Jump to content

Illinois General Assembly 1/28/2020


mauserme

Recommended Posts

My thinking would be that it would include any vehicle registered to the person, even if they person isn't in the vehicle at the time

The driver, not the registered owner, is the person responsible for the contents of the vehicle.

 

"These aren't my pants. I just borrowed them from a friend. I didn't know what was in the pockets." ... except the car version.

 

If someone would be arrested for possession of a kilo of cocaine in the trunk, I'd think they could/should be arrested for illegal possession of firearm in the trunk, even if the car's not theirs.

 

The bill is a step toward addressing a situation in Warren County where a firearm was found in a van being driven by a person with a previous felony conviction. The court (sorry, I don't have a cite yet) found that it was not a violation of the FOID Act because the gun was not in close proximity to the defendant. We'll be discussing this more with the sponsor.

So it was neither a FOID violation nor a UUW. Does that mean a felon without a FOID can transport a firearm legally in Warren county now, as long as it's not within arm's reach in a car? Awesome! What's the standard for people who aren't felons then? Do we still need FOIDs? I fear I already know the answer.

 

It's one thing for criminals to ignore the law. To say openly that laws don't apply to criminals even in court creates a bizarre system where criminals aren't guilty of crimes because they're criminals. Only law-abiding people can be guilty of crimes.

 

D00M

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it was neither a FOID violation nor a UUW. Does that mean a felon without a FOID can transport a firearm legally in Warren county now, as long as it's not within arm's reach in a car? Awesome! What's the standard for people who aren't felons then? Do we still need FOIDs? I fear I already know the answer.

 

It's one thing for criminals to ignore the law. To say openly that laws don't apply to criminals even in court creates a bizarre system where criminals aren't guilty of crimes because they're criminals. Only law-abiding people can be guilty of crimes.

 

D00M

I'm told there is some concern about that, in a couple counties out that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

My thinking would be that it would include any vehicle registered to the person, even if they person isn't in the vehicle at the time

The driver, not the registered owner, is the person responsible for the contents of the vehicle.

 

"These aren't my pants. I just borrowed them from a friend. I didn't know what was in the pockets." ... except the car version.

 

If someone would be arrested for possession of a kilo of cocaine in the trunk, I'd think they could/should be arrested for illegal possession of firearm in the trunk, even if the car's not theirs.

 

My thinking was, since the driver being responsible is already the standard, this amendment would extend it to the include any car registered to the felon, for the purpose of firearms, even if the felon wasn't driving

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Might be based on this case in Henry County? Or one like it?

 

https://courts.illinois.gov/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2019/3rdDistrict/3170252.pdf

 

 

The legislature specifically listed the places where a felon is culpably in possession of a firearm, including “on or about his person,” “on his land,” “in his abode,” and in his “fixed placed of business.” Notably, there is no mention of a vehicle of any kind in section 24-1.1(a). If the legislature had intended to impose liability for possession anywhere “in his vehicle,” it would have included that language in the statute. It did not, and we cannot rewrite a statute to add provisions or limitations the - 6 -legislature did not include. Relf v. Shatayeva, 2013 IL 114925, ¶ 29. We, therefore, limit our focus to whether the firearm was “on or about” Wise’s person rather than whether the firearm was located in the vehicle. . .

For the foregoing reasons, we find that the State failed to prove Wise guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon. Accordingly, we vacate his conviction.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, confirmed with sponsor, this bill is based on this case and similar ones and addresses only felons found to have a firearm in their vehicle.

 

"If the legislature had intended to impose liability for possession anywhere “in his vehicle,” it would have included that language in the statute."

 

And so they are adding that language to the statute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...