Kane County Nuggets

Criminal law attorney Thomas Glasgow sits down with us and walks us through the important decision points that must be (or should be) considered before obtaining a conceal and carry permit.

Go to Show Notes.

Join the Premium Nuggets.

Thomas Glasgow is a former Cook County prosecutor. He has a wealth of experience trying cases on the criminal defense side as well. 

You, however, will probably recognize him from his appearance on local news broadcasts. Thomas has appeared as an expert commentator on ABC News, NBC News and CBS News as well.

In this discussion, Thomas Glasgow does much more than just identify the Illinois conceal and carry law. In Illinois the statute is officially named The Firearm Concealed Carry Act, and it can be found at 430 ILCS 66/1 et seq.

Yes, Thomas highlights important aspects of the statute. 

For example, he explains that conceal and carry permit holders have the responsibility of knowing all the places that conceal and carry does not reach.

Even under conceal and carry an individual may still not carry a gun into the following places outlined by section 430 ILCS 66/65, Prohibited Areas. 

These prohibited areas include:

• Preschools, elementary and secondary schools, and childcare facilities
• Colleges and Universities and any real property, sidewalks and common areas under the control of a public or private community college, college, or university
• Playgrounds and public parks
• Bars (where more than 50% of the revenue is from liquor)
• State and local government buildings, including those under the control of the executive or legislative branch of the government, local government and courthouses
• Jails and detention centers
• Libraries
• Hospitals, nursing homes, and mental health facilities
• Stadiums, arenas, and sporting events
• Riverboats, racetracks, and OTBs
• Airports
• Museums, zoos, and amusement parks
• Public transportation paid for in all or in part with state funds
• Public gatherings authorized by a local government (e.g. street fairs, festivals, etc.)
• Nuclear facilities and their parking areas
• Any private property that is posted with appropriate signage (homeowners do not have to post signs)
• Cook County Forest Preserve

However, Thomas really gets down to the most basic and pressing considerations any individual contemplating a conceal and carry permit should be making.

In this three part discussion with Thomas Glasgow he covers the following areas:

1. Relevant Aspects of Illinois Law
2. Duties of all Gun Carriers
3. The Crimes a Gun Carrier May Be Charged With
4. What To Do If There is a Shooting
5. What To Do If There is a Shooting in Your Home
6. Other Civil Law Ramifications When Things Go Wrong

You can listen to Part One by hitting play at the top of this page.

✓ That an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

✓ The statistics on the number of people with permits who are ending up with criminal charges.

✓ Besides safety and protection the other most popular reason individuals are likely to want a conceal and carry permit.

✓ There are reasons why a person should NOT get a conceal and carry permit. (He has no qualms about walking out of his office anyone that tells him this one reason.)

✓ Exactly what a conceal and carry permit holder needs to know about the Illinois conceal and carry law.

✓ That a hospital is much more than a big building with lots of sick people in it. It can include any office building where medical procedures take place. (Have you considered this or even thought it could be an issue? Thomas has which is why you should listen to this 3 part discussion.)

✓ That you absolutely can be charged with certain crimes even if you are a valid conceal and carry permit holder.

✓ Where you can find one safe haven for your gun outside your home (except when federal law butts in).

✓ What should you do when you suddenly find yourself in an area where the Illinois conceal and carry law does not reach, ie. a prohibited area! (Carriers always need to be prepared to not carry.)

✓ Why conceal and carry permit holders need to know the definition of a "container".

✓ Thomas answers: "Can you carry across state line?" He explores this topic with the candour and detail of a careful attorney. Listen carefully. The details may make you want to stay in Illinois with your gun.

✓ What exactly does "conceal" mean anyway?

✓ What a negative deterrence value is and why conceal and carry permit holders more than anyone else need to get a handle on this concept.

✓ What are the legal prohibitions or ramifications for drinking alcohol while you are conceal and carrying.

Listen carefully and enjoy Part I, Thomas really went all out for us.  

Part II is on its way tomorrow.

People v. Swanson, 2016 IL App (2d) 150340 (May). Episode 168 (Duration 6:16)

Deputies investigating a single car accident make a warrantless and unconstitutional entry into defendant's home.

Police were investigating a single car accident when then appeared at defendant's home.

The said they would not leave until they talked to defendant. They pushed their way inside the house and forced defendant to come downstairs to talk to them.

They then arrest him for DUI.

The chief evil against which the fourth amendment is directed is the entry into the home.

The wife did not grant consent for the officers to enter the home. She told the officers repeatedly that she and defendant did not need help, that the officers did not need to be there, and that they could leave.

Moreover, she did so mostly through a closed storm door.

Although at one point she opened the storm door slightly, she did so only to facilitate communication between her and the officers. This was not a gesture for the officers to come inside.

To the contrary, when she did crack open the door, it was the deputy who opened the door farther and walked in without permission.

Nor was this a situation where the police were justified to enter to administer emergency aid.

Defendant had been in an automobile accident and had been exposed for over an hour to extremely inclement weather.

Neither circumstance, however, constituted, at the time of the entry into the home, an emergency requiring the police to provide aid.

First, the police must have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand.

Second, they must have some reasonable basis, approaching probable cause, to connect the emergency with the area entered or searched. Neither element was met here.

It was not reasonable to conclude that defendant needed aid when his wife was providing it. If he did need aid from the officers, his wife would not have persisted in telling the officers that he was fine and that he did not need medical help.

The warrantless entry into the home was unconstitutional.

Download April Case List Here.

Join The Premium Nuggets Today.

People v. Casas, 2016 IL App (2d) 150456 (April). Episode 166 (Duration 6:39)

Does the statute of limitations bar a charge of violation of bail bond when defendant is apprehended 18 years later?

No it doesn't.

Defendant was on the lamb for 18 years for a drug case. He came back and was arrested, sentenced to 20 years on the drug thing, and then charged with violation of his 1996 bail bond. 720 ILCS 5/32-10(a).

Most felony offenses must be charged “within 3 years after the commission of the offense.” 720 ILCS 5/3-5(b).

Continuing offenses toll the three-year limitations period as follows:

When an offense is based on a series of acts performed at different times, the period of limitation prescribed by this Article starts at the time when the last such act is committed.”720 ILCS 5/3-8.

People v. Grogan, 197 Ill. App. 3d 18 (1st Dist. 1990) said that violation of bail bond is not a continuing offense.

People v. Miller, 157 Ill. App. 3d 43, 46 (1987) said that escape is a continuing offense.

According to the State, the limitations period was tolled when the offense was initially committed, and began to run once defendant was taken into custody.

This court said that the legislature intended that, like escape, violation of bail bond would be treated as a continuing offense.

Like escape, wherever else the bail-bond offender is, he is not where he is lawfully supposed to be; he has breached his lawful custody. People v. Grogan, 197 Ill. App. 3d 18 (1st Dist. 1990) was wrong.

Any other ruling would give defendant an unmerited winful in that it would encourage a defendant “to remain in hiding until the three-year statute of limitations had expired” and the underlying case itself could be weakened.

Episode 165 (Duration 24:50) Recent cases of prosecutorial misconduct in Illinois courtrooms give us a chance to dig a little deeper. What exactly is going on? 

Go

People v. Clark, 2016 IL 118845 (March). Episode 163 (Duration 7:02)

Aggravated vehicular hijacking and armed robbery without a firearm are not lesser-included offenses of aggravated vehicular hijacking and armed robbery with a firearm.

The State wanted the Illinois Supreme Court to take a look at these cases involving crimes where guns were used.

You see, sometimes trial judges make a specific finding that a crime did not involve a gun , even though it was quite clear and apparent to everyone that a gun was, indeed, used by the defendant.

So what's going on?

In these cases, the judge was finding the defendant guilty of a lesser included that doesn't include a gun.

Judge's are obviously doing this to get out of enforcing the gun add-ons.

Sounds good, except…

When a gun is involved, and in charges dealing with guns often the “lesser-included” chosen by the judge is in fact no lesser included at all.

This is a big problem. For all of us, I contend just not the State.

For example, in this case the defendant was charged with aggravated vehicular hijacking while armed with a firearm (720 ILCS 5/18-4(a)(4)) and armed robbery while armed with a firearm.

But the trial judge acquitted of the higher counts (even though he knew a gun was used in the crimes) and found the defendant guilty of aggravated vehicular hijacking and armed robbery without a firearm”.

Yea, it turns out, quite convincingly, that aggravated vehicular hijacking and armed robbery without a firearm ARE NOT lesser-includeds of  aggravated vehicular hijacking and armed robbery while armed with a firearm.

Since, those were not lesser-includeds the reviewing court further reduced the convictions to simple vehicular hijacking and simple robbery.

The State then asked the Illinois Supreme Court to hold that the reviewing court erred on the lesser included issue.

However, the Court was unwilling to alter it's “charging instrument approach” to lesser included analysis. The plain language of these statutes indicates that violations are “ ‘mutually exclusive of each other.’ ”

So, the offenses of aggravated vehicular hijacking and armed robbery without a firearm are not, given the circumstances of this case, lesser-included offenses of aggravated vehicular hijacking and armed robbery with a firearm.

Additionally, the State asked the court to reconsider the plain error analysis in the case, but it was also unwilling to do that.

Justice required this windwall for the Defendant.

People v. Ligon, 2016 IL 118023 (February). Episode 162 (Duration 6:45)

Many objects can qualify as dangerous weapons for purposes of aggravated vehicular hijacking, but not as to armed violence.

Defendant brought a proportionate penalties (see Illinois Constitution. Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, §11 ) challenge of his aggravated vehicular hijacking with a dangerous weapon, other than a firearm conviction.

It was his third class X so he received a life sentence. He used a bb gun to threaten a woman and took her car.

The state alleged the bb gun was used as a bludgeon, a dangerous weapon. He argued his AVH/DW conviction was the same as a conviction for armed violence predicated on vehicular hijacking with a dangerous weapon.

This is only a class 1.

However, the crimes are not identical. The armed violence defines a dangerous weapon as any Category III weapon, which are

“a bludgeon, blackjack, slungshot, sand­bag, sandclub, metal knuckles, billy, or other dangerous weapon of like character.”

The Illinois Supreme Court said that many objects, including the BB gun defendant possessed in this case, satisfy the “dangerous weapon” element of AVH/DW, but not the “Category III weapon” element of armed violence with a category III dangerous weapon.

“Dangerous weapon” is not defined in either the AVH/DW statute or the armed robbery statute, but is derived from common law. Indeed, a review of the case law shows that the common ­law definition of a dangerous weapon is in fact rooted in this court’s discussion of what constitutes a deadly weapon.

The case law has said that objects that are not per se dangerous, but objects that are used or may be used in a dangerous manner will also be considered a dangerous weapon under AVH/DW.

In contrast, the dangerous weapons categories in the armed violence statute are defined by the statute and therefore limited to the weapons identified by the statute. See 720 ILCS 5/33A­1(c).

Since, a bb gun is not mentioned in the armed violence definition it cannot be a dangerous weapon under the armed violence statute.

However, defendant’s BB gun does qualify as a dangerous weapon other than a firearm under the common ­law definition applicable to statutory offenses such as aggravated vehicular hijacking and armed robbery.

Defendant's life sentence is back on the table.

Go to Show Notes.

Join The Premium Nuggets Now.