Court Opinion

ID: 9782741
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 19:10:13.751553+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:35:09.761095
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE GARMAN, specially concurring: I join the majority’s decision to reverse the appellate court and its specific holdings in this case. However, I write separately to explain why I believe the majority correctly held that the exception contained in the FOID Card Act for nonresidents whose firearm is licensed in his or her home state should be read into the aggravated unlawful use of a weapon statute. The principles we follow when approaching a question of statutory construction are familiar: “The primary rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature. The best evidence of legislative intent is the language used in the statute itself, which must be given its plain and ordinary meaning. The statute should be evaluated as a whole, with each provision construed in connection with every other section.” Cinkus v. Village of Stiekney Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 228 Ill. 2d 200, 216-17 (2008). It is only where the meaning of a statute is not plain on its face that we resort to other tools of statutory construction. Id. at 217. In this case, the aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (AUUW) statute includes two provisions which reference a firearm owner’s identification card. 720 ILCS 5/24 — 1.6(a)(l)(3)(C), (c) (West 2008). To determine what a FOID card is and, therefore, whether either of these provisions applies, reference must be made to the FOID Card Act. When two statutes relate to the same subject, we presume that the legislature intended them to be harmonious and will “construe them with reference to each other, so as to give effect to all of the provisions of each if possible.” Cinkus, 228 Ill. 2d at 218. We further presume “that statutes which relate to one subject are governed by one spirit and a single policy.” People v. Maya, 105 Ill. 2d 281, 286 (1985). Therefore, the FOID Card Act must inform our understanding of the FOID card requirement as laid out in the AUUW statute. The AUUW statute makes two references to the FOID card. First, it is an aggravating factor when the person possessing a firearm has not been issued a currently valid FOID card. 720 ILCS 5/24 — 1.6(a)(l)(3)(C) (West 2008). Second, the AUUW statute exempts the transportation or possession of weapons that “are unloaded and enclosed in a case, *** by a person who has been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner’s Identification Card.” 720 ILCS 5/24 — 1.6(c)(iii) (West 2008). Reading the AUUW statute as the State suggests, to require an Illinois-issued firearm owner’s identification card, would mean that a nonresident who has not obtained an Illinois FOID card would be subject to prosecution for the felony of AUUW even when carrying a firearm that is unloaded and enclosed in a case. However, this is contrary to the clearly articulated legislative intent expressed in the FOID Card Act. The FOID Card Act requires an individual to have in his or her possession a FOID card in order to acquire or possess any firearm, stun gun, taser, or firearm ammunition. 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(l), (a)(2) (West 2008). The Act makes 16 enumerated exceptions to this requirement (430 ILCS 65/2(b)(l) through (b)(16) (West 2008)), in addition to a broad exception for law enforcement officials of any jurisdiction (430 ILCS 65/2(c) (West 2008)). Many of the exceptions are specifically for nonresidents. 430 ILCS 65/2(b)(5), (b)(7), (b)(8), (b)(9), (b)(10), (b)(13) (West 2008). Three of those exceptions list specific situations where the nonresidents do not require a FOID card, and then note that “at all other times and in all other places these persons must have their firearms unloaded and enclosed in a case.” 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(5) (nonresident hunters during hunting season with valid nonresident hunting licenses and while in an area where hunting is permitted), (a)(8) (nonresidents at a firearm showing or display) (West 2008); see also 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(7) (West 2008) (nonresidents on a firing or shooting range). Another exception exempts any nonresident whose firearm is “unloaded and enclosed in a case” generally. 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(9) (West 2008). The plain language of these exceptions indicates a legislative intent to allow nonresidents to possess a firearm in Illinois whenever the weapon is unloaded and enclosed in a case without requiring them to have an Illinois FOID card. As the majority points out, if we were to strictly apply the FOID card requirement in the AUUW statute, as the State suggests, nonresidents whose weapons are unloaded and enclosed in a case but who do not have an Illinois FOID card would be guilty of a felony under section 24 — 1.6(a)(l)(3)(C), but not of the misdemeanor of possession under the FOID Card Act. Further, the positive language instructing nonresidents to keep their firearms unloaded and enclosed in a case “at all other times and in all other places” would be rendered meaningless. Thus, to give full effect to the legislature’s express intent and to avoid absurd results, I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the statutes must be read together and that the exception contained in the FOID Card Act for nonresidents licensed to carry a gun in their home state must be read into the AUUW statute.