People v. Heitmann
2017 IL App (3d) 160527
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Joseph Heitmann pleaded guilty in 1990 to battery against his then‑wife (fine only) and retained an Illinois FOID card until 2014, when ISP revoked it after finding the conviction was a misdemeanor domestic‑violence offense.
- Heitmann petitioned the circuit court for reinstatement under 430 ILCS 65/10; the court initially ordered reinstatement after a hearing but later vacated that order after the Illinois State Police intervened.
- ISP moved to dismiss, arguing the 2013 amendments to the FOID Card Act bar courts from issuing FOID cards when federal law still prohibits firearm possession (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9)).
- Heitmann argued the court could grant relief because federal law’s "civil rights restored" or § 925 safety‑valve provisions permit restoration, and he also raised an as‑applied constitutional (Second Amendment) challenge.
- The trial court granted ISP’s motion to dismiss; the appellate court affirmed, holding (a) the 2013 amendments prevent courts from removing federal firearm disabilities, (b) gun ownership is not among the "civil rights restored" contemplated by the federal statute as construed by the Supreme Court, and (c) Heitmann’s constitutional challenge is premature because he has not pursued available remedies (e.g., pardon).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Heitmann) | Defendant's Argument (ISP) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a circuit court may reinstate a FOID card when federal law still bars possession | FOID reinstatement does not conflict with federal law because federal statutes provide avenues ("civil rights restored" or § 925) that allow relief; state court relief can effect restoration | 2013 FOID Act amendments bar courts from issuing FOID cards if federal law prohibits possession; courts cannot remove federal firearms disabilities | The 2013 amendments preclude circuit courts from granting relief that would leave an applicant barred under federal law |
| Whether "civil rights restored" in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(B)(ii) includes firearm rights such that a state FOID order can satisfy federal exemption | A state court order restoring FOID rights equals restoration of civil rights under federal law, so reinstatement would not be contrary to federal law | "Civil rights" in the federal statute refers to traditional civil rights (vote, jury, office); gun ownership is not included; Illinois law provides no mechanism to restore firearm rights | Gun rights are not the civil rights contemplated by the federal provision; Illinois lacks a statutory restoration mechanism, so FOID reinstatement does not operate as federal restoration |
| Whether federal § 925 (safety‑valve) provides relief applicable here | If § 925 were available and administered, state relief would mirror federal standards and not conflict with federal law | § 925 relief is functionally unavailable (defunded and jurisdictionally limited); it provides no present remedy | § 925 is effectively a nullity for domestic‑battery misdemeanants and offers no current relief |
| Whether Heitmann’s as‑applied constitutional (Second Amendment) challenge is ripe | The FOID/ federal ban is a perpetual unconstitutional firearms ban as applied | Challenge is premature because petitioner has not exhausted available remedies (e.g., pardon/expungement) that could remove the federal disability | As‑applied constitutional claim is premature; petitioner must pursue available remedies before the claim is considered |
Key Cases Cited
- Hayes v. United States, 555 U.S. 415 (2009) (construing domestic‑relationship scope for misdemeanor domestic‑violence firearm ban)
- Logan v. United States, 552 U.S. 23 (2007) ("civil rights" in federal firearms context refers to voting, jury service, officeholding)
- United States v. Skoien, 614 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2010) (permanent federal firearm ban not necessarily unconstitutional where state pardon/expungement avenues exist)
- Coram v. State of Illinois, 2013 IL 113867 (2013) (Illinois Supreme Court discussion of FOID § 10 and effect of 2013 amendments; divided views on whether state relief can remove federal disability)
- Baumgartner v. Greene County State’s Attorney’s Office, 2016 IL App (4th) 150035 (2016) (Illinois appellate decision finding constitutional challenge premature where state remedial avenues remain available)