weapon statute in this case is to ensure the safety of individuals to assure that people who do not have proper training in this case a concealed carry carry id card cannot possess a weapon in a manner that's dangerous that's loaded or that has the ability to be loaded very quickly before that person can assess a situation report makes complete logical sense of that how that is how meet the excessive force them by in this case the trial court failed to recognize that under this very unique set of facts and i'll review those facts here in a moment but under this very unique set of facts that this was the issue in the case was the indian issue and for this fun loaded firearm immediately accessible at the time it wasn't and to review those facts for your honour's in these are uncontroverted facts the period there was very little in dispute in this trial matthew sinclair is six foot three two hundred sixty five pounds he was a former linebacker for the university of illinois he was driving home after a a rare victory for the university of illinois at purdue it was coaching at the time and he was driving his pickup truck where he had an unloaded firearm in the cent console of the vehicle and it's not in dispute as well settled in case law that when that firearm is within this and close center console it's case he had an unloaded firearm in the center console he was driving down i seventy four made it incredibly stupid decision as  came up to pass it on the side he took that firearm while driving with his right hand on the wheel it took the firearm out of the center council uncased the unloaded firearm and held it out the window showing his friend  mr sinclair and his friend mr berry who testified at trial uncontroverted back so the time period we're talking about here is very limited this isn't a situation where someone is pulled over their no longer drive the only time this gun loaded firearm was on case the ammunition readily accessible absolutely well partially judged partially partially this is driving it is both hands are occupied and also his size the further uncontroverted well that is when you say that had he been parked his size would still be the same as it was when he was driving right it would be judged but he would have an additional ability to move and then fish around inside of this this pocket on the door where the ammunition was eight to ten inches deep i would argue just that it was still not immediately accessible in light of all the surrounding circumstances here but certainly an argument could be made closer to being immediately accessible while parked certainly it wasn't while he's occupied with both hands drive well if he's driving and he has the gun in his in one hand one hand on the wheel which is the evidence here yet you driving with one hand on the way all one hand on the gun what if he had a clip of ammunition sitting in his l only accessible are you saying with your argument since he's the one he had on the wheel one on the gun that's not readily accessible not saying that certainly the clip was sitting in his lap he would have the ability to this potentially grab that clip and load the weapon still the purpose of the firing those the ability to load the weapon and create a dangerous situation at that moment while he's right what's key here is that in this case the clip was buried eight to ten inches deep within a pocket a pocket that was the last it would be room in that driver's side door to the point where is the actual clip is down by his cap he's a large man cannot reach into that and fish around to find it  certainly not when he when he's not driving to be extremely difficult and certainly not while he's driving with both hands occupied these mere seconds that already issue in this case you could have it in any case law that would support the proposition that whether or not the ammunition those readily accessible the pins on what the defendant is doing it on whether or not he's capable of grasping it because he's doing other things with the sales well certainly judge this is a very unique case factually in that situation most of the cases cited involve situations where you do the in a vehicle where the person is not driving as a passenger or a situation where the vehicles already been stopped by the police and the no longer occupied so i don't have anything to directly on point on that however with the language capability that access being added to the proximity requirements from the shield's opinion in going back decades on how to find immediately accessible it is clear that it means capability is the ability to possess the ability to grab to reach easily so on these particular facts that have nothing directly on point because it is very unique but applying the law as it's been for decades certainly had a minimum the trial court should have properly instructed the jury as to what the law was further refine you're defining the definition of media accessible in this case and it's not our position judge that a court needs to further define immediately accessible in all of these cases rarely is this an issue to be honest with you in an aggravated unlawful use of a weapon prosecution but in this particular case mr martin is made the theory of the case it was the theory of the case the facts weren't controverted brought it to the attention of the trial judge instructed the judge and presented jury instruction number thirty saying consistent with the shield opinion and relevant case law accessibility refers to the proximity of the ammunition to the defendant and the capability to reach the ammunition and accurate statement of the law on illinois on the direct issue in the case on the defense in the case and the judge refused that jury instruction that was there in this case under these particular very unique set of facts secondly i believe the order your honors when given an opportunity you have to the motion to reconsider to review the case law is clear in illinois law for the people the williams opinion citing people be billions from the only supreme court to defend it isn't title to have the jury receive instructions on the law that applies to his theory of the case provided there is evidence in the record to support that the decision not to tailor the proper jury instruction by claiming that immediately accessible is is easily definable it's common knowledge people should know what immediately accessible means just based on the language respectfully judge i believe the word  contradicted itself when it then had to justify that opinion by looking up the definition of mediately accessible in the dictionary to define and then failing to cite or look at the letter of case law dealing with what does immediately accessible mean in particular context both cases where courts have upheld a finding of immediately accessibility in cases where they have it's not clear it's not obvious what immediately accessible means especially in the context of the facts of this case and the jury instruction sh would make a constitutional argument as well your honor as applied in this particular situation your honour's are well aware that the standard is that a for vagueness and as applied in the statute fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited that it's that so he may act accordingly from the people be greco that decision moreover as applied to process challenges must be pace within the factual context of each case and that's from the is of opinion from the supreme court in two thousand and one it's obvious that a person of well madison clear person of ordinary intelligence believed he was within the law when he separated within the spirit of the law separated the clip from the weapon case the weapon and separated the two and bury the clip in the side of the door in that door a person of ordinary intelligence thought he was within the law and i submit to you that a reasonable person would believe that was within the law separating the weapon creating the situation where it was not inherently dangerous at that moment and still was not inherently dangerous when he made the incredibly stupid decision but not criminal decision to take that unloaded weapon out of that center console and hold it out of display for a few seconds  of law it is not a matter it's a question of facts for the jury to determine did the defendant have access to this ammunition clip that was in the door a door pocket right problem with that argument is that it's a jury the trial court and even this court the simply not required to believe that this testimony that he could not reach the ammunition that and did not work you know were was in that does not make the statute they are unconstitutional why the clock language of the statute is clear gives any reasonable person notice that pocket right next to your leg is success the statute does not have to be so more precise as to describe the particular incident that occurred in this particular date before gives the  notice that hey you can't put the gun to them were you can reach it simply by reaching down you have to do something else you need put it in a in the glove compartment locked or put it in the  he was putting it worse not excessive it's sort of inconsistent with his purpose for having the gun in the car and with intent for having to go to the car first us which again goes to the question of was this an opinion it's factually opposite the court in that case the trial court in that case gave gave the non i p i to the jerk and that was the issue and at that point then the appellate court had to review under an abuse of discretion standard this is different we're talking about fundamental due process and the ability for the defendant to present his defense in a manner and have the law adequately adequately explain to the jury so that they can properly deliberate in this case the people be max opinion cited in the briefs stance for this proposition propriety of jury instructions is generally reviewed on an appeal for an abuse of discretion when the issue is whether the a football law was correctly conveyed by the instructions t the jury the appropriate standard for the reviews to know that's what we have here in my opinion on this very unique factual but situation that laws need to be properly paid for to find and it was when mr martinez attempted to tender the correct jury instruction accurately citing the current state of the law in the state of illinois and the way that laws been for decades proximity and capability in the court room i'd also  respectfully disagree with counsel on his statement that a clip sitting in someone's lap it's just as acceptable as a clip in person is six three two hundred sixty five pounds while that door shut while driving again were limited this is an after he's been pulled over this isn't if there's an emergency stranded somewhere and he can open the door and reach down that this is only when he's driving is that is that weapon on pace and it has to be on pace to be in violation of us with very limited time period here you have both his occupation with his hands and his size that prevented group prevented him from doing that also note briefly riders the defense sites numerous cases where courts have found something was immediately accessible i would note that none of those  cases facts of any of those cases involve situations where the defendants are driving when that is going on and that's what makes this case so you me and it's why further instruction required for the jury to ensure that the defendant has to process ri