Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/03/2018

Home

March 25, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 6 Zoning Bulletin public park. Section 24-1(a)(4), (c)(1.5) of Illinois' unlawful use of a weapon ("UUW") statute (720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)(4), (c)(1.5)) prohibited an individual from carrying or possessing a firearm within 1000 feet of a public park. In November 2015, Chairez filed a post -conviction peti- tion, seeking to vacate his conviction on the basis that the statute was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (U.S. Const., amend. II). The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." (U.S. Const., amend. II.) That right is "fully applicable to the States" through the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (U.S. Const., amend. XIV). In his petition, Chairez argued that an individual who is barred from carrying a firearm within 1000 feet of the many locations listed in sec- tion 24-1(c)(1.5) of the UUW statute (including public parks) is es- sentially barred from carrying a firearm in public. As such, he argued that section 24-1(c)(1.5) was essentially a blanket prohibition on carry- ing a gun in public, in violation of the Second Amendment. The circuit court agreed, holding that section 24-1(a)(4), (c)(1.5) of Illinois' UUW statute was unconstitutional because a 1000-foot firearm restriction was "not a reasonable regulation of the [S]econd [A]mend- ment," but rather was effectively a "near comprehensive ban" on carry- ing a firearm in public. The State of Illinois (the "State") appealed. The State argued that the restriction on carrying a firearm within 1000 feet of a public park was not an unconstitutional blanket prohibition, but rather was a reasonable regulation that prevented people from carrying firearms only in certain proscribed areas. DECISION: Judgment of circuit court affirmed in relevant part. The Supreme Court of Illinois held that section 24-1(a)(4), (c)(1.5) of Illinois' UUW statute, which prohibited possession of a firearm within 1000 feet of a public park was facially (i.e., on its face; based on the language of the statute alone and not just its applicability) unconsti- tutional in violation of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. In so holding, the court: (1) conducted "a textual and historical anal- ysis of the [S]econd [A]mendment 'to determine whether the chal- lenged law impose[d] a burden on conduct that was understood to be within the scope of the [S]econd [A]mendment's protection at the time of ratification;' " and (2) having found that the 1000-foot prohibition was within the scope of the Second Amendment's protection, applied "the appropriate level of heightened means -ends scrutiny and consid- er[ed] the strength of the government's justification for restricting or regulating the exercise of [S]econd [A]mendment rights." 6 © 2018 Thomson Reuters