Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Illinois Supreme Court - Your foreign carry license = FOID for gun transport

  1. #1
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202

    Illinois Supreme Court - Your foreign carry license = FOID for gun transport

    Decision 7-0

    Full decision at : http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinion...ril/109130.pdf

    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v.LEONARD HOLMES, JR., Appellant.
    Opinion filed April 7, 2011.
    JUSTICE BURKE delivered the judgment of the court, withopinion.
    Chief Justice Kilbride and Justices Freeman, Thomas, Karmeier,and Theis concurred in the judgment and opinion.
    Justice Garman specially concurred, with opinion.

    OPINION
    Defendant was charged by information with two counts of
    aggravated unlawful use of a weapon. Count I alleged that defendant
    carried in his vehicle an “uncased, loaded, and immediately accessible”
    firearm. Count II alleged defendant carried in his vehicle a firearm and
    “had not been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner’s Identification
    Card.” A jury, in the circuit court of Cook County, returned a general
    verdict of guilty and the appellate court affirmed. No. 1–07–1490
    (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). In this appeal, we
    must determine whether defendant’s conviction for aggravated
    unlawful use of a weapon is proper under either count charged. For
    the reasons that follow, we answer that question in the negative and,
    therefore, reverse the judgment of the appellate court.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Yooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Houghton County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    808
    Rand Paul 2016

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Roseville, California, USA
    Posts
    486

    Brainwashed!

    Hello All,

    I just read 15 pages of the majority opinion. The Illinois Supreme Court justices must be thinking that the police, persecutor, and lower courts are idiots. The only other conclusion is that they are brainwashed.

    The brainwashed cops over-reacted to a situation that should have been resolved with officer discretion; even if the officers did not know the law and case law (which was the situation). The officers should have followed 4A case law for the full beer bottle and the gun as they found them illegally. A smart cop would have avoided any mention of the gun or full beer bottle in official documents to eliminate a 42 USC 1983 against themselves.

    Defendent's rights were violated and the cops should be personally sued (IMHO).

    The officers clearly lied in court proceedings. No doubt in my mind (IMHO).

    After the illegal search of the car and the illegal detention of defendent (this was not a Terry hot stop), the cops should have put the gun in the trunk, closed it, and instructed the defendent to keep it there and end with: "have a nice day sir, and drive careful!"

    Police are to assume that a gun is being borne legally unless RAS exists (Terry v. Ohio, SCOTUS).

    LEO is the problem!

    markm

    "The mere presence of a legally carried gun does not negate 4A rights." SCOTUS
    Also, see U.S. v. King, U.S. v. Ubiiles.
    Last edited by MarkBofRAdvocate; 04-08-2011 at 11:15 AM. Reason: changed a word

  4. #4
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426

    they almost got it right...

    It would have been better, and more in line w/ the Constitution, if they had ruled that any citizen of the US is, by virtue of the 2A, allowed to "keep & bear arms".

    Besides, they keep referring to people who are 'licensed in their state of residence', which leaves out WI residents, & any other state that doesn't have an optional priviledge permit.

    Part of the FOID law is that a valid permit from someone's home state is an acceptable substitute for a FOID card. The original courts ignored that.

    The original courts also ignored previous SCIL rulings about what constitutes a 'case', and this SCIL ruling reaffirms that a compartment in a car (center console, armrest, etc.) can be considered a case.

    So it was in a case, was arguably unloaded*, the guy had a permit which the lower 2 courts ignored... and he was put through the wringer anyway. Wonder if there's any way to get IL (or Chicago, or the officers who committed the original offense) to pay his legal expenses.

    * "we cannot say that it was proven at trial beyond a reasonable doubt that the gun was loaded and that it was immediately accessable"
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southern Illinois, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    364
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkBofRAdvocate View Post
    Hello All,

    I just read 15 pages of the majority opinion. The Illinois Supreme Court justices must be thinking that the police, persecutor, and lower courts are idiots. The only other conclusion is that they are brainwashed.

    The brainwashed cops over-reacted to a situation that should have been resolved with officer discretion; even if the officers did not know the law and case law (which was the situation). The officers should have followed 4A case law for the full beer bottle and the gun as they found them illegally. A smart cop would have avoided any mention of the gun or full beer bottle in official documents to eliminate a 42 USC 1983 against themselves.

    Defendent's rights were violated and the cops should be personally sued (IMHO).

    The officers clearly lied in court proceedings. No doubt in my mind (IMHO).

    After the illegal search of the car and the illegal detention of defendent (this was not a Terry hot stop), the cops should have put the gun in the trunk, closed it, and instructed the defendent to keep it there and end with: "have a nice day sir, and drive careful!"

    Police are to assume that a gun is being borne legally unless RAS exists (Terry v. Ohio, SCOTUS).

    LEO is the problem!

    markm

    "The mere presence of a legally carried gun does not negate 4A rights." SCOTUS
    Also, see U.S. v. King, U.S. v. Ubiiles.
    The brainwashed cops who stopped the guy were in Cook County, so of course they couldn't just put the gun in his trunk and send him on his way. I was checking on cities here in Illinois that might have firearms ordinances on transport maybe a year ago. I called one city and they gave me the police chief to talk to he told me "No we don't have any special ordinaces on transporting a gun. We maybe have a couple UUW arrests a year, and these are usually the result of someone being arrested for something else. We know a lot of people transport firearms. I'm sure his attitude is 180 degrees from what the police chief or sheriff in Cook County that these cops work under.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by Yooper View Post
    Good decision. Peaceful transport is a protected, Federal right. Now that case law exists on it in IL, that's a step forward. Means you won't have to offer an affirmative defense.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunslinger View Post
    Good decision. Peaceful transport is a protected, Federal right. Now that case law exists on it in IL, that's a step forward. Means you won't have to offer an affirmative defense.
    Upon reading the entire decision, peaceful transport is not an issue in the instant case. Valid possession of a weapon licensed by a nonresident is. Also, the cops lied through their teeth and the inferior courts were morons. The FOID act clearly states, given the console was a container and the pistol unloaded, it is protected conduct. Even better decision for the protection of those going into and then back out of the PDR of IL. I was not aware of this law. Thanks to the OP for bringing it up.

  8. #8
    Regular Member VW_Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Leesburg, GA
    Posts
    1,098
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    It would have been better, and more in line w/ the Constitution, if they had ruled that any citizen of the US is, by virtue of the 2A, allowed to "keep & bear arms".

    Besides, they keep referring to people who are 'licensed in their state of residence', which leaves out WI residents, & any other state that doesn't have an optional priviledge permit.

    Part of the FOID law is that a valid permit from someone's home state is an acceptable substitute for a FOID card. The original courts ignored that.

    The original courts also ignored previous SCIL rulings about what constitutes a 'case', and this SCIL ruling reaffirms that a compartment in a car (center console, armrest, etc.) can be considered a case.

    So it was in a case, was arguably unloaded*, the guy had a permit which the lower 2 courts ignored... and he was put through the wringer anyway. Wonder if there's any way to get IL (or Chicago, or the officers who committed the original offense) to pay his legal expenses.

    * "we cannot say that it was proven at trial beyond a reasonable doubt that the gun was loaded and that it was immediately accessable"
    What I read out of that, is that anyone who is permitted to transport the firearm elsewhere, does not require a FOID to transport in their state if they are not a resident.

    Unless I missed something.. Just about everyone is legal to transport firearms (in various manners depending on state) in other states.. So.. If you don't live there, isn't that pretty much a free pass?

  9. #9
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by VW_Factor View Post
    What I read out of that, is that anyone who is permitted to transport the firearm elsewhere, does not require a FOID to transport in their state if they are not a resident.

    Unless I missed something.. Just about everyone is legal to transport firearms (in various manners depending on state) in other states.. So.. If you don't live there, isn't that pretty much a free pass?
    No. In IL an out of state permit/license substitutes for the 'lawful' transport of a firearm under the same conditions as a FOID for IL residents. Peaceful transport--interstate, is protected by Federal law assuming you can legally possess the gun at the start and end states of your trip. Intrastate laws depend on the state, as does going into one state and then returning to your home state, as in this case.

  10. #10
    Regular Member stuckinchico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Stevenson, Alabama, United States
    Posts
    506
    A permit to own a firearms should be illegal and unconstitutional. They should have killed that with this courts opinion.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •