Jump to content

People v. Mosley Cook Co. AGUUW


Tvandermyde

Recommended Posts

thier is a new case I received in the mail today so some of the legal types might want to pul it up and post it here.

 

People v. Donta Mosley

decied 3/15/13

cook county criminal division

12-CR-5646-01

Judge Michael Brown

 

20 year old on a AG UUW. Judhe says sentencing guide lines require mandatory 1 year, becuse minor with gun, NO FOID.

 

But finds that 18, 19 & 20 years olds can't sign for their own FOID and creates due process violation and delcares 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6 6(d)(2) unconstitutional.

 

thy also find the disproportionate penalties and again delcares the AGG UUW unconstitutional

 

WOW

 

then goes onto say unconstitutional on its face AND as applied

 

he gets a Class A at the end of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bravo! Well here is the next court Challenge then, letting 18 year olds get a FOID card on their own. This could really go some good places for us, this could even be the avenue to get "gun licences" like the FOID ruled totally unconstitutional.

 

By the way, any idea of the firearm in question was a handgun or long gun?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kirk Dillard is in the Senate and I only know what I read in the funny papers Abolt.

I made a post three years ago and I think I made abolt mad at me. In fact, I had to go look up the public act with the number etc. Hmmm Oh, well.

 

I know that Todd has supported Dillard in the past so I may have hacked him off too. Didn't mean to do that, but facts are facts. This guy may be worthy of our support, but we should not ignore his warts.

 

http://www.infowars....son-gun-owners/

 

Illinois Senator Wants to Imprison Gun Owners

 

May 5, 2010

 

The Illinois General Assembly has passed HB 5832 a Bill that makes carrying a firearm in Illinois without a valid FOID card a mandatory 1-3 years in prison.

Under current law, carrying a weapon without a valid FOID card allowed for probation but once enacted the new law removes any and all chances of probation even for a first time offense. The Bill has yet to be signed by the Governor but it appears to be a done deal unless a grassroots effort is made to stop it.

The new law was sponsored in the Illinois Senate by Kirk Dillard, who was recently endorsed by the ISRA for Governor on the republican ticket.

HB5832 sounds like a strong tool to fight crime until you actually read the “Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon” Law in Illinois. Under section 24-1.6 the mere carrying of a firearm is considered an Aggravated offense. This includes carries on or about ones person or in any vehicle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grey, I don't remember any post three years ago, heck, I can't remember the posts from yesterday! I had already gone to ILGA to look it up before you made your post. I posted my findings as an addition to your post.

 

As my link to the ILGA site shows, the bill that changed 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6 6(d)(2) originated in the House and was sponsored by Zalewski and Acevedo. When it was passed out of the House, Munoz picked it up in the Senate. About 37 days after it arrived in the Senate, Collins signed on as an alternative sponsor. The next day Dillard signed on. It was passed in the Senate on April 28, 2010 by a 53 - 0 vote. So, several Republicans voted for it, no??

 

Not sure what's got your dander up or why you think you've p***** me off, but chill out dude!! Lordy!

 

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

guys, this one might have gotten past me.

 

I don;t remember it, and as described, it sounds as if it was goign after kids carrying guns illegally, but as we all know the rule of unintended consequenses.

 

Still I have been on the phone tonight with some people and this judge just messed up a bunch of peoples plans for HB-2265.

 

I think this gives us even more ability to go in and re-write the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

don't know I would have to go back and look at it.
Kirk Dillard
HB 5832 - 96th Gen Assembly, Chief Sponsors Zalewski-Acevedo. Munoz was the chief Senate sponsor, later adding as alternate sponsors Collins and Dillard.

 

 

The point is the news story states that Dillard was a sponsor and he was a sponsor. I said three years ago that it was a bad bill and that we would have at least one case like the one we are discussing in this thread. Do you defend this bill, still? Can you even defend anyone who voted for it much less be a sponsor? I don't know anything about this guy except that he is willing to make friends with those who work against us. Maybe there is something strategic with that, but since I am not privy to all the inside stuff, all I have to go on is what I read in the papers.

Why do I think I ticked you off. Because as soon as I mentioned Dillard you came out of the woodwork just like you did three years ago to defend this guy and criticize anyone who dared support the guy he was running against in the primary. Why is my dander up? Because we all are supposed to be on the same team and being dismissed because I don't agree with a particular strategical point of view or methodolgy. I saw this one coming and we could have been on top of it -- not that it matters that much now with the Seventh's ruling -- but abolt you did not want to see that the good senator had no clothes. At least in this one case. If he is a good guy and worthy of support, fine. Be convincing but don't try to demand my support.

 

At the time, I only had about a couple dozen posts and I was immediately surrounded by "old hats" and moderator types throwing hissy fits. May happen again. But it is what it is.

Sorry Valinda. Sometimes I can't help myself I guess. Do what you gotta do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not defending the bill or anyone that was associated with it. It garnered 93 votes in the House and 53 in the Senate so it had bipartisan support. I was simply posting what I found on the ILGA site. You were correct, Dillard was a sponsor. However, one might think that he was the only sponsor, which is not correct. He is listed as an alternate co-sponsor as opposed to Collins' designation as a alternate chief co-sponsor.

 

You're reading into my posts something that is not there. I've never been an "eyes closed" suporter of Kirk Dillard. Sure he has warts, just as all of our legislators do. Some are pretty ugly warts. I supported Dillard 3 years ago because I thought he was the only hope that we had to win the Gov's mansion for a gun friendly Republican.

 

Deep in my heart I hoped that Brady would win because I wanted a downstate Gov. But, I also didn't think he could overcome the soccer moms and NFL dads of the suburbs. And he didn't.

 

If I did something three years ago that irritated you and you still haven't forgotten it, then I apologize. I just tried to put the whole story out there behind the bill.

 

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

guys it's to much for me to type but you should read it.

 

but here is part of it:

 

28. In its analsys of the misdemeanor UUW statute McGee thius fails to follow the approach taken by the IL supreme court in Laubscher. facing a conflict between an appellate court decision and a supreme court decsion, this court mustof course follow the supreme court. (its fundimental that once a supreme court delares the law on any pint itsa decsion is binding on all illinois court. and we cannot refuse to follow it becuase we have no authority to overrule or modify suprem court decsions quoteing Crespo

 

29 thus a person carrying an uncased, loaded, immediately accessible weapon without a FOID card can be charged and convicted under either the misdemeanor UUW statute or the AGUUW statute. Thge greater punishment required for a violation of the Ag UUW statute can only be justified under proportionate penalites clause if the statute requires the state to prove different or additional elements to convict a defendant of AG UUW; however contrary to McGree the statute makes no such requirement. the elements of the two offenses are identical. The AG UUW statute is therefore unconstitutional under the proportionate penalites clause of the Illinois Consitution becuse it fails the indentical elements test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thier is a new case I received in the mail today so some of the legal types might want to pul it up and post it here.

 

People v. Donta Mosley

decied 3/15/13

cook county criminal division

12-CR-5646-01

Judge Michael Brown

 

20 year old on a AG UUW. Judhe says sentencing guide lines require mandatory 1 year, becuse minor with gun, NO FOID.

 

But finds that 18, 19 & 20 years olds can't sign for their own FOID and creates due process violation and delcares 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6 6(d)(2) unconstitutional.

 

thy also find the disproportionate penalties and again delcares the AGG UUW unconstitutional

 

WOW

 

then goes onto say unconstitutional on its face AND as applied

 

he gets a Class A at the end of it.

 

I love it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30. Based upon the prceedings discussion, this court finds the offense established by 720 ilcs 5/24-1.6(a)(1) & (a)(3)(A)&© and the punishment prescribed for the offense by 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(d)(2) are unconsituttional based upon the proportionate penalties clause of Artile I, Section 11 of the Il consitution and the due process clause of Artilce 1, section 2 of the Il consitution;

 

31 that as to these provisions the aggrevated unlawful use of a weapons statute is unconsitutional both onit's face and as applied to the defendant because it cannot be reasonably contrued in a manner that would preserve its validity

 

32 that this finding of unconsitutionality is necessary to the judgement rendered and the judgement could not rest on an alternate ground and;

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This HB2265 It's the one that an amendment was filed for a day or two ago increasing the penalty for expired FOID or carry cards.

 

Figured out the error. I googled the bill and it took me to the HB2265 of the last session.

 

Yeah, Google is bad about that. Glad you found it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...