Jump to content

People V. Leonard Holmes ILSC


pyre400

Recommended Posts

A good acquaintance/friend of mine, whom I'd met on IC, has made me aware of an opinion that will be out this week.

 

I recall reading of this case on this site, but I regret that I've not been able to find the original post. Mods, please feel free to merge if you have better luck.

 

Here are the oral arguments from Nov '10:

audio video

 

This case seems to test many issues that are of great interest to us:

The AUUW statute, the FOID-Act, license reciprocity, and the diggins "case definition".

 

The opinion should be available here on Thursday, but this link to the pdf may work after Thursday.

 

I also want to add that this information came from a good source, but that someone no longer posts here... Its a bummer too...

Its not my intention to point fingers at any individual(s) - as John says, we're all friends here.

I just wanted to let some of our headstrong friends (I include myself in this category) that when you sense your wheels spinning in a thread, just shut'r down...

Not every pull is a full pull, and its ok to disagree without getting pi$$ed off... Besides there's enough "stuff" going on now days, that most topics seem to have a very short "shelf life" anyway.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tried to listen to the oral arguments but quickly lost interest. You would think an experienced appellate attorney could at the very least make a cogent argument about the facts. This one just danced around a bit and never really bothered to make an argument at all. I hope her written stuff made more sense or the guy is doomed. Are the briefs available somewhere?

 

It appears like Diggins will deal with the first count. It's interesting that from the evidence it is unclear if the gun was loaded or not. That tells you a lot. It seems most likely this was another CPD setup. NEVER trust any cop. They are not your friends. They serve an important and useful function in society, but that does not mean they will not screw you over if they get a chance. Getting a felony conviction so some copper can get a few brownie points is not in your best interest.

 

Her attempt to equate the FOID card with an out of state LTC is not likely to go anywhere IMO. It just does not seem relevant to the case at hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am at the court

 

Opinion delivered, both counts tossed out UUW act must be read in tandem with the FOID act

 

More to follow as i read

 

Both appelate qnd trail courts reversed and remanded since conflicting evidense asnto ifnthe back seat console was closed

 

 

 

Back seat armrest which containedna cover and latch falls within the meaning of case

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Her attempt to equate the FOID card with an out of state LTC is not likely to go anywhere IMO. It just does not seem relevant to the case at hand.

 

Later on in the argument the state's attorney was asked if there are other records of out of state licensure being recognized by the state of IL. Her response was out of state driver's licenses... Whether that's telling or not, who knows, but it was interesting to me. One other thing was how the justice asked the SA if it seemed absurd that the law says anyone with a gun MUST have a foid, yet a core requirement for the foid is residence.

 

The opinion should be posted later today, or tomorrow at the latest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my typing from my ipad when in a hurry sucks

 

 

My language about only having been issued a FOID is upheld for UUW statute.

 

Remanded for the isues of misdemeanor uuw as to weather the gun was loaded and immediately accessible

 

Unanimous ruling w / special concurance by Justice Garman

 

Special concurance dives deeper into foid as it does not apply to non residents

 

Solid ruling vehicular compartments are cases

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Opinion link now works

 

ETA

 

Out of state, non-foid transport....

 

<snip>

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.

</snip>

 

 

"Console transport....

 

<snip>

Because the firearm was enclosed in a case, the State failed to

prove every element of the offense of aggravated unlawful use of a

weapon as outlined in section 24–1.6(a)(1)(3)(A). Accordingly, a

conviction for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon, as charged in

count I, cannot stand.

</snip>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So do we have to have our FOID on us when we have a firearm and/or ammo in our possession? Or does the FOID only have to be issued to us?

 

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, and the following should not be considered legal advice...

 

I've always understood that you are to always have a foid whenever in possession of a firearm or ammo - whether that be transporting, or in your home. I've even heard of extreme cases where if a firearm is left out at a home, and resident (non-foid holder) of the household is the only one present - that the non-foid holder would be in violation of the law. Someone with more chops can verify, but that's what I understand... Always keep your "stuff" locked up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tried to listen to the oral arguments but quickly lost interest. You would think an experienced appellate attorney could at the very least make a cogent argument about the facts. This one just danced around a bit and never really bothered to make an argument at all. I hope her written stuff made more sense or the guy is doomed. Are the briefs available somewhere?

 

It appears like Diggins will deal with the first count. It's interesting that from the evidence it is unclear if the gun was loaded or not. That tells you a lot. It seems most likely this was another CPD setup. NEVER trust any cop. They are not your friends. They serve an important and useful function in society, but that does not mean they will not screw you over if they get a chance. Getting a felony conviction so some copper can get a few brownie points is not in your best interest.

 

Her attempt to equate the FOID card with an out of state LTC is not likely to go anywhere IMO. It just does not seem relevant to the case at hand.

 

 

I think this should be edited to never trust a CHICAGO COP LOL I have plenty of cop friends here downstate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this should be edited to never trust a CHICAGO COP LOL I have plenty of cop friends here downstate.

 

Trust a cop? Well, nobody has a higher stake in your best interests than you do. An officer is almost always going to side with the law - its their job.

This is nothing new, and its why we have the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments...

 

That being said, I know quite a few LEO's, have one in my family - its a thankless job, where you get exposed to more of the negative examples of man. The majority of police out there have my absolute respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

two different issues.

 

you need only to have been issued a FOID to take advantage of the UUW expemptions.

 

Not having a FOID on your person is a seperate violation under the FOID act

 

Todd, is not having the FOID in your possession, though issued it, a misdeamenor or what? I had my wife get a FOID card, though she doesn't own any firearms just in case she was ever stopped and ammo was found in the car. Her FOID is now expired and she's waiting on the new one. Now I have to be sure not to leave any in the car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do the dumb ***** that charged him even know that not only is a non resident not required to have a foid, they couldn't get one even if they wanted???

 

 

Apparently not. :rolleyes:

 

What also surprised me after reading the written opinion, is that the Justices make no mention that a non-resident can't acquire a FOID card either. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do the dumb ***** that charged him even know that not only is a non resident not required to have a foid, they couldn't get one even if they wanted???

 

 

Apparently not. :rolleyes:

 

What also surprised me after reading the written opinion, is that the Justices make no mention that a non-resident can't acquire a FOID card either. :)

 

I could be wrong, but I think its implied via the references to code/statute. If I recall correctly, it was covered during the oral arguments, and was termed as "absurd". The opinion states that an out of state license will substitute for a foid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how Osterman is going to justify the new language in HB3634 with 2 IL Supreme Court decisions on the definition of a case on the record. It will be even more interesting to see if the House tries to overturn the judiciary decisions by passing this bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how Osterman is going to justify the new language in HB3634 with 2 IL Supreme Court decisions on the definition of a case on the record. It will be even more interesting to see if the House tries to overturn the judiciary decisions by passing this bill.

 

Osterman would not have to justify anything. His legislative change would render the Illinois Supreme Court decision moot concerning what constitutes a case.

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...