Appeals court tosses defaced gun law

Status
Not open for further replies.

Desertdog

Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
1,980
Location
Ridgecrest Ca
This ruling, if upheld, may have far reaching consequences.

Appeals court tosses defaced gun law

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-gun15.html

BY STEVE PATTERSON Staff Reporter


When police arrested Juan Quinones in 2002, the handgun they accused him of carrying had its serial number scratched out.

State law said merely possessing such a gun was enough evidence to also charge Quinones with being the person who scratched it out.

But a recent ruling by the Appellate Court of Illinois said that law is unconstitutional -- which could open the door to reversals for others convicted of the crime.

Though the state law was amended last year, the court said those convicted under the old language were convicted against the presumption of innocence granted to anyone arrested for a crime.

State plans to appeal

"The state is constitutionally required to prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt," the court said in its ruling.

Though state's attorney spokesman John Gorman said there are plans to appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court, assistant appellate defender Jessica Hunter said the state "has the burden to prove all the elements in a case.''

Prosecutors sometimes struggled with proving who actually defaced the gun, so it was easier for them to charge whomever was in possession of the weapon, according to Hunter.

Has been deported

The state law said "possession of any firearm upon which any such mark shall have been changed, altered, removed or obliterated shall be prima facie evidence that the possessor has changed, altered, removed or obliterated the same."

Hunter said after a recent Illinois Supreme Court ruling, all cases involving "presumptions" are being given a second look, though Quinones' is the first case to be overturned as a result of that.

Quinones, a Mexican national who has since been deported, was involved in a kidnapping plot that unraveled as money demands were made on a family in Cicero and Riverside, and as police busted the ring, they found the gun in Quinones' apartment.
 
Being in posession of a gun with the serial numbers intentionally obliterated? Isn't that pretty much an indication of criminal intent, even he didn't do it himself?
 
Dr.Rob said:
Being in posession of a gun with the serial numbers intentionally obliterated? Isn't that pretty much an indication of criminal intent, even he didn't do it himself?

I dont think so. It could be he bought it from some random 3rd party solely for self defense, and didnt know any better or didnt care.

Or maybe it could be that he killed a whole housefull of women and children with his illegal gun.

Either way I dont think some silly numbers etched in metal or lack there of are going to have any effect on anyone's safety.
 
MA has a similar law. I don't have the text in front of me right now, but basically possession of a gun with an altered/defaced SN is unlawful.
 
MA has a similar law. I don't have the text in front of me right now, but basically possession of a gun with an altered/defaced SN is unlawful.

I thought that defacing altering serial # on a firearm was a Federal Felony :confused:

NukemJim
 
Dr.Rob said:
Being in posession of a gun with the serial numbers intentionally obliterated? Isn't that pretty much an indication of criminal intent, even he didn't do it himself?
How so?

Is possession of an automobile with a top speed of 85 miles per hour prima facie evidence of intent to exceed the 55 MPH speed limit?

The court didn't rule there can't be a law against possessing a defaced firearm. They said (correctly, IMHO) that the law can't claim that the fact you possess it automatically proves that you are the person who did the defacing. There is a difference.
 
Quinones, a Mexican national who has since been deported, was involved in a kidnapping plot that unraveled as money demands were made on a family in Cicero and Riverside, and as police busted the ring, they found the gun in Quinones' apartment.

No doubt living in Los Angeles now and voting against propositions on the ballot.
 
Hawkmoon has noted the key to this ruling. The law in question stated that possession of a defaced firearm was prima facie evidence that the possessor is the one that defaced the firearm. BAD LAW. BAD LAW. BAD LAW. What the legislature should have done, as has been done elsewhere, and in the Federeal Criminal Code, IIRC, is to have seperate offenses for altering the serial number and for possessing an altered gun
 
Brad Johnson said:
If you have a $20 bill and it tests positive for cocaine....

Brad

Bingo.

What was the name of the town where the police were going door to door without warrents and confiscating firearms for ballistics testing as part of their investigation of a murdered policeman? In this example, anyone who simply owned a gun was a murder suspect.
 
It is a similar concept as "posession of stolen property".

Posession of stolen property is not prima facie evidence that one was the one who stole it originally.

That is why "posession of stolen property" is a SEPERATE crime from theft/burglary/etc.
 
PACC §6110.2. Possession of firearm with altered manufacturer’s number.

(a) General rule.—No person shall possess a firearm which has had the manufacturer’s number integral to the frame or receiver altered, changed, removed or obliterated.
(b) Penalty.—A person who violates this section commits a misdemeanor of the first degree.
(c) Definition.—As used in this section, the term “firearm” shall have the same meaning as that term is defined in section 6105(i) (relating to persons not to possess, use, manufacture, control, sell or transfer firearms), except that the term shall not include antique firearms as defined in section 6118 (relating to antique firearms).
 
(a) General rule.—No person shall possess a firearm which has had the manufacturer’s number integral to the frame or receiver altered, changed, removed or obliterated.
(b) Penalty.—A person who violates this section commits a misdemeanor of the first degree.
That is not the same as;

(State law said merely possessing such a gun was enough evidence to also charge Quinones with being the person who scratched it out.[/QUOTE]
 
Being in posession of a gun with the serial numbers intentionally obliterated? Isn't that pretty much an indication of criminal intent, even he didn't do it himself?
Well, I bought a used revolver with an aftermarket Pachmayr grip, which has to be removed in order to read the SN from the grip frame.

It so happens I bought it through a major store, NICS check and all that ... but I didn't actually see the SN until after I brought it home and took the grip off (to clean it and find the SN).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top