Laserfiche WebLink
March 25, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 6 Zoning Bulletin <br />ing firearms within 1000 feet of a public park would reduce the risks to <br />children and others. In other words, the court found that the State had <br />"speculated" that the proximity of firearms within 1000 feet threatened <br />the health and safety of those in public parks, but had failed to provide <br />"a valid explanation for how the law actually achieves its goal of <br />protecting children and vulnerable populations from gun violence." <br />With such failure to justify the restriction on gun possession within <br />1000 feet of a public park, the court concluded that the State failed to <br />bear its "burden" of justifying such a "substantial an encumbrance on <br />individual Second Amendment rights" —and that therefore the restric- <br />tion was facially unconstitutional. <br />Having found the UUW provision under which Chairez was con- <br />victed to be unconstitutional, the court affirmed the circuit court's judg- <br />ment vacating Chairez's Class 3 felony conviction. <br />See also: District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. <br />2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008). <br />See also: Moore v. Madigan, 702 F3d 933, 942 (7th Cir. 2012). <br />See also: Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2011). <br />Case Note: <br />The Supreme Court of Illinois also concluded that the unconstitutional provi- <br />sion of the UUW, prohibiting possession of a firearm within 1000 feet of a <br />public park, was severable from the remaining portions of the UUW. The stat- <br />ute had also identified several other specific locations from which possession <br />of a firearm within 1000 feet of such locations was prohibited (e.g. "on any <br />public way within 1, 000 feet of the real property comprising any school, . . . <br />courthouse, public transportation facility, or residential property owned, <br />operated, or managed by a public housing agency or leased by a public hous- <br />ing agency as part of a scattered site or mixed -income development. " (720I11. <br />Comp. Stat. § 24-1(c)(1.5))). Having found the unconstitutional portion of the <br />statute (i.e., prohibiting possession of a firearm within 1000 feet of a public <br />park) severable from the rest of the statute (which had not also been chal- <br />lenged as unconstitutional), the court held that the remaining specific location - <br />regulations were capable of being executed. <br />8 © 2018 Thomson Reuters <br />