2023 IL App (2d) 220434
Ill. App. Ct.2023Background
- Daniel Awkerman obtained a FOID card pre-2010; after a 2010 arrest he pleaded guilty in 2012 to conspiracy to commit cannabis trafficking (Class 1 felony), received 18 days in jail, 48 months’ felony probation, and was discharged from probation in January 2016.
- ISP discovered earlier adverse entries: a 2006 Oklahoma arrest/forfeiture for "acquire proceeds from drug activity" (no certified disposition provided) and a 2007 Elmwood Park aggravated-assault arrest (case stricken). ISP revoked/denied FOID renewal based on felony conviction and missing Oklahoma documentation.
- Awkerman reapplied for a FOID in November 2021; ISP denied his application under 430 ILCS 65/8(c). He petitioned under 430 ILCS 65/10(c) seeking judicial relief, arguing rehabilitation and asserting a Second and Fourteenth Amendment as-applied challenge to sections 8(c) and 10(c).
- At an evidentiary hearing Awkerman and two character witnesses testified about family, employment, and claimed rehabilitation; the State introduced ISP records and highlighted the 2010 trafficking facts, Oklahoma incident, and prior unlawful firearm possession.
- The circuit court denied relief, finding Awkerman failed to satisfy §10(c)(2) (not likely to be dangerous to public safety) and §10(c)(3) (granting relief not contrary to public interest), citing the seriousness and recency of the drug activity, inconsistent explanations about Oklahoma, and weak reputation evidence. Awkerman appealed; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| As-applied Second Amendment challenge to 430 ILCS 65/8(c) and 65/10(c) | Awkerman: statute unconstitutional as applied because his felony is nonviolent and Bruen forecloses judge balancing; nonviolent felons should retain Second Amendment protection | ISP/State: felon-disarmament is a longstanding, presumptively lawful restriction; drug trafficking is inherently dangerous; Act satisfies historical-analogues inquiry | Rejected. Assuming Bruen step one, the statute as applied is consistent with historical tradition; felon-disarmament and drug trafficking prohibitions are permissible. |
| Abuse of discretion in denying relief under §10(c) (subsections (2) & (3)) | Awkerman: he has one nonviolent felony, completed probation, stable family/employment, prior lawful gun ownership — so he met public-safety and public-interest prongs | ISP/State: recent, serious drug-trafficking conduct (interstate transport, storage, illegal gun possession), unexplained Oklahoma incident, weak character/reputation proof justify denial | Affirmed. Court did not abuse its discretion; record supports finding Awkerman failed to show he is unlikely to endanger public safety or that relief would not be contrary to public interest. |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (recognizes individual right to possess arms at home for self‑defense but identifies longstanding prohibitions—e.g., felons—as presumptively lawful)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (incorporates Second Amendment against states and reiterates Heller’s statement that prohibitions on felons are presumptively lawful)
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (establishes text-and-history test for Second Amendment challenges)
- United States v. Jackson, 69 F.4th 495 (8th Cir.) (upholds federal felon‑in‑possession restrictions and treats felons as outside Second Amendment protection)
- Vincent v. Garland, 80 F.4th 1197 (10th Cir.) (rejects as-applied challenge to federal §922(g)(1))
- Range v. Attorney General, 69 F.4th 96 (3d Cir.) (sustains as-applied Second Amendment challenge in a different factual context, illustrating circuit split on §922(g)(1))
- United States v. Rahimi, 61 F.4th 443 (5th Cir.) (invalidates a different federal firearm restriction for lack of historical analogue and distinguishes convicted felons)
- Evans v. Cook County State's Attorney, 2021 IL 125513 (Ill.) (Illinois Supreme Court: petition-for-relief abuse-of-discretion standard; petitioner must supply sufficient evidence on public-safety and public-interest prongs)
- Kanter v. Barr, 919 F.3d 437 (7th Cir.) (historical discussion of felon disarmament and Second Amendment scope)