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

lockman · Apr 7, 2011

Decision 7-0

Full decision at : http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2011/April/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(unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23).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.

Yooper · Apr 8, 2011

Brief article on it
http://www.pjstar.com/free/x816852171/Ill-court-allows-nonresidents-to-transport-guns

markm · Apr 8, 2011

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.

MKEgal · Apr 10, 2011

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"

junglebob · Apr 10, 2011

MarkBofRAdvocate said:
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.

Gunslinger · Apr 11, 2011

Yooper said:
Brief article on it
http://www.pjstar.com/free/x816852171/Ill-court-allows-nonresidents-to-transport-guns

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.

Gunslinger · Apr 11, 2011

Gunslinger said:
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.

VW_Factor · Apr 11, 2011

MKEgal said:
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?

Gunslinger · Apr 12, 2011

VW_Factor said:
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.

stuckinchico · Apr 12, 2011

A permit to own a firearms should be illegal and unconstitutional. They should have killed that with this courts opinion.

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

lockman

State Researcher

Yooper

Regular Member

markm

New member

MKEgal

Regular Member

junglebob

Regular Member

Gunslinger

Regular Member

Gunslinger

Regular Member

VW_Factor

Regular Member

Gunslinger

Regular Member

stuckinchico

Regular Member