STATE OF ILLINOIS ) COUNTY OF WILL ) IN THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT WILL COUNTY, ILLINOIS THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, "¢ ) ) ) ) ) Case No, 08 CF 1169 2} DREW PETERSON, ) D; Dj Defendant, DECISION AND ORDER The People of the State of Illinois are present by Mr. John Connor, Assistant State's Attomey. The Defendant is present in person and by his attomeys, Mr. Joe! Brodsky and Mr. Andrew Abood. This cause is before this Court for decision following hearing of the defense motion to dismiss the charge against the Defendant of the Unlawful Use of a Weapon Pursuant to 720 ILCS 24-19(a)(7)(ii). That charge had been presented by the Grand Jury and retumed by this Court, This Court has reviewed and considered the pleadings, memoranda, stipulation and case law presented by the parties and has heard the representations and arguments of the attorneys. The issues presented by this motion are:Whether or not the “Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004” enacted by Congress and further cited at 18 U.S.C. §926b and hereafter referred to as “LEOSA" is applicable to this matter. If the first issue is answered in the affirmative, then whether the Defendant is a qualified Law Enforcement holes by “LEOSA”. In the event that answy 30 yes, it would require this Court to find the Defendant here maintained phe Tight to carry a concealed firearm. ‘The remaining issue would then be whether n¢outa be charged with possessing an illegal firearm regardless of the protection “LEOSA” provides him. Relative to the first issue, this Court finds as follows: 1. “LEOSA” was in full force and effect at all times regarding the facts and issues presented herein. 2. The firearm here was shipped or transported in interstate commerce as contemplated by “LEOSA”. 3. The firearm here was not a machine gun, a firearm silencer or a destructive device as defined by Federal law. It is therefore the ruling of this Court that “LEOSA” is applicable to this matter. As to the second issue, this Court finds as follows: 1. The Defendant was a duly appointed and authorized police officer with proper identification at all times relevant hereto. 2. He was authorized to carry a firearm.3. He was not subject to a pending disciplinary action, was not under the influence of alcohol and was not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm during all times relevant hereto. 4. He had met the standards established by his police department to qualify for the use ofa firearm. a» iis Court that the Defendant is a qualified law It is therefore the ruji enforcement officer as defined by “LEOSA”, It is the further finding of this Court, therefore, that the Defendant maintained the right to carry a concealed firearm pursuant to LEOSA. ‘The final issue is, again, whether Mr. Peterson may be charged with possessing an illegal firearm regardless of the protection “LEOSA” provides him. This issue was certainly the primary focus of the arguments presented by the attomeys. Without reiterating those arguments, the defense position is that “LEOSA” applies to any firearm not specifically excluded, whether or not that firearm is illegal by State law. The defense further argues that as to the issue of possession, the State is attempting to circumvent the intent and meaning of “LEOSA” as it is impossible to conceal carry a firearm, as allowed by “LEOSA” without also possessing that firearm, The State’s position is that the logical interpretation of “LEOSA” would necessarily contemplate only otherwise legal firearms, including those as determined by State law, and as to the issue of possession, there are circumstances under which concealgcarry and Possession can be separated, and if LEOSA meant to include possession, it would have so indicated. These arguments go to the crux of two elements the State must prove as set