Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the civil case Coram v. State of Illinois and the criminal case People v. Aguilar.

CIVIL

Coram v. The State of Illinois

By Alyssa M. Reiter, Williams, Montgomery & John Ltd.

The Illinois Supreme Court found a way to interpret the state and federal statutory gun control schemes so as to avoid reaching the issue of constitutionality of section 922(g)(9) of the federal act.  The issue divided the Court, resulting in concurring and dissenting opinions.  And, the concurrence suggests that the constitutionality issues will soon arise again.

Coram had pled guilty in 1992 to domestic battery for slapping his girlfriend in the face.  In 2009, Coram applied for an Illinois Firearm Owner’s Identification (FOID) card.  The Illinois State Police denied the application based upon a 1996 amendment to the federal Gun Control Act of 1968 (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) (2006)),which imposed a firearm disability upon anyone convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor.  Coram petitioned the circuit court for a hearing on the denial.  The court granted relief from the prohibition because Coram established certain matters, such as that he was not likely to act in a dangerous manner. 

The circuit court directed the Illinois State Police to issue a FOID card.  The Police Department then intervened and moved to vacate the order.  It argued that federal law prohibited Coram from possessing a firearm.  Coram asserted that the federal statute was unconstitutional as applied to him and the circuit court agreed.  It held that the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) prohibited it from granting relief and that those provisions violated Coram’s second amendment rights. 

The Supreme Court extensively reviewed the purpose and history of the relevant gun control legislation.  The Court concluded that congress intended to allow states to provide for relief from section 922(g) disabilities.  It thus upheld the original order which directed issuance of the FOID card but vacated the portion of the judgment holding section 922(g)(9) of the federal Act unconstitutional.

Justice Burke concurred (which Justice Freeman joined), noting that the focus should have been on the Illinois FOID Card Act, not on federal section 922(g)(9).  Justice Burke discussed that a January 2013 amendment to the FOID Card Act allows for relief only if not contrary to federal law.  She noted that if Coram’s application had been filed under the new amendments, it would squarely present the constitutional objections raised in this case.  Justice Theis (with Justice Garman joining) dissented, finding that Coram’s disqualification under federal law continued to make him ineligible for a FOID card in Illinois.

CRIMINAL

People v. Aguilar

By Kerry J. Bryson, Office of the State Appellate Defender

Confronted with a challenge to the constitutionality of the Aggravated Unlawful Use of Weapons (AUUW) statute, the Illinois Supreme Court expressly indicated its agreement with last year’s 7th Circuit decision in Moore v. Madigan, and found the statute facially unconstitutional.  In its decision, the Court noted that the Second Amendment’s reference to both the right to “keep,” as well as to “bear,” arms necessarily implied that citizens have the right to carry a loaded gun outside the home (as it would have been an “awkward usage” to refer to “bearing” arms within ones home). The Court also cited to the United States Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, recognizing that the primary purpose of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is for the purpose of self-defense, a purpose which would be frustrated if citizens were not allowed to carry weapons outside of the home. The Court vacated Aguilar’s AUUW conviction.

Remaining was a conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Firearm (UPF) under a provision prohibiting a person under 18 years of age from carrying a firearm capable of being concealed upon his or her person. The Court upheld this statute in the face of a Second Amendment challenge, finding that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited but is subject to reasonable regulation. The Court noted that several jurisdictions have upheld similar limitations, and concluded that “the possession of handguns by minors is conduct that falls outside the scope of the second amendment’s protection.”

Aguilar may be a relatively short (11 pages), unanimous decision, but its impact is likely to be significant. The decision provides fodder for challenging pending AUUW charges (not to mention the possibility of challenging prior convictions of AUUW). There also exists the potential for arguing that the Aguilar reasoning applies to other  firearm-based offenses.

Finally, it should be noted that the AUUW statute was amended effective July 9, 2013, allowing a limited right to carry firearms in public. The amended version of the statute was not before the Court in this case.