Brief article on it
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.
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(unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23).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.
Rand Paul 2016
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!
"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 10:15 AM. Reason: changed a word
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"
Originally Posted by MLK, JrOriginally Posted by MSG LaigaieOriginally Posted by Proverbs 27:12Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
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?
A permit to own a firearms should be illegal and unconstitutional. They should have killed that with this courts opinion.