People v. Aguilar
944 N.E.2d 816, 348 Ill. Dec. 575, 408 Ill.App.3d 136 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense is fundamentally limited to the home. Consequently, a state statute that prohibits a person from carrying a loaded and immediately accessible firearm in public does not violate the Second Amendment.
Facts:
- On the evening of June 12, 2008, police officer Thomas Harris was conducting surveillance and observed a group of male teenagers, including Alberto Aguilar, screaming and throwing bottles at passing vehicles.
- Officer Harris saw Aguilar holding the right side of his waist area.
- Aguilar and three other individuals walked into an alley and then into the backyard of 4217 West 25th Place, the home of Aguilar's friend, Romero Diaz.
- After being alerted by radio, Officer John Dolan and other officers entered the backyard of the residence.
- Officer Dolan saw Aguilar holding a gun in his right hand and then observed him drop it to the ground.
- Police recovered the gun, which had its serial number scratched off and was loaded with three live rounds of ammunition.
- Aguilar was under 18 years of age at the time of the incident.
- Aguilar did not live at the residence where he was found with the firearm.
Procedural Posture:
- Alberto Aguilar was charged with Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon (AUUW) and Unlawful Possession of a Firearm.
- Following a bench trial in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (trial court), Aguilar was found guilty on both counts.
- The trial court sentenced Aguilar to 24 months of probation for the AUUW conviction.
- No sentence was imposed for the conviction of Unlawful Possession of a Firearm.
- Aguilar, as the appellant, appealed his AUUW conviction to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District.
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 the Illinois Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon (AUUW) statute, which prohibits carrying a loaded, uncased, and immediately accessible firearm outside of one's own home, land, or fixed place of business, violate the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms?
Opinions:
Majority - Presiding Justice Quinn
No, the Illinois AUUW statute does not violate the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court's decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago are explicitly limited to the right to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense purposes and do not extend this right to public places. The AUUW statute is a constitutional exercise of the state's power to protect public safety, as it serves the important governmental objective of preventing the inherent dangers of carrying loaded weapons in public. The statute does not implicate the core right recognized in Heller because it includes exceptions for possession on one's own land or in one's abode. Adopting intermediate scrutiny, the court finds the statute is substantially related to the government's interest in public safety and is therefore constitutional.
Dissenting - Justice Neville
Yes, the Illinois AUUW statute violates the Second Amendment. The majority misinterprets Heller by treating its extensive reasoning about the meaning of 'bear arms' as non-binding dicta. The core of the Second Amendment right is to carry firearms for self-defense in case of conflict, a need that is not confined to the home. The AUUW statute's broad prohibition on carrying a loaded firearm in public effectively defeats this core right whenever a person is outside their home or business. While the state's interest in public safety is substantial, the statute's sweeping ban is disproportionate to that interest and is therefore an unconstitutional infringement on a fundamental right.
Analysis:
This case is significant for its interpretation of the Second Amendment's scope immediately following the landmark Heller and McDonald decisions. It establishes the precedent in Illinois that the right to bear arms is narrowly construed as an in-home right, giving the state broad authority to regulate and even prohibit the carrying of firearms in public. By adopting intermediate scrutiny, the court aligned with a developing consensus among federal circuits for reviewing Second Amendment challenges, creating a framework where many gun control measures outside the home could be upheld. The decision effectively draws a line at the doorstep, limiting Heller's revolutionary impact and preserving the state's traditional police power to regulate public safety.
