Yes and No. I take a bit of pride with the Court recognising the language I put into the UUW and AGUUW statute of ISSUED. prior to that is was possesed. I never liked the idea of getting in trouble cuase I forgot my wallet and had something in the truck.
We write good statutes, but asswipe political people try to twist them into somehting they are not. Take the idea that only an Illinois resident could transport a gun unloaded and in a case, while the same conduct would get a non-resident a felony under AGUUW while it is clearly mentioned in the FOID statute.
well thats one of the reasons we have 3 branches of government, legislative to make them, executive to enforce them, and judicial to interpret them, so when mistakes happen (after all, we are only human) the same mistake has to be made 3 times
theres a bill in the assembly now dealing with possession of stolen firearms, from reading the current law, it seems that possession of less than 30 stolen firearms is one kind of offense, while possession of more than 31 is another. technically, this means that possession of exactly 31 stolen firearms is not defined as offense (31 is not "less than 30" nor "more than 31") so legislation will change that from "more than 31" to "31 or more"
i dont know if this has become an issue at all, but my point is people make mistakes, and there is no shortages of people who intend to exploit those mistakes
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
Since it went to the supreme court I assume that he must have been found guilty by a lower court. If this is true even with the Diggins decision some lower court judges can't get the law right.
yeah, i know he must have been convicted in a lower court, thats one of the reasons i find it sad the supreme
court had to make the decision
although todd pointed out the original conviction predated diggins, so my point is somewhat moot