pyre400 Posted April 6, 2011 at 02:53 AM Share Posted April 6, 2011 at 02:53 AM 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 More sharing options...
TTIN Posted April 6, 2011 at 03:54 AM Share Posted April 6, 2011 at 03:54 AM I got a solution for 'em....do away with the FOID act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pyre400 Posted April 6, 2011 at 04:00 AM Author Share Posted April 6, 2011 at 04:00 AM I got a solution for 'em....do away with the FOID act. I was thinking those same thoughts, while listening to the arguments. At the very least, we'll see how diggins tests out... Hopefully that will not matter with the passage of 148. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomKoz Posted April 6, 2011 at 03:00 PM Share Posted April 6, 2011 at 03:00 PM IMHO, as a layman, this seems like a slam-dunk case in favor of Holmes and ALL gun owners!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted April 6, 2011 at 03:18 PM Share Posted April 6, 2011 at 03:18 PM Does someone have a copy ofmthe appealate decision Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pyre400 Posted April 6, 2011 at 03:36 PM Author Share Posted April 6, 2011 at 03:36 PM Does someone have a copy ofmthe appealate decision I dont think it was published. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pyre400 Posted April 6, 2011 at 04:11 PM Author Share Posted April 6, 2011 at 04:11 PM Here's the anticipated opinion announcement: http://www.state.il.us/court/SupremeCourt/Antic_Ops/2011/Antop040711.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob Posted April 7, 2011 at 12:28 PM Share Posted April 7, 2011 at 12:28 PM 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 More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted April 7, 2011 at 02:17 PM Share Posted April 7, 2011 at 02:17 PM 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 More sharing options...
pyre400 Posted April 7, 2011 at 02:18 PM Author Share Posted April 7, 2011 at 02:18 PM 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 More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted April 7, 2011 at 02:34 PM Share Posted April 7, 2011 at 02:34 PM 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 More sharing options...
pyre400 Posted April 7, 2011 at 03:02 PM Author Share Posted April 7, 2011 at 03:02 PM Opinion link now works ETA Out of state, non-foid transport.... <snip> Reading these statutes together, as we must, we find that theexception identified in section 2( b )( 10 ) of the FOID Card Act can beapplied to the unlawful use of weapons statute and, therefore, a validpermit or license from another state can substitute for the FOID cardrequirement in section 24–1.6. Accordingly, we hold that theexception contained in section 2( b )( 10 ) must be incorporated in theunlawful use of weapons act.</snip> "Console transport.... <snip>Because the firearm was enclosed in a case, the State failed toprove every element of the offense of aggravated unlawful use of aweapon as outlined in section 24–1.6(a)(1)(3)(A). Accordingly, aconviction for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon, as charged incount I, cannot stand.</snip> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTIN Posted April 7, 2011 at 07:46 PM Share Posted April 7, 2011 at 07:46 PM 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pyre400 Posted April 7, 2011 at 08:10 PM Author Share Posted April 7, 2011 at 08:10 PM 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 More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted April 7, 2011 at 08:13 PM Share Posted April 7, 2011 at 08:13 PM 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTIN Posted April 7, 2011 at 09:01 PM Share Posted April 7, 2011 at 09:01 PM Thanks Todd,I knew you'd have the straight skinny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey Posted April 7, 2011 at 10:31 PM Share Posted April 7, 2011 at 10:31 PM Can someone explain in plain english what happened here? Is the guy conviction free now, will there be a retrial? I understand what the issue was but not the opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted April 7, 2011 at 10:47 PM Share Posted April 7, 2011 at 10:47 PM The felonies were tossed out. The case was sent back to the trial court for consideration on the misdemeanor charge of uuw. If smart, but they aint, they would drop the case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lilguy Posted April 7, 2011 at 11:22 PM Share Posted April 7, 2011 at 11:22 PM How does this effect RTC in Ill? Does this change anything for Ill.FOID holders or is this for out of state visitors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted April 7, 2011 at 11:29 PM Share Posted April 7, 2011 at 11:29 PM How does this effect RTC in Ill? Does this change anything for Ill.FOID holders or is this for out of state visitors?It reaffirms Diggins. A compartment that is a part of the vehicle (a console)is a case or container as required in Article 24.(I am not a lawyer ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Harley Posted April 8, 2011 at 04:46 AM Share Posted April 8, 2011 at 04:46 AM 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 More sharing options...
pyre400 Posted April 8, 2011 at 05:36 AM Author Share Posted April 8, 2011 at 05:36 AM 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 More sharing options...
junglebob Posted April 8, 2011 at 12:55 PM Share Posted April 8, 2011 at 12:55 PM 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 More sharing options...
Drylok Posted April 8, 2011 at 02:01 PM Share Posted April 8, 2011 at 02:01 PM 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??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted April 8, 2011 at 02:33 PM Share Posted April 8, 2011 at 02:33 PM 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. 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 More sharing options...
pyre400 Posted April 8, 2011 at 02:48 PM Author Share Posted April 8, 2011 at 02:48 PM 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. 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 More sharing options...
Druid Posted April 8, 2011 at 04:48 PM Share Posted April 8, 2011 at 04:48 PM http://isra.org/vic_quilici/holmes_case.shtml and http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2011/April/109130.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ishmo Posted April 8, 2011 at 05:33 PM Share Posted April 8, 2011 at 05:33 PM http://isra.org/vic_...lmes_case.shtml and http://www.state.il....pril/109130.pdfI 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 More sharing options...
defaultdotxbe Posted April 8, 2011 at 05:36 PM Share Posted April 8, 2011 at 05:36 PM ah, BACKSEAT console, i was wondering how this case was any different from Diggins kindof sad that the SC is needed to make these points Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockman Posted April 8, 2011 at 05:37 PM Share Posted April 8, 2011 at 05:37 PM http://isra.org/vic_...lmes_case.shtml and http://www.state.il....pril/109130.pdfI 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 More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.