2023 IL App (1st) 221266-U
Ill. App. Ct.2023Background
- Devin Kuykendoll was convicted after a bench trial of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (AUUW) for possessing a firearm in public without a valid Firearm Owner’s Identification (FOID) card or Concealed Carry License (CCL).
- The conviction arose from a February 6, 2022, traffic stop in Chicago, during which police observed Kuykendoll with a loaded handgun accessible in his vehicle.
- There was no dispute that Kuykendoll did not possess a valid FOID card or CCL at the time of the incident.
- On appeal, Kuykendoll challenged the constitutionality of Illinois’s requirements for FOID cards and CCLs, arguing they violated the Second Amendment under the framework set out by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bruen.
- The appellate court considered whether these requirements are facially unconstitutional and reviewed the facial challenge de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of AUUW statute under Second Amendment | Statute is constitutional, aligns with Supreme Court precedent and is a shall-issue regime | FOID/CCL requirements are facially unconstitutional under Bruen; impose impermissible burdens | Statute is not facially unconstitutional; FOID/CCL requirements align with permissible shall-issue regimes |
| Applicability of Bruen to FOID/CCL requirements | Bruen only struck down discretionary regimes; shall-issue like Illinois’s are acceptable | Illinois’s requirements are not historically grounded and thus fail Bruen test | Bruen supports Illinois’s shall-issue regime; requirements are constitutional |
| Nature of Illinois’s licensing regime | Illinois is a shall-issue state with objective criteria | Illinois is not truly shall-issue due to vague instructor discretion in training | Illinois is a shall-issue state; training requirement is constitutional |
| Wait times and fees for FOID/CCL | Fees and wait times are reasonable, not unconstitutionally burdensome | Wait times/fees could be prohibitive (citing average wait) | Wait times/fees are not excessive to rise to a constitutional violation |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (recognized individual’s right to keep and bear arms under Second Amendment)
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (U.S. 2022) (set new test for constitutionality of firearm regulations and distinguished proper-cause and shall-issue licensing regimes)
- People v. Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116 (Ill. 2013) (addressed standing to challenge convictions under firearm statutes)
- People v. Thompson, 2015 IL 118151 (Ill. 2015) (discussed timing and scope of facial constitutional challenges)
- People v. Woodrum, 223 Ill. 2d 286 (Ill. 2006) (strong presumption statutes are constitutional)
- People v. Davis, 2014 IL 115595 (Ill. 2014) (explained high bar for facial constitutional challenges)