purposes of the aggravated on lawful use of weapon statute the purpose of statutory construction is to determine and give the fact a legislative intent it was not the intent of the legislature the case defined so broadly as to include center console instead this court should adopt the definition of case taken from the wildlife code that was approved by the legislature that a case is a container specifically designed for the purposes of housing a gun that completely encloses the gun by being zipped snapped buckled tied or otherwise fastened with no portion of the gun exposed under this definition the center console does not qualify as a case because it was not specifically designed for housing to and inspire arms using this definition that's parallel with the wildlife code is particularly appropriate in this case because it prevents hunters from being subjected to higher scrutiny in firearm transportation the non hunters when it's appropriate for us to do so in this case because the legislature expressed concern many times in the legislative debate hunters not be unduly burdened by the unlawful use of weapons statute or the aggravated unlawful use of weapons statute which for our purposes are essentially identical in language in terms of how the case exception works as illustration i would point your honour's to the remarks of representative linder in the legislative debates from december seventeenth one thousand nine hundred ninety page thirty five in which she says that she's had hunters call her who are worried about whether or not if even if they're following the bob life code they might be subject to now here we've had several appellate court cases that have tried to define the word case or the other words in the list surrounding the word and they paul courson generally seem to disagree about whether or not the terms in that list are ambiguous and to what extent and what the word cases should ultimately mean some of the appellate courts have held that it's not ambiguous some of them have held that it is i believe one of the justices in thought that a case didn't even need to completely and close the gun whereas the justices in other cases thought that it did need to completely enclosed the fact that the appellate courts disagree here isn't just positive of whether or not the term is ambiguous but it is illustrated here we generally assume that the appellate courts come to reasonable decisions here in the fact that we legislators one of the co sponsors in the house of representatives our representative cross uses the while my code definition when people are asking him what does case mean and he says this is what case means it's in the wildlife code now as seventeenth page twenty three and then it's right up again during the april tenth debate pages fifteen fifty one and sixty eight the legislative history here reflects that the legislators intended that case have this particular definition this was stated several times without any sort of disagreement from any of the other legislators in response to this proper definition the second thing that we can learn from the legislative debates here is in terms of what the purposes of the statute was and the legislature was very clear that the purpose here is to protect police officers and the public in terms of reducing gun crime now adopting the piled life code definition of better serves this purpose than using the general dictionary definition that defendant urges and that the appellate court here adopted and this is actually very well illustrated by the facts of this particular case to pass in particular the first is sergeant bowman the officer who stopped defendant during this routine traffic stop testified that as he was approaching the view from the left side he noticed that the little defendant center console was slightly ajar but he also testified that this didn't raise any red flags for him the second fact is that the defendant testified and this was borne out by the evidence that he was keeping his wallet which had his driver's license inside it inside the center console of his vehicle on top of the guns now munition now these two facts illustrate why it is that the wildlife code definition better serves the general purpose protecting police officers the center console conceals its contents very much more very efficiently much more so than a case which is specifically designed for the purpose of housing and gun it therefore it makes it keeping your weapons in the cent yes your honor i think it is for the for the reason that i'm getting two which is that if an officer is approaching from during a routine traffic stop and he sees that there is a gun shaped hole store or even a box that might contain a gun or might contain anything on the passenger seat the officer is at least aware that there is something that defendant possesses that is in his plain view where is the center console conceals its contents so completely that the officer would have no way of knowing what was inside it and this leads into the fact about the defendant keeping his wallet and his license and there during a routine traffic stop the officer expects that the driver is going to end up reaching into the center console where the glove compartment at some point  of the firearms but the fact that that sergeant bowen in this case would have expected that the defendant would have to reach into this club compartment or have to reach into the center console to retrieve these everyday items which people generally keep in their what we think was meant by the phrase or other container in the stair well your honor if you take it's the fourth item in a list and i think it's fair to say that it's a catchall container which legislature lesser generally generally be construed to be similar and also the rule against finding superfluous ness if other container isn't specific to firearms if it really is just means container and that it's a box that holds something doesn't the statute for i think that in the canons of statutory interpretation in order to make this list read harmoniously all of the items in that les have to be specifically designed for firearms now in case that means specifically designed for housing firearms for fire carrying box it could be specifically designed for carrying a firearm for shipping not specifically designed to ship a firearm if you had what he had was a well your honor i guess i would want to know is the customized guns gun case in the are we talking going to have in the cabin in the car is that say this person wants to go target shooting them close in shoot shoot weapon has a construed the phrase specifically designed now if the court decided that specifically designed means well that's something that a manufacturer has to make versus something that the guy jerry rigged up in his garage you know that limit case to something designed to house a weapon doesn't this render the fire box for anyone but is it for carrying it to someplace else from one place to another in a fixed container that's around it you know not bouncing around in the back of the truck i think that that could be a case i don't think that the portability distinction is necessarily a very good one because conceivably somebody could you know have a gun manufacturer might design something that you know you could specifically had to your vehicle that would qualify as a case and perhaps the legislature meant for that to be included i think your honor's question about a firearm carrying box that would not seat at the very least the officer would be more on alert that there was some object that was within easy reach of the person as opposed to the center console in which you don't know whether or not there is anything in there at all and i more on order what then would he do i think now being a police officer i couldn't tell you specifically but i think that i feel safe in saying that police officers in routine traffic stops would feel more at ease and feel safer  suit well your honor if something's in the trunk then it wouldn't be immediately accessible so it wouldn't have to qualify as a case at all but that would also serve the program sorry that would also serve the purpose of officer safety because if it's not immediately acce think your honor stalking about an ordinary citizen who isn't carrying a gun so the question is is this statute burdensome to non gun owners because now they have to worry that a police officer might be particularly nervous when they're approaching  well i think the adopting the wildlife definition doesn't change that because at this point when an officer is approaching anyone right now no matter what definition of cases if they see something on the passenger seat and they always have that in the back of their mind that there could be something in there now i don't know how extreme that concern is but i don't think the fact consent is changed much by which definition of case we choose to adopt here and just like to make one final point there has been some discussion describe what the case would look like well there could be a number of things but as long as it was specifically designed for the purpose of housing the gun completely encloses the guns of it no portion of the gun is showing   it could be something that is you know a case that is actually done shaped that you know just zips up what could be a box that has you know specific indentations inside it for the gun to ensure that the trigger doesn't go off  or revolver then it becomes a case under your well your honor i think that it would go back to the same problem i outlined for justice garment about what specifically designed means it was specifically designed to follows the the wildlife definition it would be but i think this this leads me into my final point which is that there has been some discussion both here today and in the briefing about you know what's the best way of carrying a firearm is this safer than this and i think the broader point here is that in the end it's the legislature's job to draw the distinctions about what is and what is an acceptable way of transporting firearms as this court is held repeatedly bludge slater has to balance the advantages and disadvantages of a statutory scheme and the court doesn't overturn or rewrite statutes just because we might happen to disagree with the legislature's policy determinations so the defendant might not think that the center console is an unsafe place to carry a gun but it's a legislature's job to make that decision a shipping box rather be looking but well your honor i think that we'd be talking about a firearms shipping box specifically designed for a firearm i don't know what it would necessarily look concern you were raising earlier well i think it goes back to the same question that justice freeman was asking about the attache case even if it's not just from looking at the outside of it that hey this is something that was specifically designed for housing the gun at the very least it's better for the officer than the cent console is unless you're owners have any other questions of this time thank you thank you so much mayor please the court chief justice and counsel my name is tiffany ritchie and i am here on behalf of michael dagan i am here to urge this court to affirm the decision of the third district and people v diggins where in the court made three crucial legal determinations first that that language of the illinois aggravated unlawful use of weapon statute is on ambiguous second that pursuant to this on ambiguous language the cent cases under the wild one absolutely and this is only the phrase other container does inherently so just some superfluity however that simply one can enough construction and the court has to decide whether or not to impose that or whether or not it's imposition actually would affect the outcome one way or the other and contrary to the argument that the state makes it's no less super powerful is to suggest that the term fire on any firearm container is less superfluous than the phrase other container because in either event the end phrase is a catchall that would eliminate the necessity for the first term and the second to phrase is if we're going to say that any firearm container would suffice there would be no reason to say that you needed to have a case a shipping box or a carry box similarly if you're going to say other container there would really be no reason tech saying case firearms shipping box or i'm sorry if i am carrying box or shipping bo the logical conclusion that can be reached from the fact that they included other container is that they wanted the statute to be broad they wanted the and actually if you look at the legislative history the way that this language was actually created it's somewhat confusing you have to go back to nineteen eighty one and look at the first amendment or one of the amendments to the illinois criminal code of nine hundred sixty one the amendment itself was proposed by representative cullerton and it did not actually contain the language at issue in this case when it was first created rather it was added to the amendment number one proposed by the second committee and that language was almost identical to the language at issue in this case with the exception of the last phrase other container in that initial amendment it said other secure container now the word secure was omitted the amendment number three by representative color ten he in discussing the reason that he omitted the language or the word secure explained that he wished to eliminate any week wire meant that a weapon be carried in a secure container he explained that they deleted the word secure before the term container to eliminate the ambiguity that the word secure are created and he specifically said quote you don't have to carry the weapon in a secure container it can just simply be quote any container so the legislative history if you actually look and to the intent of the person who actually created the bill he indicated that he wanted that term to be much discussion in the legislative history about the different interests that want to be represented they were there were the hunters that were interested in making sure that their rights were protected there were the legislators that were desiring to ensure that the whites of  ordinary citizens weren't looked over and then there are the people who wanted to make sure that criminals gang bangers was a term that was used quite frequently in legislative history that those people didn't have the right to access weapons in a way that would be harmful to police or the public  so shipping box hunters expressed concerns that if they had the weapons in their car in a shipping box taking it to be mailed to themselves or to a relative somebody for a president they wanted to make sure that they weren't going to be held accountable and that type of situation carrying box is just a different type of commonly accepted transportation mounted and i believe that they included all of the broad phrases simply because the legislature at the time was very concerned about making sure that the from all these others within which are focused on the word no judge i do the only term out of the four that has specific modifier is the second phrase carry box the legislature specifically took it upon themselves to modify that phrase in order to let everybody know that they wanted the carrying box to be firearm specific the other three are allowed to have their general plain meanings and it would be different perhaps if the word firearm came as a m first word case if it said firearm chase tearing box shipping box and other container or if it came as a modifier it's the last phrase if it's a case carrying botching box or other firearm container the fact that it comes in the middle of the four important issue to address because the assumption that there is an ambiguity is a very dangerous assumption to make we can't just assume when we're dealing with statutes like this that there is an ambiguity because of something that happened after the statute was created we have to proceed along and diligent process to ensure that the statutory language is in fact ambiguous now this seems like a simple concept however it is unfortunately often misapplied apparently concluded that the statutory language was ambiguous but failed to address the issue and simply moved on to an evaluation of statutory construction so we have no indication as to the origin of the apparent ambiguity that they found in the and then after making those precise legal determinations they moved into an evaluation of sasha trying construction and legislative history and ended up attributing that with a meaning that contradicted  exists such variance is not allowed by the law and it should be avoided at all costs there are certain steps that must be followed the first step is to look at the statute to see if there are any definitions provided by the statute regarding the disputed terms neither the illinois criminal court of nine hundred sixty one the overarching statute or article twenty four deadly weapons contained any definitions that are relevant to the transit issue in this case in the absence of specific statutory definition we must look to the plain meaning of the dispute acknowledged by the first and third districts each of the relevant terms in the statute has a plain meaning that is not subject to reasonably differing interpretation as articulated by smyth and accepted by williams and begins the term case is patently on ambiguous it having plain meaning it is a box or receptacles to contain or hold something it simply indicates an area of space that wants to segregate some things from other things now in minutely case is a general term but generality of a word does not qualify it as being ambiguous we do not declare the general word dog for example ambiguous because of incidental differences between a great dane and a chihuahua such as strain understanding of the word ambiguous invites us to defy common sense there is nothing in the meaning of the word case that either implies portability or a specific purpose for which a specific type or for sure if you look you know it would behoove everybody to type into google gun case just type it in a lot of gun companies will come up and you'll begin to get an understanding of what exactly flimsy they have a very thin foam interior with no slots on a firearm or ammunition and they have a flimsy zipper that zips up the side and pursuant to the state's argument that is a gun case that is sufficient to avoid getting a family under the illinois aggravated unlawful use of weapon statute now that's the first point to be made but the second point to me made is to evaluate that in the context of how these scenarios play out and generally speaking like the  situations in cameron smyth and williams i define them as pulled over for routine traffic stop routine traffic violation and the officer approaches the vehicle the question is is the officer any safer when the person in the vehicle be at the driver of the passenger has a small portable gun case sitting on their lap with the weapon and the ammunition inside all they have to do is either flip open the box or unzip the container and they are immediately able to access that firearm is the officer safer from that person then they are from the person who has the gun locked in the glove box and the keys tossed in the back seat or the person who has the gun locked and economy ammo marked in the center console and the key is on their key chain and the commonsense answer to that question is no there is not an added element of safety provided by keeping these firearms in cases that were specifically designed to house guns so we'll issue with regard to ensuring that a person keeps the gun and the ammo in a case is an issue of accessibility the legislature was attempting to simply put song stuck between the person and their ability to pull out that weapon and use it in a dangerous way the suggestion that that is a situation where the police officer would be well i'm not sure if it's if they're suggesting that that would put the police officer or a notice or that would be more dangerous because they think a police officer actually reaching for the license but in either advance how is that more dangerous than the person who has the small portable gun case on their lap or underneath their seat are stuck in the area between the consul and the driver see how is it any more dangerous than that because the officer would have no idea that there was a small portable container hidden beside the driver of the vehicle there's no way the officer could know that just like the avs are might not be able to tell that the person has the gun in the console or in the glove compartment the the officer really isn't going to have an opportunity to protect himself from somebody who wants to use that weapon against him all that the officer is going to be able to do is take advantage of that momentary inaccessibility intended by the legislature while the person has to take out the gun snap it in and get it ready for use and that is going to happen whether or not it's in the small gun case or it's in the glove box or the center console and in fact if the person has to lean over and one major round for all the ammunition and rummage around for the gun and then lean back over and put it together the officer who's constantly parked behind the vehicle and looking into the car from the back is much more likely to be able to see that activity take place than he is to be able to see the cove putting together of the gun if the gun case is sitting right there on the person's lap now moving on with the plain meaning of valuation that i really do think is crucial to this case the point meaning of the term case is something we've already discussed but the plain meaning of the term box is very similar a container case are we sceptical usually rectangular that may have correct the only issue with regard to the standard of review comes when you get to the question of how does the court evaluate the trial court's refusal to provide certain jury instruction now the state in this case and mr dig and has argued that the didn't over with you is appropriate the court in people v dig ends up lied and abuse of discretion review and they did that because typically when are reviewing court examines a lower court's decision to provide a particular jury struck instruction or not it's reviewed under abuse of discretion but other point to examine the issue have determined that in a case like this one where there is an issue  does not find any alternative definition for the word case to demonstrate that this meeting in a spatial context would rate confuse reasonable people the state would have us believe the worst case is ambiguous not because it is but because that is the result that advances it cause in this matter this date is the clear and by fee up that the language is ambiguous however it has never walked through the logical process of determining its ambiguity it has implied no standards rather it is simply jump to a conclusion and it has jumps so hard and fast it jumped to right over the criteria that we used to determine ambiguity it's a logically unsound to point to the decisions that trial appellate courts have made after determining that the language of the statute is  unambiguous to define the term as an ambiguous like the court people people beast might determine that the statute was unambiguous but then went into an inquiry of what the meaning would be if we were to look at the legislative history whatever they determine that meaning to be is irrelevant to the determination of whether or not the term itself is ambiguous you can't go to the second stop if you've already decided the first step so the state's reasoning in that regard it is unreasonable for there it's unreasonable to suggest that there would not be an inherent explanation of ambiguity there must be an inherent element of ambiguity thank you your hon thank you your honors to begin by just touching briefly on the forfeiture issues since there was some discussion about whether or not this consul would authorize another container and as we explained in the reply brief that argument would be forfeited since since the end of trial during the post trial motions in the appellate court and it was arguing exclusively the center console as a case i'd like to return briefly to justice freeman's question from earlier about the  whether or not a person who wasn't hearing a gun in the attache case needed to be more worried about police officers being nervous about him and i think in that particular situation we have a person who isn't carrying a gun and they're not making any furtive movements towards the  there's not necessarily anything that would make a police officer nervous about that situation earlier justice and just are my are questions of the having a portion of the vehicle being specifically designed to hold a gun really just as calm or talk about a console just as earth was talking about something in the back of a pickup truck case is something that was in the back of the truck it wouldn't be immediately accessible so therefore the person wouldn't need to worry about earlier earlier versions of the statute and in that particular debate there was an amendment which deleted the word secure from secure container so that it could just be any container and representative cullerton struck the word secure because he thought that the word secure  ambiguous that amendment obviously doesn't affect the word case or the other items in the list and we're not considering the meaning of other container here and also given that that particular version of the statute has been struck down since and then was repass word firearm in front of case in the us and why they didn't write the wildlife definition into the statute now would argue that they didn't do either of those things because they didn't think it was necessary in the legislative debates representative cross repeatedly brought up while the wild life the definition and it appears from context that he and and the other legislators didn't think that it was necessary for them to write a specific definition or write the word firearm in front of the word case because they thought that anyone who needed to construe that later on would look at their debates and know what it is that they meant without them having to write it into a statute in terms of the question of ambiguity you know we've talked about this at length about whether it's ambiguous or whether it's not and how the canons of statutory construction will work in terms of its future associates versus the role of an superfluous service and i think at this point i would suggest that if the court feels that canons of constructional pulling us into different directions then that's the time that we need to look to the legislative debates for guidance and the legislative history reflects an intent for the wildlife definition to be u there's less likely to be damage to the non during transport and it also would prevent accidental discharge of the gun if somebody had thought that the congress unloaded but accidentally left around in the chamber in terms of the immediate accessibility that  counsel says that the legislature was intending to put a barrier of accessibility between the driver and the police officer really it's a matter of keeping the situation from ask elating if the person has they're gone in a case no matter how flimsy counsel it is if the person doesn't have any intention to use it against the police officer then it doesn't really matter how flimsy it is the point is to keep a routine traffic stop from turning into something considerably more tragic and on that point i would just remind the court that in terms of all of these policy determinations in terms of you know what type of case be it is how it should be separated or tired or buckled or what it should be made out of those do come down to policy determinations and of course that's the legislature's