After reviewing the record in its entirety, we are persuaded that there is sufficient evidence in the record to establish that defendant was carrying the weapon at the time of his arrest. Evidence was presented at trial establishing that the gun was lodged in the motorcycle in a location that made the weapon readily accessible to defendant. The evidence also established that defendant owned the motorcycle and was driving it at the time he was stopped by the police. We conclude that it is reasonable to infer from this evidence that defendant was indeed carrying the gun. Next, defendant argues that his convictions should be reversed because the prosecution failed to negate every reasonable theory consistent with defendant's innocence.
Defendant misunderstands the burden of proof placed upon the prosecution.
Accordingly, defendant's assertion lacks merit. Again, we disagree. Defendant's argument is based on the meaning he assigns to the word in. We have already rejected this meaning as not being in accord with the common understanding of the term. Therefore, contrary to defendant's assertions, we believe the plain meaning of the statute serves to provide both fair notice of the type of conduct prohibited by the statute, and prevent abuses in its application.