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

[wazdat]

Seems some courts "Get it".

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]

WOAH YEAH!

[Alaric]

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]

The decision was a unanimous one as well. We are making progress.

[goodlookin1]

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]

Very short on details. Looking forward to reading how the legal eagles interput this ruling.

[G60]

The title of the article is a bit misleading. It's not about 'carry', the decision is about transport.

[safewaysecurity]

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]

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 IImisdemeanor 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]

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]

Mayor Daley must be having a seizure....

[J.D.Allen]

Think this will help their shall issue chances for this year???

[CalBear]

Think this will help their shall issue chances for this year???

Shouldn't have any impact. That'll come down to political support.

[Uriah02]

That is good progress. It is important to note, carry = transport, not carry on person.

[Fjold]

Armrest counts as cased. Interesting.