People v. Heitmann
2017 IL App (3d) 160527
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2018Background
- In 1990 Heitmann pleaded guilty to battery against his then-wife; he was fined and retained a FOID card until 2014 when the Illinois Department of State Police (ISP) revoked it as a domestic-violence conviction.
- Heitmann petitioned the Bureau County circuit court in 2015 to reinstate his FOID card; the court initially ordered reinstatement after a hearing but later vacated that order after the ISP intervened and moved to dismiss.
- The ISP argued the 2013 amendments to the FOID Card Act bar circuit courts from issuing FOID relief when federal law prohibits firearm possession, and that Heitmann’s domestic-battery conviction triggers the federal prohibition in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9).
- Heitmann argued the court could grant relief (invoking the FOID Act’s review provision), that federal law provided avenues (e.g., "civil rights restored" or § 925) so relief would not be contrary to federal law, and raised an as-applied constitutional challenge claiming a de facto perpetual ban.
- The circuit court granted the ISP’s motion to dismiss; the appellate court affirmed, holding (1) courts may no longer remove the federal firearms disability under the amended FOID Act, (2) "civil rights restored" does not encompass gun rights in this context and Illinois law provides no mechanism to restore them, (3) § 925 relief is unavailable in practice, and (4) Heitmann’s constitutional challenge is premature because he has not sought a pardon.
Issues
| Issue | Heitmann's Argument | ISP/State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a circuit court may grant FOID relief when federal law bars firearm possession | Circuit court relief under §10 can be granted because federal law contains potential relief avenues (civil-rights restoration or §925), so state relief is not "contrary to federal law" | 2013 FOID Act amendments prohibit courts from ordering FOID issuance if federal law otherwise bars possession | Court: Under the amended FOID Act, courts cannot grant relief that would conflict with federal firearm prohibitions; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether "civil rights restored" in 18 U.S.C. §921(a)(33)(B)(ii) covers restoration of gun rights via state FOID proceedings | Heitmann: Restoration of FOID constitutes restoration of civil rights covering gun rights | ISP: "Civil rights restored" refers to traditional civil rights (vote, office, jury) and requires a prior state restoration mechanism; Illinois has none for gun rights | Court: Gun rights are not the civil rights contemplated; Illinois provides no statutory mechanism to restore them, so FOID relief cannot operate as federal restoration |
| Whether federal §925 (safety-valve) provides relief from federal disability | Heitmann: §925 offers a pathway, so state action would not be contrary to federal law | ISP: §925(c) is functionally unavailable (defunded and jurisdictionally curtailed), so no practical federal relief exists | Court: §925 is a nullity for this purpose and provides no remedy to remove the federal bar |
| Whether as-applied Second Amendment challenge is ripe | Heitmann: The statutes effect a perpetual ban on possession for domestic-battery misdemeanants, violating rights as-applied | ISP: He has not pursued available remedies (e.g., pardon); challenge is premature | Court: As-applied challenge is premature because Heitmann has not sought a pardon or otherwise exhausted available state remedies |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Castleman, 134 S. Ct. 1405 (U.S. 2014) (misdemeanor battery against spouse/child can qualify as "domestic violence" for federal firearms statute)
- United States v. Hayes, 555 U.S. 415 (U.S. 2009) (relationship element not required for domestic-violence predicate under federal law)
- Logan v. United States, 552 U.S. 23 (U.S. 2007) ("civil rights restored" refers to traditional civil rights such as voting and jury service)
- United States v. Skoien, 614 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2010) (permanent ban not necessarily required where state provides potential remedies like pardon/expungement)
- Coram v. State, 2013 IL 113867 (Ill. 2013) (discusses FOID §10 procedures; majority and separate opinions analyze effect of 2013 FOID amendments)