Jump to content


People vs Juan Williams

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
4 replies to this topic

#1 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 17,308 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 28 November 2015 - 04:24 PM

I haven't seen this posted and don't remember discussing it recently. Defendant  filed a motion entitled “Motion To Declare The
Sentencing Penalties Under 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6 Unconstitutional.


IL Supreme Court concluded that the offense of AUUW based on the lack of a FOID card and a violation of the FOID Card Act do not have identical elements and thus, there can be no proportionate penalty violation.

The judgment of the circuit court is reversed and the cause is remanded to the circuit court with directions to reinstate the charges against defendant.


Attached File  State vs Juan Williams.pdf   32.53KB   385 downloads

"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#2 Tango7


  • Members
  • 4,921 posts
  • Joined: 06-November 08

Posted 28 November 2015 - 05:14 PM

So because he won, he's being recharged?
You will not 'rise to the occasion', you will default to your level of training - plan accordingly.

Despite their rallying around us at election time, honoring only 8 hours of Illinois' 40+ hour law enforcement class towards a 16 hour requirement shows the contempt that our elected officials hold us in.

#3 .40carry


  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 531 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 13

Posted 28 November 2015 - 05:30 PM

So because he won, he's being recharged?

The way I read it, the lower court's decision allowing for dismissal of charges was overturned thus the re-charging.

Edited by .40carry, 28 November 2015 - 05:31 PM.

#4 2A4Cook

    Old and Cranky

  • Members
  • 4,127 posts
  • Joined: 17-April 14

Posted 28 November 2015 - 06:34 PM

The elements of the

So because he won, he's being recharged?

He didn't win. He was successful in getting the lower court to DISMISS the charges prior to trial, because the penalties are disproportionate between the FOID Act and the UUW statute, with which he was charged. The argument the court bought was that the elements of both offenses were identical, therefore it was unconstitutional to charge him under the statute with stiffer penalties when the FOID Act violation would carry a lesser sentence. The Supreme Court found that the elements were NOT identical, in that you cannot commit UUW merely by possessing a firearm in your home without possessing a valid FOID (although you COULD be so charged for possessing one in your vehicle, as he was charged). There was no trial, and the state had appealed, so they are entitled (indeed, instructed) to reinstate the charges. I don't agree with it.

#5 mwagila

  • Members
  • 9 posts
  • Joined: 09-July 12

Posted 15 February 2016 - 11:54 AM

   How would one go about vacating a 2012 AUUW charge without an attorney? I can't afford one. I am an Indiana resident that was passing through and got pulled over while carrying my pistol with an Indiana carry permit. Any help would be greatly appreciated. I lost my Beretta, my car and got locked up in Cook County for 16 days, while I saw gangbangers with the same charge walk on out!!