Kalodimos v. Village of Morton Grove
103 Ill.2d 483, 83 Ill. Dec. 308, 470 N.E.2d 266 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The right of an individual citizen to keep and bear arms under the Illinois Constitution is subject to the state's police power, which permits a home rule municipality to enact a reasonable prohibition on a specific category of firearms, such as handguns.
Facts:
- The Village of Morton Grove passed Ordinance 81-11.
- The ordinance provided that 'No person shall possess, in the Village ... [a]ny handgun, unless the same has been rendered permanently inoperative.'
- The ordinance exempted several groups, including peace officers, prison officials, members of the armed forces, and security guards employed by commercial enterprises.
- It also exempted members of licensed gun clubs who stored their handguns at the club and antique firearms.
Procedural Posture:
- A group of Morton Grove residents sued the Village of Morton Grove in the Circuit Court of Cook County.
- The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that the ordinance was unconstitutional and an injunction to prevent its enforcement.
- The circuit court (trial court) granted summary judgment in favor of the Village of Morton Grove.
- The plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the decision to the Illinois Appellate Court.
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the ordinance.
- The Illinois Supreme Court then granted the plaintiffs' petition for leave to appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a village ordinance that bans the possession of operable handguns, with certain exceptions, violate Article I, Section 22 of the Illinois Constitution or exceed the village's home rule and police powers?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Simon
No, the ordinance does not violate the Illinois Constitution and is a valid exercise of the village's powers. The Illinois Constitution explicitly makes the right to bear arms 'Subject only to the police power.' The court's analysis of the 1970 Constitutional Convention debates reveals that the delegates intended to allow the legislature to ban specific categories of firearms, such as handguns, while prohibiting a complete ban on all firearms. Furthermore, the ordinance is a proper exercise of the village's home rule power because gun control pertains to local government affairs, and the state legislature has not preempted the field. Finally, because the right to arms is not a fundamental right, the ordinance is reviewed under the rational basis test and is upheld as it is rationally related to the legitimate government interest of reducing firearm-related deaths and injuries.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Ryan
Yes, the ordinance is an unconstitutional exercise of the police power. The exercise of police power to infringe upon a constitutional right requires that the law have a definite relation to the ends sought. The evidence from the village trustees' meeting reveals the ordinance's true purpose was not to prevent crime but to publicize a political viewpoint and 'send a message' to other legislative bodies. Using the police power merely to publicize a political belief is not a legitimate purpose sufficient to justify infringing on the constitutionally protected right to arms, especially when local crime statistics did not show a compelling need for such a drastic measure.
Dissenting - Justice Moran
Yes, the ordinance is unconstitutional and exceeds the village's home rule powers. The Bill of Rights Committee Report from the constitutional convention explicitly stated that laws attempting to ban all possession of arms that 'law-abiding persons commonly employ for purposes of recreation or the protection of person and property' would be invalid; handguns fall into this category. Additionally, firearm regulation is a matter of statewide concern, not local affairs. Allowing individual municipalities to create a 'crazy quilt of conflicting' gun laws is counterproductive and exceeds the home rule authority granted by the constitution, which is limited to matters 'pertaining to its government and affairs.'
Analysis:
This decision firmly establishes that the right to bear arms under the Illinois Constitution is not a fundamental right and is subject to significant legislative control under the police power. By upholding a complete municipal ban on handguns, the court set a powerful precedent for local gun control efforts within the state, clarifying that home rule units have broad authority to regulate firearms so long as they do not enact a total ban on all weapons. This ruling distinguishes the Illinois right to arms from more robust protections in other states and from later interpretations of the Second Amendment, solidifying the application of the deferential rational basis test for such regulations in Illinois.
