeanor count.

Because the jury returned a general verdict, we cannot say that the jury unanimously concluded, as alleged in count I, that the gun was loaded and that it was immediately accessible. The jury may have based its verdict on a unanimous determination that defendant lacked a FOID card, the aggravating factor alleged in count II, or the verdict may have been based on some members agreeing with count I and some with count
II.

This case gives clearer meaning to "encased" for the purposes of transporting a gun in Illinois, and it makes clear that it is not illegal to possess a gun in Illinois, so long as you satisfy the FOID requirements, which exempt non-residents who are permitted or registered in their home state.

goodlookin1
04-08-2011, 2:30 PM
I just read the courts decision. It appears that, due to situational happenings and very lucky circumstance, this guy got off the hook because of some court "technicalities". The trial court jury gave a general guilty verdict on two accounts, but did not specify how they judged on each account. Therefore, on the State's assertion on the lowering of the charge to a misdemeanor "unlawful use of a weapon", the Supreme Court decided that since the jury didnt rule individually on the counts, that they could not determine which reason the jurors might have found the man guilty on (either "aggravated unlawful use of a weapon" or "not been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner’s Identification
Card"). Therefore, he was let off the hook completely.

Had Illinois only went after one charge instead of two, they might have ruled differently.

Overall, it is good that he was let off the hook. But a close call, IMHO.

HowardW56
04-08-2011, 2:33 PM
Mayor Daley must be having a seizure.... :)

J.D.Allen
04-08-2011, 2:36 PM
Think this will help their shall issue chances for this year???

CalBear
04-08-2011, 2:41 PM
Think this will help their shall issue chances for this year???
Shouldn't have any impact. That'll come down to political support.

Uriah02
04-08-2011, 3:05 PM
That is good progress. It is important to note, carry = transport, not carry on person.

Fjold
04-08-2011, 4:36 PM
Armrest counts as cased. Interesting.

Al Norris
04-08-2011, 6:00 PM
Unless I'm misunderstanding this decision, Mishaga v. Monken (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilcd.49772/gov.uscourts.ilcd.49772.docket.html) has just been mooted.

hoffmang
04-08-2011, 9:31 PM
The court's decision was based on interpretation of Illinois state law and the details of the trial. There was no involvement of 2nd amendment case law -- this was strictly about Illinois law.


Legally yes. Pragmatically, no. The IL Supremes are well aware of the Federal Challenge to the FOID requirement on out of staters - which goes on as OH doesn't have registration. They also are very likely to have wanted to do anything possible to keep the 2A/14A out of this case. This is the type of case I was expecting - courts giving us wins on as minimal basis as possible and avoiding the 2A as much as possible.

Note that LUCC is now an option in IL for out of state folks.

Also note that IL law doesn't require that a particular firearm be registered, just that you have a license for a firearm or a registered firearm.

I still need to look at Chicago law though to see if you can LUCC in Chicago.

-Gene

Liberty1
04-09-2011, 12:26 PM
Note that LUCC is now an option in IL for out of state folks.

-Gene

I'm not positive but I believe that is only EUCC (enclosed - locked is not required in Il).

N6ATF
04-09-2011, 1:10 PM
Shouldn't they be locking anyway to secure 4A?

hoffmang
04-09-2011, 2:30 PM
I'm not positive but I believe that is only EUCC (enclosed - locked is not required in Il).

I had this thought too, but I think there is a prohibition on "accessible." Cased if it's not in immediate possession. I was thinking locked to be able to place in e.g. a briefcase.

-Gene

HondaMasterTech
04-09-2011, 3:04 PM
Sounds like they have a sour taste for Federal Court. ;)

Window_Seat
04-09-2011, 3:48 PM
I had this thought too, but I think there is a prohibition on "accessible." Cased if it's not in immediate possession. I was thinking locked to be able to place in e.g. a briefcase.

-Gene

But could this become a precursor to "accessible" by way of immediate possession, while loaded & chambered IF it happens prior to passage of HB-0148? What kind of effect could this have on Mishaga (below in signature line)?

Unless I'm misunderstanding this decision, Mishaga v. Monken (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilcd.49772/gov.uscourts.ilcd.49772.docket.html) has just been mooted.

I was thinking along these lines, but a FOID is not something that causes a person to get a CCW, true?

And for the OOS CCW permit to substitute a FOID in IL, must the CCW be one from the person's home state of residence?

ETA:

We agree with defendant that the two statutes must be read
together in order to avoid absurd results. Reading the statutes
separately, as the appellate court did, would mean that an out-of-state
resident who transports a firearm into Illinois when the firearm is
legally registered in his home state would be exempt from
misdemeanor prosecution under the FOID Card Act but that the same
conduct would subject such individual to felony prosecution under
section 24–1.6(a)(1)(3)(C). This cannot be what the legislature
intended. Reading these statutes together, as we must, we find that the
exception identified in section 2(b)(10) of the FOID Card Act can be
applied to the unlawful use of weapons statute and, therefore, a valid
permit or license from another state can substitute for the FOID card
requirement in section 24–1.6. Accordingly, we hold that the
exception contained in section 2(b)(10) must be incorporated in the
unlawful use of weapons act.

So I interpret this as being that a valid permit or license, regardless of whether it's from my home state, or from another state is something that can substitute a FOID card. True? This could IMMENSELY help Interstate Truckers who live in "May Issue" states and who have OOS permits, no?

Erik.