Jump to content

People v. Webb - IL Supreme Court Rules Ban On Carrying Stun Guns and Tasers Unconstitutional


Molly B.

Recommended Posts

 

It's constitutional carry of stun guns until the FCCA is amended to include stun guns.

Ding ding I was just gonna say that. They declared it facially unconstitutional and didn't stay the mandate like what CA7 did in Moore. The statute doesn't exist due to this ruling. Void from inception.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

There are a whole lot of people that can apply to have convictions expunged. Stun guns have been a very popular UUW charge over the years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There are a whole lot of people that can apply to have convictions expunged. Stun guns have been a very popular UUW charge over the years.
Oh yeah they've been having fun vacating AUUW convictions post-Aguilar/Moseley. Now they gotta go back to the beginning for stun devices. Just what the judiciary really wants to do...re-adjudicate hundreds (thousands?) of cases. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There are a whole lot of people that can apply to have convictions expunged. Stun guns have been a very popular UUW charge over the years.
Oh yeah they've been having fun vacating AUUW convictions post-Aguilar/Moseley. Now they gotta go back to the beginning for stun devices. Just what the judiciary really wants to do...re-adjudicate hundreds (thousands?) of cases. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

A reasonable governor would just issue a blanket pardon to save everyone the headaches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

A reasonable governor would just issue a blanket pardon to save everyone the headaches.
Key word, "reasonable." Too bad we have JB the Hutt. Well at least this gives the ILGA pause over new legislation when current statute is being declared unconstitutional from its inception. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There are a whole lot of people that can apply to have convictions expunged. Stun guns have been a very popular UUW charge over the years.
Oh yeah they've been having fun vacating AUUW convictions post-Aguilar/Moseley. Now they gotta go back to the beginning for stun devices. Just what the judiciary really wants to do...re-adjudicate hundreds (thousands?) of cases. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Just imagine if FOID being unconstitutional is upheld how many convictions will be up for expungement!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, since the statute banning stun guns/Tasers in essence, has never been Constitutional, and as a result a giant's butt-load of AUUW convictions are now going to need to be re-adjudicated or expunged, will there be any possibility for compensation from the state to those adversely affected by those convictions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

[W]ill there be any possibility for compensation from the state to those adversely affected by those convictions?
Negatory. Not unless it was a wrongful conviction to begin with. Best they'll get is conviction vacated, entire sheet expunged, make it disappear. And we ALL know that NOTHING ever disappears.Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

[W]ill there be any possibility for compensation from the state to those adversely affected by those convictions?
Negatory. Not unless it was a wrongful conviction to begin with. Best they'll get is conviction vacated, entire sheet expunged, make it disappear. And we ALL know that NOTHING ever disappears. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Wouldn't the fact that the conviction was obtained under an unconstitutional law make it a wrongful conviction by definition?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The jurisprudence governing that is mighty complicated. It's POSSIBLE but it technically isn't a wrongful conviction in the eyes of the law. It's...being convicted of an unconstitutional law.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

SO you can be Rightfully be convicted of an UnConstitutional Law you didn’t have to follow ????

I need a drink!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The jurisprudence governing that is mighty complicated. It's POSSIBLE but it technically isn't a wrongful conviction in the eyes of the law. It's...being convicted of an unconstitutional law. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

The fact remains that harm was received by the people so unconstitutionally convicted, so at the very least it would be a civil rights violation. Would that be even worse, then, than merely a wrongful conviction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrongful conviction refers to a conviction derived from an unfair process, like a (possibly false) coerced confession, fabrication or destruction of evidence, witness or jury tampering, or corruption. Basically someone involved in the process had to commit a crime to skew the result, although there are ways to obtain a wrongful conviction that may not technically be crimes, like the prosecution packing a jury with people it knows are likely to convict no matter what the evidence is.

 

In the case of people convicted of UUW for stun guns and tasers, everyone faithfully enforced what they thought was a valid law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^^^^^^

This. Is what I was trying to get at.

 

It's the same concept (more or less) as the Davis good faith exception when applying current 4A precedent to cases that arose before the current precedent. Lots of people sitting in prison due to searches & seizures that have since been deemed unconstitutional.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

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...