2024 IL App (4th) 231397-U
Ill. App. Ct.2024Background
- Amy J. Mallery was convicted of two counts of unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon (UPWF) after a police stop found a stun gun and brass knuckles in her purse, following a prior felony conviction for aggravated methamphetamine manufacturing.
- The trial proceeded through stipulated facts without a full evidentiary hearing regarding the circumstances of her felony background.
- Mallery challenged her UPWF conviction, claiming that the statute violated the Second Amendment both facially and as applied to her, as well as article I, section 22 of the Illinois Constitution.
- The trial court found her guilty and imposed concurrent three-year prison terms; Mallery appealed the constitutionality of the UPWF statute on multiple grounds.
- The appellate court reviewed her facial and as-applied constitutional challenges, as well as her claims under the Illinois Constitution, relying on precedent and interpretations of Bruen, Heller, and Rahimi.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| UPWF statute violates 2nd Amendment as applied | Law bars arms possession by felons regardless of their background. | Mallery argued no historical tradition justified banning her as a nonviolent, non-incarcerated drug felon. | Record insufficient for as-applied review; claim deemed premature. |
| UPWF statute facially violates 2nd Amendment | Bans on felons' gun possession are supported by historic tradition and Supreme Court precedent. | Mallery argued no historical analogue allows a permanent ban on all felons' arms possession. | Statute does not facially violate the Second Amendment; follows binding precedent. |
| UPWF statute facially violates Illinois Constitution | State police power permits firearms prohibition for felons as individual citizens. | Mallery claimed the Illinois Constitution's "individual citizen" language offers broader gun rights. | No facial violation of article I, section 22; statute is a proper use of police power. |
| Court should follow broader federal precedent | Cited Illinois precedent (Burns) favoring state law and current Supreme Court interpretations. | Mallery cited contrary federal and out-of-district precedent, and Rahimi limiting “responsible” requirement. | Illinois court declines to follow non-binding precedent; relies on Heller, Bruen, and Burns. |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (recognized individual Second Amendment rights but reserved government’s ability to bar felons from possessing firearms)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (U.S. 2010) (Second Amendment applies to the states)
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2022) (established historical tradition test for Second Amendment challenges)
- United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (U.S. 2024) (addressed limits of Second Amendment for non-responsible citizens but reaffirmed Heller’s felon prohibition language)