Illinois Supreme Court allows nonresidents to transport guns

pachanga22 · Apr 11, 2011

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) - The Illinois Supreme Court says people permitted to carry guns in other states may transport them here without an Illinois license.

The court ruled unanimously Thursday in the case of an Indiana resident who was arrested in May 2005 with a gun in a closed backseat armrest of his car.

Leonard Holmes was charged with felony aggravated unlawful use of weapon because he lacked a Firearm Owners Identification card and didn't have the gun in a case.

Holmes had a permit to carry a concealed firearm in Indiana, and the court held that Illinois law does not require a FOID card too. It also ruled the armrest served as a case.

The case is People v. Holmes.

Online: http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/recent_supreme.asp

http://www.kfvs12.com/Global/story.asp?S=14406943Illinois Supreme Court

protias · Apr 11, 2011

We are already protected under federal law: 18 USCS § 926A.

http://forum.pafoa.org/concealed-open-carry-121/35684-faq-interstate-transportation-firearms.html

I had ISP threaten to put me in jail when I got stopped by them since I did not have a FOID card. I told them I was protected under the federal transportation law and that it was impossible for me to get a FOID card since I was not a IL resident. It even says on their web page you don't need one if you aren't an IL resident.

http://www.isp.state.il.us/foid/firearmsfaq.cfm

McX · Apr 11, 2011

after reading the title of the thread, the only thing that came to mind was a quote from ol Dirty Harry i heard once in a move of his: That's mighty white of them.

Captain Nemo · Apr 11, 2011

I wonder if that will have any bearing of bill HB0265 which is pending in the Illinois Asembly.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/Bil...B&DocNum=265&GAID=11&SessionID=84&LegID=54935

pachanga22 · Apr 11, 2011

I thought that this line was interesting. Does it mean i can have a loaded gun in the arm rest when i pass through?

It also ruled the armrest served as a case.

MKEgal · Apr 11, 2011

There's at least one other thread going about this.

pachanga22 said:
Does it mean i can have a loaded gun in the arm rest when i pass through?

NO!
It means that if you're passing through the state, the Federal law still protects you whether or not you have a priviledge permit from your home state.

If you do have a PP, you can go about IL like any other resident who has a FOID card.
That is, you can carry it unloaded & encased, but you're not restricted to driving through - you can stop somewhere, see a movie, etc.

Note that the Supremes in this case agreed that it had not been proven by prosecutors that the IN resident had a loaded gun. (The police claim he did.)
Also that they made note of the errors of the lower courts in not following the law w/ regards to 'foreign' carry permits.

I think the ILSC missed a golden opportunity here.
They should have said that the 2A applies to every citizen, in every state & territory, so any restriction on that right was invalid. (Or at least that the gov't must prove an overwhelming interest in prohibiting a particular person from keeping or bearing arms.)

apjonas · Apr 11, 2011

Close Call

The ILSC saved this guy's bacon with some creative (although justified) statutory analysis. Please don't say that FOPA did it/would have done it because he was not carrying in compliance with FOPA. I know people like to wave FOPA like a talisman. Anytime they cross a state boundary, an invisible FOPA suit shields them from local and state law enforcement. Not so, as the unfortunate Mr. Revell found out in New Joisy. Otherwise, he would be spending his $3,000,000 award. If you're from Wisconsin, you do not have a FOID nor a state license (I believe "resident" is specified in the statute). Whatcha gonna do then, Montgomery?

As to our Dirty Harry fan, think before you say stupid things. You embarrass yourself and everybody associated with OCDO. Your quote had absolutely nothing to do with the case so why that would be the first thing you think of is probably better not being specified. Perhaps you'd care to do a little editing?

jpm84092 · Apr 11, 2011

Thanks for posting that. I have had my "legal read" for the day and do actually follow the logic used by the ILSC. They were almost saying that the lower courts were pretty stupid (or political) in their treatment of the defendant.

Despite my Utah resident "permission slip", I will be going through IL on my next visit to WI with my unloaded firearms in a locked case just to be double sure.

skorittnig · Apr 11, 2011

why would anyone go to Illinois anyway??? If I had to, I wouldn't spend a dime.

Flipper · Apr 12, 2011

skorittnig said:
why would anyone go to Illinois anyway??? If I had to, I wouldn't spend a dime.

To get to Vermont?? :banana:

apjonas · Apr 12, 2011

The Same Reason

skorittnig said:
why would anyone go to Illinois anyway??? If I had to, I wouldn't spend a dime.

Chicago became such a large and important city. Many lines of transport traverse or meet in the state. If you want to drive from Indiana to Wisconsin, there is no practical alternative to a dash across Chicagoland.

oliverclotheshoff · Apr 12, 2011

apjonas said:
Chicago became such a large and important city. Many lines of transport traverse or meet in the state. If you want to drive from Indiana to Wisconsin, there is no practical alternative to a dash across Chicagoland.

there is alway the scenic route north thru michigan and take the ferry over which is a nice ride
or
the really scenic route north thru mich cross the mackinaw bridge across the UP and south thru wi which has awsome veiws

apjonas · Apr 13, 2011

True, but

oliverclotheshoff said:
there is alway the scenic route north thru michigan and take the ferry over which is a nice ride
or
the really scenic route north thru mich cross the mackinaw bridge across the UP and south thru wi which has awsome veiws

I don't consider those routes practical. Fun yes, practical no. By the way the bridge, the straits, the island - just about everything but the city is MackinaC (pronounced -aW).

oliverclotheshoff · Apr 13, 2011

apjonas said:
I don't consider those routes practical. Fun yes, practical no. By the way the bridge, the straits, the island - just about everything but the city is MackinaC (pronounced -aW).

i was making fun of all the tourist i came across while i lived in michigan who pronounced it mackinac

McX · Apr 13, 2011

Oliver, put your clothes back on, your scaring the fish.

apjonas · Apr 13, 2011

No because

pachanga22 said:
I thought that this line was interesting. Does it mean i can have a loaded gun in the arm rest when i pass through?

It also ruled the armrest served as a case.

according to the decision this would be "unlawful use of a weapon" as opposed to "aggravated unlawful use of a weapon" Because the weapon was in a case (the armrest), the first count of AUUW fell. Because the Indiana permit was a substitute for the FOID, the second count of AUUW fell. The state's backup was that even if AUUW (loaded AND encased AND immediately accesible OR no FOID) wasn't sustainable, UUW was because it required less to prove (just loaded AND uncased OR immediately accessible is sufficient). However the court said because the weapon was found to be not uncased and neither the loaded condition of the weapon nor the accessibility issue were legally determined (because the way the two counts were brought together, the jury could have convicted just on the FOID issue - which was thrown out) there was no basis for conviction on a UUW charge. If the gun was loaded or accessible, Mr. Holmes lucked out by the overreaching and incompetence of the prosecution. I wouldn't rely on them being stupid twice.

apjonas · Apr 13, 2011

Yep, I've heard the same.

oliverclotheshoff said:
there is alway the scenic route north thru michigan and take the ferry over which is a nice ride
or
the really scenic route north thru mich cross the mackinaw bridge across the UP and south thru wi which has awsome veiws

Even though I live far from Michigan, I learned proper pronunciation on my first visit. Even for salt-sainty-marie. What I don't understand is why people who live in neighboring states get it wrong. People in Evansville, IN don't say lewis-ville, KY (except as a jab) but I can understand a British tourist doing so. Of course Brits like to visit ball-tee-more, mary-land where the inhabitants say ballmer, merlin. People in Beloit, WI don't say "I'm going to Rockford, Illi-noise" or do they? Sometimes you do need a cheat sheet. New-Ark, DE isn't that far from New-urk, NJ. Somehow I doubt that any out-of-towner will think to say Kay-row, IL instead of Kigh-row. Ever been to oh-axe-uh-ka, Mexico? Take your niece on a nice trip to Nice? Sloob-ice, Poland? War-chester, MA? Buh-tawn Rog-oo-ee, LA? In NYC, SOHO is "south of how-sten" - Say how-sten in Texas and you'll get beat up.

lockman · Apr 13, 2011

apjonas said:
according to the decision this would be "unlawful use of a weapon" as opposed to "aggravated unlawful use of a weapon" Because the weapon was in a case (the armrest), the first count of AUUW fell. Because the Indiana permit was a substitute for the FOID, the second count of AUUW fell. The state's backup was that even if AUUW (loaded AND encased AND immediately accesible OR no FOID) wasn't sustainable, UUW was because it required less to prove (just loaded AND uncased OR immediately accessible is sufficient). However the court said because the weapon was found to be not uncased and neither the loaded condition of the weapon nor the accessibility issue were legally determined (because the way the two counts were brought together, the jury could have convicted just on the FOID issue - which was thrown out) there was no basis for conviction on a UUW charge. If the gun was loaded or accessible, Mr. Holmes lucked out by the overreaching and incompetence of the prosecution. I wouldn't rely on them being stupid twice.

I would agree with the above. If the state would have pursued just misdemeanor UUW and stuck to testimony/evidence of finding the gun "loaded", it would have likely ended in conviction. The defendant did admit the firearm was there so PC or RAS protections were muted considerably.

Illinois Supreme Court allows nonresidents to transport guns

pachanga22

Regular Member

protias

Regular Member

McX

Guest

Captain Nemo

Regular Member

pachanga22

Regular Member

MKEgal

Regular Member

apjonas

Regular Member

jpm84092

Regular Member

skorittnig

Regular Member

Flipper

Campaign Veteran

apjonas

Regular Member

oliverclotheshoff

Regular Member

apjonas

Regular Member

oliverclotheshoff

Regular Member

McX

Guest

apjonas

Regular Member

apjonas

Regular Member

lockman

State Researcher