People v. Aguilar
2 N.E.3d 321
| Ill. | 2013Background
- On June 12, 2008, Chicago police observed Alberto Aguilar in a group of youths; officers later recovered a loaded handgun with its serial number scratched off after Aguilar allegedly dropped it in a backyard where he was waiting for a ride. Aguilar was 17 at the time.
- Aguilar testified he did not have or drop a gun; eyewitness defense testimony conflicted with police testimony.
- Trial court convicted Aguilar of Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon (AUUW) (720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A)) and Unlawful Possession of a Firearm (UPF) as a minor (720 ILCS 5/24-3.1(a)(1)); he received 24 months’ probation on the AUUW conviction.
- Illinois appellate court affirmed (one justice dissenting); Illinois Supreme Court granted review.
- The primary legal question: whether the AUUW provision (a near-blanket prohibition on carrying uncased, loaded, immediately accessible handguns outside the home) and the UPF minor-possession statute violate the Second Amendment as interpreted by Heller and McDonald.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Aguilar has standing to raise a facial Second Amendment challenge | State: Aguilar lacks standing because his conduct (loaded, modified handgun on another’s property without consent) is unprotected | Aguilar: He may bring a facial challenge to the statutes that were enforced against him | Court: Aguilar has standing to seek facial invalidation because the statutes were enforced against him and caused direct injury |
| Whether 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A) (ban on carrying uncased, loaded, accessible handguns outside the home) violates the Second Amendment | State: Heller/McDonald protect handgun possession in the home only; statute regulates conduct outside the home and is constitutional | Aguilar: The Second Amendment protects armed self-defense beyond the home; the statute is a near-total ban on public armed self-defense | Court: Statute is facially unconstitutional; Second Amendment protects the right to possess and use firearms for self-defense outside the home (adopting Seventh Circuit reasoning), so AUUW conviction reversed |
| Whether 720 ILCS 5/24-3.1(a)(1) (ban on handgun possession by persons under 18) violates the Second Amendment | Aguilar: Historical militia service shows minors were armed at founding; 17-year-olds have Second Amendment protection and law must meet heightened scrutiny | State: Minor-possession prohibitions are longstanding and consistent with historical practice and public-safety regulation | Court: Minors’ handgun possession falls outside Second Amendment protection given historical practice and longstanding prohibitions; UPF conviction affirmed |
| Remedy and sentencing following reversal/affirmance | N/A | Aguilar sought vacatur of both convictions | Court reversed AUUW conviction, affirmed UPF conviction, remanded for sentencing on UPF (not to exceed previous sentence), with credit for time served on AUUW |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (Individual right to possess firearms for self-defense; home emphasized as core but historical analysis extended beyond the home)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (Second Amendment applies to states; self-defense is the central component of the right)
- Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2012) (Illinois ban on carrying ready-to-use guns outside the home is facially unconstitutional)
- National Rifle Ass’n of Am., Inc. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Explosives, 700 F.3d 185 (5th Cir. 2012) (modern restrictions on under-21/under-18 handgun possession are historically rooted)
- United States v. Rene E., 583 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2009) (historical evidence shows the Second Amendment did not extend to juveniles)