Updated: 01-07-16   Home                              Current Case Review         Firearm Laws         Search & Seizure             Short Summaries       Guest Commentary           About the Author               Links to Sites             Archives             Victor D. Quilici   (847) 298-2566   victorq@ameritech.net                 Website Powered by   Eyevertise, Inc.   www.eyevertise.com

Firearm Laws   United States v. Mixon, C.A. 7 (Wis.) , 457 F. 3d 615 (6/12//06) People v. Price. Ill. App. 1st District. ____N.E. 2d ____, 2007 WL 2163997 UPDATE: U.S. Supreme Court Accepts D.C. Gun Ban Appeal SMALL v. UNITED STATES People v. Collins, 824 N.E. 2d 268 The City of Chicago et al., vs. Beretta U.S.A Corporation, et al. DOJ Opinion: The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally. People vs. Smythe, 352 I11. App. 3d 1056. People v. Cameron, 336 Ill. App. 3d 548. People v. Watkins, 361 Ill. App. 3d 498 (3rd Dist 2005) Search & Seizure   Hiland v. Trent, 868 N.E. 2d 396, Third District Appellate Court (5/16/07). People v. Williams, 858 N.E. 2nd 606. Illinois Appellate Court, Ist District. United States v. Cherry, 436 F. 3d 769 ( C.A. 7, Ill., 2006) People v. Miller, 824 N.E. 2d 1080 , Illinois 1st District Appellate Court (2-7-05). HUDSON  v. MICHIGAN. United States Supreme Court, June 2006. 126 S. Ct. 2159 People v. Dieppa, 357 Ill. App. 3d 847 ILLINOIS v. CABALLES. U.S. Supreme Court (1/25/05)       on writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Illinois. 03-923 DEVENPECK et al. v. ALFORD No. 03-710 People v. Parra, 352 Ill. App. 3d 584, 817 N.E. 2d 141 ( 2d Dist., 10/12/04) People v. Travis Smith, 346 Ill. App. 3d 146, 803 N.E. 2d 1074 People v. Starbuck, 358 Ill App. 3d 234 (3rd Dist. 2005) People v. Mendoza, 846 N.E. 2d 169 (2d Dist App. Ct., March 2006) People v. Frederick Hampton, 358 Ill App. 3d 1029 (2d Dist 2005) and People v. Shinara Mathews, 357 Ill App. 3d 1062 (3rd Dist. 2005) Prior to the Smyth decision, in a case that can still be cited as authority, the Illinois Appellate Court for the 4th District, in People v. Cameron, 336 Ill. App. 3d 548, affirmed a jury verdict of “guilty,” when the defendant transported an unloaded semiautomatic pistol in his motor vehicle glove compartment. The principal issue of the case turned on the interpretation of the “container” exemption in the criminal statute which exempted the transportation of a firearm in a vehicle “if the firearm is unloaded and enclosed in a case, firearm carrying box, shipping box or other container by a person who has been issued a currently valid [f]irearm [o]wner’s [i]dentification [c]ard.” The trial court refused the defendant a jury instruction which basically stated the exemption language, and the Appellate Court affirmed this decision, holding that the glove compartment did not fall within the legislators’ understanding of what constituted a “container.” Similar to the Smyth case (above) the Court here was obviously concerned with the immediate accessibility of the firearm. The Court noted that the legislators, when debating the Bill and enumerating various means of containing a firearm, intended “container” to mean “some sort of container that can be picked up and carried around.” Obviously, a glove compartment does not fit that definition. The Justice writing the opinion stated: “If it [the firearm] is in a glovebox in ***a vehicle*** I haven’t seen too many vehicles someone could pick up and carry around.” In response to the defendant’s argument that he was entitled to the “exemption” jury instruction, the Court noted that “. . .strictly construing the container exemption, we determine a vehicle’s glove compartment is not an ‘other container’ under the container exemption. A glove compartment is fundamentally different from a case, firearm carrying box, or shipping box because these receptacles are portable whereas a glove compartment is a fixed area in the dashboard of a vehicle. Therefore, a glove compartment is not an ‘other container’ similar to the ones enumerated in the container exemption.” The information provided herein is not intended as legal advice, and should not be interpreted as such. The author of this site has and will make efforts to assure that the information he presents in the portions of the content he authors on this site is accurate. The viewer, however, is cautioned that because of the complexity of the material and ever-changing laws, regulations and court decisions, the author may have little or no control over the accuracy of the material and, irrespective of any control, Quilici makes no representation or guarantee as to the accuracy, quality, content, or legality of said information. The viewer, therefore, acknowledges that any use of this Website and reliance upon any materials shall be at your sole risk and that Quilici shall not be liable for any loss of data, lost profits or any other damages or losses resulting from such use. Users, therefore, are urged to independently verify the information on this site. Quilici reserves the right to revise any or all of the materials on this Website and/or to modify any features, materials or specifics without notice. All matters relating to this Website shall be governed by the laws of the State of Illinois.