People vs Mosley

[Molly B.]

IL Supreme Court rules in People vs Mosley:

Circuit court judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part. Cause remanded.

http://illinoiscourts.gov/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2015/115872.pdf

CONCLUSION

¶ 61 For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the trial court’s judgment vacating defendant’s

Class 4 convictions of AUUW under counts II and V, as the offenses charged therein are based

on, respectively, statutory sections 24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A), and 24-1.6(a)(2), (a)(3)(A), which

we find to be unconstitutional. Further, we reverse the trial court’s judgment vacating

defendant’s Class 4 convictions of AUUW under counts III and VI, as the offenses charged

therein are based on, respectively, statutory sections 24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)©, and 24-1.6(a)(2),

-20 -(a)(3)©, which we find to be constitutional and severable from the unconstitutional (a)(3)(A)

subsection stated in counts II and V. We also reverse the trial court’s judgment vacating

defendant’s Class 4 convictions of AUUW under counts IV and VII, as the offenses charged

therein are based on, respectively, statutory sections 24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(I), and 24-1.6(a)(2),

(a)(3)(I), which we find to be constitutional and severable from the unconstitutional (a)(3)(A)

subsection stated in counts II and V. Additionally, we find that portion of the AUUW statute

set forth in section 24-1.6(d)(2) to be invalid, as that sentencing subsection relies upon the

unconstitutional and void ab initio

(a)(3)(A) subsection. 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(d)(2) (West 2012).

Finally, we vacate the trial court’s judgment convicting and sentencing defendant for one

count of misdemeanor UUW under section 24-1.6(d)(2) of the Criminal Code. 720 ILCS

5/24-1(a)(4) (West 2012). Accordingly, we remand this cause to the trial court for sentencing.

¶ 62

Circuit court judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.

[armadroid]

good or bad?

[Patriots & Tyrants]

I am skimming through but it appears AUUW is not unconstitutional in IL.

 

They however reject the finding that FOID cards are unconstitutional

 

"We also reject defendant’s argument that, under due process, subsection (a)(3)© and the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act (FOID Card Act) (430 ILCS 65/0.01 (West 2012)) are unconstitutional, both facially and as applied. Defendant relies on the trial court finding that subsection (a)(3)©, in combination with the FOID Card Act, violates due process by placing special burdens on the ability of defendant, and all similarly situated 18- to 20-year-old adults, to obtain a FOID card. The relevant portions of the FOID Card Act states as follows: “(a) Each applicant for a Firearm Owner’s Identification Card must: *** (2) Submit evidence to the Department of State Police that: (i) He or she is 21 years of age or over, or if he or she is under 21 years of age that he or she has the written consent of his or her parent or legal guardian to possess and acquire firearms and firearm ammunition *** provided, however, that such parent or legal guardian is not an individual prohibited from having a [FOID] Card ***[.] (ii) He or she has not been convicted of a felony under the laws of this or any other jurisdiction[.]” 430 ILCS 65/4(a)(2)(i), (ii) (West 2012)"

 

"Rather, we simply conclude that where “the possession of handguns by minors is conduct that falls outside the scope of the second amendment’s protection”"

 

 

Minors being banned from owning firearms (18-20 year olds) is constitutional.

 

 

Basically the existing restrictions on FOID cards for 18-20 year olds will stand, I would chalk this one up as a loss overall for gun owners unless I am missing something.

[bmyers]

So now, do you have to be 21 y/o before you can be charged as an adult? The court just ruled them minors, so you shouldn't face adult charges until 21.

[Ken911]

and they can stay on your insurance till 26.

[Molly B.]

¶ 36

Indeed, we find the FOID card requirement of subsection (a)(3)(C is consistent with this

court’s recognition that the second amendment right to possess firearms is still “subject to

meaningful regulation.”

Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116, ¶ 21;

[ragsbo]

Could someone please put this in plain American English? SO, they ruled the FOID is okay and we'll have to keep it?

 

What was the case about?

[Molly B.]

19 year old in possession of a loaded, uncased handgun, with no FOID.

 

Basically, FOID is constitutional as 'reasonable regulation' and so in banning handguns for those under 21.

[borgranta]

The state better hope this does not reach SCOTUS because this could be the case that would destroy the ban on open carry and the FOID ACT due to the fact that an adult does not need parental permission to exercise a right. Also the fact that non-residents of the same age are exempt from needing a FOID which is an equal protection violation.

[borgranta]

This case could potentially destroy all regulation of open carry period and possibly destroy all regulation related to possession which means New Jersey firearm id card would be destroyed by the court ruling.

[gLockedandLoaded]

If you need a state-issued permission card to exercise a right, it isn't exactly a right.

 

Of course, we live in a country with things like established "1st amendment zones" so it's not like we actually pay attention to the constitution anyway.