120 replies to this topic

[1957Human]

The Illinois Supreme Court will be filing an opinion in People v. Diggins, No. 106367, at 9 a.m. this Thursday.

[Bud]

1957Human, on Oct 5 2009, 02:20 PM, said:

The Illinois Supreme Court will be filing an opinion in People v. Diggins, No. 106367, at 9 a.m. this Thursday.

I think this is the correct case, right?

Per People v Diggins, 2008 Ill App. LEXIS 195, the Third District Appellate Court ruled on March 11, 2008, that  the center console of a vehicle constitutes a case for the “enclosed in a case exception” to the Aggravated UUW statute. “ Allowing drivers to hide weapons anywhere in the vehicle, so long as the case is portable, while prohibiting the storage of such weapon in a glove box or center console {is} absurd, illogical and unjust.” In Diggins there was a factual dispute as to whether the console was locked or open and the court thus remanded for a new trial rather than reversing the conviction outright.

[1957Human]

BudMan5, on Oct 6 2009, 02:39 PM, said:

1957Human, on Oct 5 2009, 02:20 PM, said:

The Illinois Supreme Court will be filing an opinion in People v. Diggins, No. 106367, at 9 a.m. this Thursday.

I think this is the correct case, right?

Per People v Diggins, 2008 Ill App. LEXIS 195, the Third District Appellate Court ruled on March 11, 2008, that  the center console of a vehicle constitutes a case for the “enclosed in a case exception” to the Aggravated UUW statute. “ Allowing drivers to hide weapons anywhere in the vehicle, so long as the case is portable, while prohibiting the storage of such weapon in a glove box or center console {is} absurd, illogical and unjust.” In Diggins there was a factual dispute as to whether the console was locked or open and the court thus remanded for a new trial rather than reversing the conviction outright.

That's the "case."

[Don Gwinn]

HA! HAHA!

I see what you did there.

[Tvandermyde]

do you have the linek tot h annoucement?

[burningspear]

BudMan5, on Oct 6 2009, 02:39 PM, said:

1957Human, on Oct 5 2009, 02:20 PM, said:

The Illinois Supreme Court will be filing an opinion in People v. Diggins, No. 106367, at 9 a.m. this Thursday.

I think this is the correct case, right?


That's the "case."

A tractor?

[Bud]

[/url]

Tvandermyde, on Oct 6 2009, 06:08 PM, said:

do you have the linek tot h annoucement?

Illinois Supreme Court Opinion Annoucement

[1957Human]

Caulk up another one for the good guys!

In a unanimous opinion (written by a Chicago judge, no less), the Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Diggins No. 106367, has held:

"Section 24-1.6{c}{iii} of the Criminal Code of 1961 provides that a person is not guilty of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon if that weapon is “unloaded and enclosed in a case, firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container by a person who has been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card.' 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6{c}{iii} (West 2006). In the case at bar, we are asked to determine whether the center console of a vehicle is a 'case' within the meaning of this provision. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that it is."

[Blaster]

1957Human, on Oct 8 2009, 09:07 AM, said:

Caulk up another one for the good guys!

In a unanimous opinion (written by a Chicago judge, no less), the Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Diggins No. 106367, has held:

"Section 24-1.6{c}{iii} of the Criminal Code of 1961 provides that a person is not guilty of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon if that weapon is “unloaded and enclosed in a case, firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container by a person who has been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card.' 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6{c}{iii} (West 2006). In the case at bar, we are asked to determine whether the center console of a vehicle is a 'case' within the meaning of this provision. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that it is."

Link please.

[Don Gwinn]

1957Human, on Oct 8 2009, 09:07 AM, said:

Caulk up another one for the good guys!

In a unanimous opinion (written by a Chicago judge, no less), the Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Diggins No. 106367, has held:

"Section 24-1.6{c}{iii} of the Criminal Code of 1961 provides that a person is not guilty of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon if that weapon is “unloaded and enclosed in a case, firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container by a person who has been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card.' 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6{c}{iii} (West 2006). In the case at bar, we are asked to determine whether the center console of a vehicle is a 'case' within the meaning of this provision. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that it is."

Good news, how did you get it?  I was about to call the IL Supreme Court on the phone (since they say they will give limited information by phone.)  I checked the website and it doesn't look like they post the decisions immediately.
I'd like to confirm this.

[Don Gwinn]

All the Clerk would tell me (I guess it was all she had in front of her) was the word "Affirmed."  So, yes, they affirmed the 3rd Circuit, but I'd like to read the decision if it's out there somewhere.

[burningspear]

'Tis a container it be.

[Lou]

This is really good news.   The tide is turning.

[Tvandermyde]

i'm working on getting, by the looks of things the court updates its webpage mid-day.

I'm interested in how the addressed the arguements of the AG office, and guys, expect the otherside to howl and I look for a bill about consoles and gloveboxes during veto session if not January.

[burningspear]

So true and so sad, since changing that law will not stop or slow down violent crime......... Where is the nexus?

[Tvandermyde]

here it is i'm uploading then reading it more to follow.

Attached Files

•  Diggins_case.pdf   1.11MB   1178 downloads

[Bud]

Tvandermyde, on Oct 8 2009, 09:37 AM, said:

i'm working on getting, by the looks of things the court updates its webpage mid-day.

I'm interested in how the addressed the arguements of the AG office, and guys, expect the otherside to howl and I look for a bill about consoles and gloveboxes during veto session if not January.

Absolutely time to contact your state Rep and senator concerning this decision and how much you want him/her to support the decision and fight any attempt to write a new law.

This is no time to sit back and feel satisfied becvause starting now and lasting until the SCOTUS decision next spring, the antis will be turning up the heat.

[Fido]

Tvandermyde, on Oct 8 2009, 09:37 AM, said:

i'm working on getting, by the looks of things the court updates its webpage mid-day.

I'm interested in how the addressed the arguements of the AG office, and guys, expect the otherside to howl and I look for a bill about consoles and gloveboxes during veto session if not January.

Forgive my naivety, but if the Supreme court says a console is a case wouldn't a law saying otherwise be unconstitutional?

[Ol'Coach]

No doubt that ISP HQ will notify all its District HQ's, which will, in turn, notify each and every officer, of this decision, right?

Sheriffs, as well.

Because there are ex-students of mine working in each of the C/U, UI, Sheriff departments here, I will be in touch with them!

[Tvandermyde]

After a quick read i would say this is a knock out.

The state was rebuffed on all counts:

1. must be a firearms case or designed for that purpose.
2. has to be portable.
3. prevous bad case law about gym bags and other things are now undone.

"given the word case its plain and ordinary meaning, as we must, permits but one conclusion: the term "case" in section 24-1.6 includes any portable or nonportable reseptical and need not be intrepreted only in referance to firearms."

as best as I can transpose

Big win today. it seems like a small thing, but it is a good day.

[Lou]

Fido, on Oct 8 2009, 09:57 AM, said:

Tvandermyde, on Oct 8 2009, 09:37 AM, said:

i'm working on getting, by the looks of things the court updates its webpage mid-day.

I'm interested in how the addressed the arguements of the AG office, and guys, expect the otherside to howl and I look for a bill about consoles and gloveboxes during veto session if not January.

Forgive my naivety, but if the Supreme court says a console is a case wouldn't a law saying otherwise be unconstitutional?

I scanned the ruling and the court's ruling {although IANAL} hinges on the fact that the legislature does not define exactly what a "case" is.  If the legislature more clearly defines what is and isn't a "case" it would be constitutional.  

OUR job is to lobby our elected officials and prevent them from passing such a "clarification."

[Ol'Coach]

By that ruling, then, no longer a question about fanny packs, correct?

...except for the fact that, the office of the ISP has chosen all along to give it own interpretation of the law.

Is that gonna change?

[Tvandermyde]

Lou, on Oct 8 2009, 10:14 AM, said:

Fido, on Oct 8 2009, 09:57 AM, said:

Tvandermyde, on Oct 8 2009, 09:37 AM, said:

i'm working on getting, by the looks of things the court updates its webpage mid-day.

I'm interested in how the addressed the arguements of the AG office, and guys, expect the otherside to howl and I look for a bill about consoles and gloveboxes during veto session if not January.

Forgive my naivety, but if the Supreme court says a console is a case wouldn't a law saying otherwise be unconstitutional?

I scanned the ruling and the court's ruling {although IANAL} hinges on the fact that the legislature does not define exactly what a "case" is. If the legislature more clearly defines what is and isn't a "case" it would be constitutional.

OUR job is to lobby our elected officials and prevent them from passing such a "clarification."

that's why i wrote it the way I did. This was the intended outcome of the policy we wanted. unloaded, ENCLOSED IN A (any) CASE.

[Bud]

Ol'Coach, on Oct 8 2009, 10:18 AM, said:

By that ruling, then, no longer a question about fanny packs, correct?

I would be real cautious about that. "Transporting" in a vehicle and "transporting" on a person are two entirely different things.

On the face of it, I would agree but I'll bet you a dollar to a donut that as soon as someone gets caught doing that it will end up in court.

There will be screams from the antis very soon, bvery fast and very vocal.

Fights on.

[Don Gwinn]

Fido, not really.  The Supreme Court isn't declaring that "console" always means "case" in English, at all.  They're only affirming that the word "case" as used in this legislation ("for the purposes of this Act") can mean case.

Each law can define its terms any way it wants.  That's why the Wildlife Code can still say that a case has to be a case specifically designed to house a firearm--because in that law, the word "case" is defined for purposes of that law.

Sometimes the definitions can seem wacky, but that's the way it goes.  That's how D.C. applied so many restrictions to semi-autos--they wrote the restrictions for machine guns, and defined a machine gun as "any semi-automatic firearm that accepts magazines holding 12 rounds or more." Voila!  For the purposes of that law, and that law only, a 1911 is a machine gun because it could accept an extended magazine.

[Tvandermyde]

they question of fanny packs should be settled. But as budman says someone will get arrested if pushed. Give it a week and lets see what the Crook county folks and Chicago come up with. I'll know mo0re about some things after next weeks veto session.

no watch out for locals and towns to start doing some crazy stuff if they get pushed by someone.

anyone want to guess how long before the fur flies with the antis or city folk today ?

10

9

8

7.....

[abolt243]

Tvandermyde, on Oct 8 2009, 10:34 AM, said:

they question of fanny packs should be settled. But as budman says someone will get arrested if pushed. Give it a week and lets see what the Crook county folks and Chicago come up with. I'll know mo0re about some things after next weeks veto session.

no watch out for locals and towns to start doing some crazy stuff if they get pushed by someone.

anyone want to guess how long before the fur flies with the antis or city folk today ?

10

9

8

7.....

Now, on to a carry bill, then we won't have to worry about defining "loaded"!!!

Tim

[Gbbear]

BudMan5, on Oct 8 2009, 10:22 AM, said:

Ol'Coach, on Oct 8 2009, 10:18 AM, said:

By that ruling, then, no longer a question about fanny packs, correct?

I would be real cautious about that. "Transporting" in a vehicle and "transporting" on a person are two entirely different things.

On the face of it, I would agree but I'll bet you a dollar to a donut that as soon as someone gets caught doing that it will end up in court.

There will be screams from the antis very soon, bvery fast and very vocal.

Fights on.

So if I have wear a fanny pack with an unloaded gun inside my vehicle, what does that do?

[Chris]

Gbbear, on Oct 8 2009, 10:53 AM, said:

BudMan5, on Oct 8 2009, 10:22 AM, said:

Ol'Coach, on Oct 8 2009, 10:18 AM, said:

By that ruling, then, no longer a question about fanny packs, correct?

I would be real cautious about that. "Transporting" in a vehicle and "transporting" on a person are two entirely different things.

On the face of it, I would agree but I'll bet you a dollar to a donut that as soon as someone gets caught doing that it will end up in court.

There will be screams from the antis very soon, bvery fast and very vocal.

Fights on.

So if I have wear a fanny pack with an unloaded gun inside my vehicle, what does that do?

No different than before since you are still transporting your firearm.

[Ol'Coach]

JMO, but if you read the entire document, it reads as though the Court is strongly recommending suggesting that the IL legislature amend the wording to, "firearms case," or words to that effect.