People v. Aguilar, 2 N.E.3d 321 (Ill. 2013), was an Illinois Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon (AUUF) statute violated the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The Court stated that this was because the statute amounted to a wholesale statutory ban on the exercise of a personal right that was specifically named in and guaranteed by the United States Constitution, as construed by the United States Supreme Court. A conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Firearm (UPF) was proper because the possession of handguns by minors was conduct that fell outside the scope of the Second Amendment's protection.
In 2008, Alberto Aguilar, then 17, was arrested and charged with AUUF and UPF. After being convicted and sentenced to probation by the trial court, he appealed, arguing that both statutes were unconstitutional infringements of his Second Amendment rights. The Illinois Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction, and he appealed that ruling to the Illinois Supreme Court. While Aguilar's appeal was pending, the Federal Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that the AUUF statute was unconstitutional.
When the matter was decided by the Illinois Supreme Court, they agreed with the Seventh Circuit and declared the AUUF law unconstitutional, but upheld the constitutionality of the UPF law.
Background
Legal background Illinois was the last state in the nation to allow concealed carry of a handgun. Prior to 2013, Illinois prohibited the carry of a firearm in a loaded condition, other than at one's own property.720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A); , at 167. If the firearm was loaded and not in a locked case, or if it was otherwise available for immediate use, it was a felony offense called Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon (AUUF).720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A); , at 167. Illinois courts had uniformly upheld the constitutionally of the statute prior to 2008.People v. Marin, 795 N.E.2d 953, 958 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003) ("It is well established that the right to bear arms is not a fundamental right."); , 167-68 (2009). The state also had a law called Unlawful Possession of a Firearm (UPF), which prohibited anyone under the age of 18 from possessing a firearm. (2008); , at 171. Additionally, the City of Chicago had enacted strict gun control laws prohibiting the possession of any handgun that had not been registered prior to 1982, when the law took effect., 209-10 (2006); Christopher Keleher, District Of Columbia v Heller: The Death Knell For Illinois Handgun Bans? 96 402, 406 (Aug. 2008).
On June 26, 2008, exactly two weeks after Aguilar's arrest, the U.S. Supreme Court decided District of Columbia v. Heller.District of Columbia v. Heller, ; , 5 (2009). In Heller, the Court ruled that a law of the District of Columbia which had the effect of banning handguns in the city violated the Second Amendment and was unconstitutional.Heller, 554 U.S. at 635; , at 5. The Court said that the fundamental right protected by the Second Amendment was the right to self-defense; however since the District of Columbia was a federal jurisdiction, it was not clear that this applied to the individual states., at 10.
Factual background On June 12, 2008, Chicago Police Officer Thomas Harris was in a surveillance position in the Little Village neighborhood of Chicago and observed a group of male teenagers creating a disturbance and throwing bottles at cars.People v. Aguilar, 2 N.E.3d 321 (Ill. 2013); Steve Schmadeke, Ill. Supreme Court strikes down part of gun law, , Sept. 14, 2013 (archived from the original, Sept. 19, 2013); Debra Cassens Weiss, Second Amendment protects the right to carry a gun outside the home, Illinois Supreme Court says, (Sept. 13, 2013 6:40 PM). Harris observed one of the teenagers, later identified as Alberto Aguilar, holding the right side of his waist, and Harris notified other officers.Aguilar. The other officers made contact with the teens and Officer John Dolan saw Aguilar drop a gun onto the ground.Aguilar. Aguilar, then 17, was arrested.Beverly Krajelis, Supreme Court issues two gun-related rulings, (Sept. 12, 2013 3:08 PM); Schmadeke. The officers noted that the handgun had three rounds loaded in it and that the serial number was filed off.Aguilar; Weiss.
Lower courts
Circuit Court Aguilar was tried for AUUF and UPF at the Circuit Court for Cook County.Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116, at *1. The officers testified that Aguilar had the gun and had dropped it, while Aguilar claimed that he never had a gun, but was waiting for his mother to pick him up when officers came running into the back yard and tackled him.Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116, at *1; Krajelis; Weiss. Aguilar's testimony was corroborated by Romero Diaz, who stated that Aguilar did not have a gun.Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116, at *1. Judge Charles P. Burns determined that the officers were more credible and found Aguilar guilty on both counts, sentencing him to 24 months probation on the AUUF charge; he did not pass sentence on the UPF charge.Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116, at *1-2; Krajelis; Schmadeke; Weiss.
Illinois Court of Appeals Aguilar then appealed his conviction, arguing that the AUUF statute violated the Second Amendment and was unconstitutional.People v. Aguilar, 944 N.E.2d 816, 822-23 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011), rev'd 2013 IL 112116 (Ill. 2013). The Court of Appeals, evaluating Heller, found that Heller only protected the right to possess a handgun in the home.Aguilar, 944 N.E.2d at 823. The court also evaluated McDonald and found that while it applied the Second Amendment to the states, it also only applied to handguns possessed in the home.Aguilar, 944 N.E.2d at 823. The court, using an intermediate scrutiny test, determined that the Illinois statute was substantially related to an important governmental objective to protect the public from gun violence.Aguilar, 944 N.E.2d at 825-26. The court affirmed the conviction.Aguilar, 944 N.E.2d at 829.
Other relevant events
McDonald v. City of Chicago
In 2008, shortly after the Heller decision, three lawsuits were filed in Illinois, challenging the constitutionally of handgun bans in Chicago and Oak Park.McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3027; Michael J. Habib, The Future of Gun Control Laws Post-McDonald and Heller and the Death of One-Gun-Per-Month Legislation 44 1339, 1354 (June 2012). All three cases were consolidated and heard in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and were dismissed based on earlier U.S. Supreme Court rulings that the Second Amendment did not apply to the states.McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3027; Habib, at 1354. The cases were appealed to the Seventh Circuit, which affirmed based on the same reasoning.McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3027; Habib, at 1354. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed that decision, holding that the Second Amendment was applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment,McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3050; Habib, at 1355-56. and clarified that "self-defense was 'the central component of the right itself.'"McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3048 (original emphasis); Habib, at 1355.
Moore v. Madigan
In 2011, two federal lawsuits were filed in the Southern District of IllinoisShepard v. Madigan, 863 F. Supp. 2d 774 (S.D. Ill. 2012), rev'd sub nom Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir.). and the Central District of Illinois.Moore v. Madigan, 842 F. Supp. 2d 1092 (C.D. Ill. 2012), rev'd, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir.); Recent Case: Constitutional Law - Second Amendment - Seventh Circuit Strikes Down Illinois's Ban on Public Carry of Ready-to-Use Firearms. - Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2012), rehearing en banc denied, 708 F.3d 901 (7th Cir. 2013), 126 2461, 2462 (June 2013) (hereinafter cited as Recent Case). In both cases, the plaintiffs claimed that AUUF statute violated the Second Amendment in that it did not allow any method for a citizen to bear arms outside the home. Mary Shepard argued that the statutes were facially unconstitutional,Shepard 893 F. Supp. 2d at 775-76. while Michael Moore argued that the statutes were unconstitutional as applied.Moore, 842 F. Supp. 2d at 1096. In both cases, the judges granted the state's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, holding that the Second Amendment only protected the right to possess arms in the home.Moore, 842 F. Supp. 2d at 1110-11; Shepard, 893 F. Supp. 2d at 785; Recent Case, at 2462-63. Both Moore and Shepard appealed their cases to the Seventh Circuit, where the cases were consolidated.Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2012), rehearing en banc denied 708 F.3d 901 (2013).
The Seventh Circuit found that Illinois law did violate the Constitution in that there was no method for a person to carry a weapon for self-defense outside of the home.Moore, 702 F.3d at 936; Recent Case, at 2463; Taranto. The court stated that the district courts had read Heller and McDonald too narrowly—that the right protected was self-defense, and there was as great if not greater need outside the home.Moore, 702 F.3d at 936; Recent Case, at 2463; Taranto. The court rejected the state's argument that strict gun regulation lowered crime, noting that the evidence did not support that.Moore, 702 F.3d at 937-39; Recent Case, at 2463; Taranto. The decisions of the district courts were reversed and the cases remanded to those courts with instructions to declare the Illinois law unconstitutional, issuing a permanent injunction against the law's enforcement.Moore, 702 F.3d at 942; Recent Case, at 2464. The court then stayed the order for 180 days to give the Illinois legislature an opportunity to amend the law to make it constitutional.Moore, 702 F.3d at 942; Taranto; Steve Stout, Local law enforcement officials expect reloaded concealed gun bill to pass , , Jan. 25, 2013.
Legislative actions In January 2013 the Illinois Legislature began to look at enacting legislation to address the Moore decision.Stout. Lt. Governor Sheila Simon formed a working group of thirteen Democrats and two Republicans to look into the issue.15 Illinois legislators join Firearms Working Group, , Jan. 29, 2013 (archived from the original July 23, 2013); Stout. During hearings on the matter, debate centered on concealed carry permits, with gun rights groups preferring shall-issue permits while gun control groups favored may-issue permits.Tony Arnold & Brian Mackey, Illinois House Committee Considers Concealed Carry, , Feb. 19, 2013 (archived from the original Apr. 24, 2013); Susan Stephens, Concealed Carry Law Far From Approval, Despite Court Order, , Mar. 25, 2013. On May 31, 2013, the state house passed a shall-issue bill by a vote of 89–28, after state senate passed it by a vote of 45–12. Both had veto-proof margins.John O'Connor, Holdout on Concealed Carry, Ill. Gov gets Gun Bill , , May 31, 2013. On July 9, 2013, the Illinois legislature overrode Governor Pat Quinn's veto, and concealed carry was authorized for the state once the Illinois State Police issued permits.Ray Long, Monique Garcia, & Rick Pearson, General Assembly overrides governor's veto of concealed carry bill, , July 9, 2013 (archived from original Aug. 24, 2013).
Supreme Court of Illinois
Arguments On appeal, Aguilar again argued that the AUUF statute was unconstitutional on its face.Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116 at *2. Aguilar also made the argument that the UPF statute was unconstitutional, since at the time the Second Amendment was adopted, 16- and 17-year-olds could lawfully bear arms.Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116 at *6.
The state argued that Aguilar lacked standing to contest the constitutionality of the statute. The state claimed that since Aguilar denied having committing the act that the statute prohibited, he could not contest the constitutionality of it.Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116 at *2.
Opinion of the court