 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Bartimo1/15/2004
Ct. 618, 619 (1939). " he statute must provide sufficiently definite standards for law enforcement officers and fact finders that its application does not depend merely on their private conceptions." People v. Hickman, 163 Ill. 2d 250, 256, 644 N.E.2d 1147, 1150 (1994). It is irrelevant that section 24-1(a)(4) would make better sense if the words "with no portion of the gun exposed" were read into it.
Apparently the State would concede there was no violation here if the holster had been large enough to completely cover the handgun. What sense does that make? The handgun would have been equally accessible if the holster had been larger. Perhaps the State would concede there was no violation if the handgun were contained in a brown paper bag with the top folded shut. Such a handgun would not have any portion exposed, but the State would probably insist that the bag be "zipped, snapped, buckled, tied[,] or otherwise fastened." A paper clip?
There is no justification for reading the words of section 24-1(a), "enclosed in a case * or other container," to include the requirement that no portion of the gun be exposed. The unlawful use of a weapon conviction should be reversed.
|