Posted on 02/02/2016 7:36:02 AM PST by marktwain
The Illinois has reconfirmed its ruling from 2013 that a basic Illinois weapon law is facially unconstitutional. It ruled in People vs Burns that the Aguilar decision stands and was correct. From courthousenews.com:
While a state may prohibit felons from carrying readily accessible guns despite the Second Amendment - and in fact Illinois has a law forbidding felons from possessing any kind of firearm - the AUUW law applies to everyone.
In reversing the appellate court ruling and vacating the conviction and sentence, Justice Anne Burke wrote for the court: "The offense, as enacted by the Legislature, does not include as an element of the offense the fact that the offender has a prior felony conviction. An unconstitutional statute does not 'become constitutional' simply because it is applied to a particular category of persons who could have been regulated, had the Legislature seen fit to do so.
The Legislature may not pass broad laws and leave it to the courts to decide to whom the statute may constitutionally apply, Burke said in the Jan. 22 opinion
It took me a bit to unravel this ruling. Under the old Illinois law, it was illegal to carry a weapon in public, period. There was no shall issue concealed carry law. The law contested in the Illinois Court system was Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon, the AUUW. That law was ruled unconstitutional under the Second Amendment by the Illinois Supreme Court in 2013 in the People v. Aguilar case.
There is another law, Unlawful Use of a Weapon, the UUW. The UUW law was changed in 2013 to allow for the exception to carry with a concealed carry license.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
WHO CARES? IT’S THE DAY AFTER!
BTT
B.M.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Be safe
“Unravelling the voluminous Illiois weapon law code takes considerable time.”
Then it needs to be overturned in its entirety.
The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how federal criminal laws have become dangerously disconnected from the English common law tradition and how prosecutors can pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior. The volume of federal crimes in recent decades has increased well beyond the statute books and into the morass of the Code of Federal Regulations, handing federal prosecutors an additional trove of vague and exceedingly complex and technical prohibitions to stick on their hapless targets. The dangers spelled out in Three Felonies a Day do not apply solely to “white collar criminals,†state and local politicians, and professionals. No social class or profession is safe from this troubling form of social control by the executive branch, and nothing less than the integrity of our constitutional democracy hangs in the balance.
Not so fast:
“The Right of the People to keep and bear Arms stall not be infringed.”
Not sure ADDING verbiage would make it any simpler...
Just don't shorten it any:
"The Right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be!"
WHO CARES? IT’S THE DAY AFTER!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I care very very much. It means that my 2002 felony conviction is null and void. I was convicted of possessing a gun, charged and convicted of a felony, being a felon meant that I could never legally carry a gun in Illinois or any other state for that matter.
Just curious, are you going to hire a lawyer and have the conviction expunged?
CC
Just curious, are you going to hire a lawyer and have the conviction expunged?
CC
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thank both of you for expressing interest in my case and some time within the next few days I will P.M. both of you with a fuller explanation of the case.
I am 70 years old and have what I hope is only the flu. I have next to zero energy. I will say that there has been a gross miscarriage of justice. I don’t have a lawyer yet. Lawyers are very expensive for this kind of stuff.
If I were king of the world, I'd pass a rule that juries should be instructed that they may only convict someone of a crime if their actions fall afoul of the a reasonable reading of the name of the crime. For example, a conviction for Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon should require that the person actually made use of a weapon. There's no reason legislatures should be allowed to dishonestly name crimes, but nowadays dishonest crime names seem to be the norm.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.