Opinion ID: 2527819
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Count IISection 24-1.6(a)(1)(3)(C)

Text: Count II of the State's information charged defendant with aggravated unlawful use of a weapon based on carrying a firearm in his vehicle at a time when he was not on his own land or in his own abode or fixed place of business and had not been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card in violation of section 24-1.6(a)(1)(3)(C). Section 24-1.6(a)(1)(3)(C) provides: (a) A person commits the offense of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon when he or she knowingly: (1) Carries on or about his or her person or in any vehicle or concealed on or about his or her person except when on his or her land or in his or her abode or fixed place of business any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm; [and]    (3) One of the following factors is present:    (C) the person possessing the firearm has not been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card[.] 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(a)(1)(3)(C) (West 2004). Defendant contends that his conviction cannot be sustained under count II because, as an Indiana resident with a valid Indiana gun permit, he was exempt from the requirement of having a FOID card. In support of his argument, defendant points to section 2 of the FOID Card Act, which provides, in pertinent part: (a)(1) No person may acquire or possess any firearm within this State without having in his or her possession a Firearm Owner's Identification Card previously issued in his or her name by the Department of State Police under the provisions of this Act.    (b) The provisions of this Section regarding the possession of firearms and firearm ammunition do not apply to:    (10) Nonresidents who are currently licensed or registered to possess a firearm in their resident state[.] 430 ILCS 65/2 (West 2004). The appellate court rejected this contention. According to the appellate court, there is no authority suggesting that the exceptions in one [statute] are to be read into the other. We disagree. Section 24-1.6(a)(1)(3)(C) of the unlawful use of a weapon statute states that the absence of a FOID card is an aggravating factor. In order to determine what a FOID card is and, therefore, whether section 24-1.6(a)(1)(3)(C) applies, reference must be made to the FOID Card Act. Thus, the FOID Card Act gives meaning to section 24-1.6(a)(1)(3)(C), and the statutes, by their own terms, must be read together. We agree with defendant that the two statutes must be read together in order to avoid absurd results. Reading the statutes separately, as the appellate court did, would mean that an out-of-state resident who transports a firearm into Illinois when the firearm is legally registered in his home state would be exempt from misdemeanor prosecution under the FOID Card Act but that the same conduct would subject such individual to felony prosecution under section 24-1.6(a)(1)(3)(C). This cannot be what the legislature intended. Reading these statutes together, as we must, we find that the exception identified in section 2(b)(10) of the FOID Card Act can be applied to the unlawful use of weapons statute and, therefore, a valid permit or license from another state can substitute for the FOID card requirement in section 24-1.6. Accordingly, we hold that the exception contained in section 2(b)(10) must be incorporated in the unlawful use of weapons act. The State argues that, even if the exception contained in section 2(b)(10) applies to the unlawful use of weapons statute, defendant cannot avail himself of that exception because he did not have his Indiana permit in his possession at the time of his arrest. According to the State, this is a requirement in order to invoke the exception. We disagree. The unlawful use of a weapon statute provides that it is an aggravating factor where the defendant has not been issued a currently valid FOID card. The language of the unlawful use of weapons statute only contemplates that a FOID card has been issued to that individual. There is no requirement in the unlawful use of weapons statute that an individual have his or her FOID card or other similar permit in his or her possession. Accordingly, we reject the State's argument. Based on our holding that the exception contained in section 2(b)(10) of the FOID Card Act applies to the unlawful use of weapons statute, we find that the trial court erred when it concluded that defendant's Indiana permit was irrelevant and prevented defendant from presenting this relevant evidence. If defendant had been able to produce evidence that he had been issued a valid Indiana permit, a conviction on count II would not have been proper since the aggravating factor contained in section 24-1.6(a)(1)(3)(C) would not be present. As such, the trial court's refusal to allow defendant to introduce the permit into evidence was prejudicial error. Accordingly, a conviction for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon, as charged in count II, cannot stand.