Tweet
Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Holmes: reversed, cause remanded
Opinion here, ruled on April 7, 2011.
From what I gather, the backseat armrest, which has a cover and a latch, is considered by definition, a "case" for purposes of the unlawful use of the weapons statute, and that People v. Diggins applies, and that it doesn't necessarily have to have a "lock", or does it still need to have a lock?
Also:
Hmmmmm... What effect can this have on Mishaga v. Monken (below in signature line)?
Another interesting part:
I can't tell whether it was determined by the court or not that the seat was leaned back very far, or not. Either way, if the center console is considered a case, that part wouldn't matter anyway, or would it?
Discussion?
Erik.
From what I gather, the backseat armrest, which has a cover and a latch, is considered by definition, a "case" for purposes of the unlawful use of the weapons statute, and that People v. Diggins applies, and that it doesn't necessarily have to have a "lock", or does it still need to have a lock?
Also:
...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, Accordingly, we hold that the exception contained in section 2(b)(10) must be incorporated in the unlawful use of weapons act.
Another interesting part:
I can't tell whether it was determined by the court or not that the seat was leaned back very far, or not. Either way, if the center console is considered a case, that part wouldn't matter anyway, or would it?
Discussion?
Erik.
link, please?
Comment