People v. Aguilar
2013 IL 112116
| Ill. | 2014Background
- On June 12, 2008 Chicago police recovered a loaded handgun with its serial number scratched off after officers encountered a group of teenagers; defendant Aguilar was arrested and charged.
- At trial Aguilar was convicted of (1) aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (AUUW) under the Class 4 formulation of 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A), (d) (uncased, loaded, immediately accessible firearm carried outside home) and (2) unlawful possession of a firearm (UPF) under 720 ILCS 5/24-3.1(a)(1) (minor possessing a concealable firearm).
- Trial court sentenced Aguilar to 24 months’ probation on the AUUW conviction and stayed sentence on the UPF conviction. Appellate court affirmed (one justice dissenting); Illinois Supreme Court granted leave to appeal.
- Main constitutional question: whether the Class 4 AUUW provision is facially inconsistent with the Second Amendment as interpreted in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago.
- Secondary question: whether the statute barring firearm possession by persons under 18 (UPF) violates the Second Amendment when applied to a 17‑year‑old.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Class 4 AUUW (ban on carrying uncased, loaded, immediately accessible handguns outside the home) violates the Second Amendment | State: statute valid; prior Illinois appellate decisions upheld it; Heller/McDonald protect home possession only | Aguilar: statute is a flat ban on carrying ready‑to‑use guns outside the home and thus facially unconstitutional under Heller/McDonald | Court: statute (as to Class 4 form) is facially unconstitutional; reversed AUUW conviction |
| Whether Aguilar lacks standing to bring a facial Second Amendment challenge | State: Aguilar engaged in unprotected conduct here, so lacks standing | Aguilar: he may bring facial challenge to statute enforced against him and suffering direct injury from prosecution | Court: Aguilar has standing to mount a facial challenge; standing objection rejected |
| Whether UPF prohibition for persons under 18 violates the Second Amendment | Aguilar: historical militia practice shows minors had firearm rights; law therefore burdens protected conduct and must meet heightened scrutiny | State: longstanding tradition of restricting juvenile possession; Heller permits longstanding prohibitions | Court: juvenile possession historically falls outside Second Amendment protection; UPF conviction affirmed |
| Remedy / scope: Is invalidation limited or general; effect on other permutations of AUUW | State (on rehearing): statute contains multiple permutations and sentencing categories (including felon enhancement); some applications (e.g., felons) may be constitutional | Aguilar: facial invalidation of the AUUW elements as applied generally | Court: limited its holding to the Class 4 form (24-1.6(a)(1),(a)(3)(A),(d)); made no ruling on other AUUW permutations; reversed Class 4 conviction and remanded for sentencing on UPF |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (individual right to possess and carry weapons for self‑defense; emphasized home as core)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (held Heller right applicable to states through Fourteenth Amendment)
- Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2012) (held Illinois flat ban on carrying ready‑to‑use guns outside home unconstitutional)
- National Rifle Ass’n of Am., Inc. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tob. & Firearms, 700 F.3d 185 (5th Cir. 2012) (historical analysis supporting restrictions on under‑21 purchase and under‑18 possession)
- United States v. Rene E., 583 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2009) (concluded founding‑era right did not extend to juveniles)
- Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001) (practical problems and limits on requiring officers to resolve complex penalty classifications in the field)