People v. Martin, 111 N.E.3d 168

Erick Martin was convicted after a bench trial of armed habitual criminal, unlawful use of a weapon by a felon, and six counts of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon based on possession of a loaded .357 revolver in April 2013 and lack of a FOID card; convictions merged and he received the statutory minimum six-year term.
Certified records showed two prior qualifying felonies from 1989 (manufacture/delivery of controlled substances) and 1992 (unlawful use of a weapon by a felon); sentencing and presentence reports showed no convictions after 1992 and evidence of long-term employment and community involvement.
On appeal Martin raised a sole as-applied Second Amendment challenge to Illinois’s armed habitual criminal statute, arguing his prior nonviolent felonies were over 20 years old and he was rehabilitated. He did not challenge sufficiency of the evidence.
The State argued the challenge was procedurally defaulted and, on the merits, that felon-disarmament is a longstanding, presumptively lawful restriction and Martin was not entitled to Second Amendment protection.
The appellate court reviewed the record, declined to find procedural default because the existing trial and sentencing record contained the relevant facts, and proceeded to analyze the Second Amendment claim under the two-step Chairez framework.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Martin)	Held
Whether the armed habitual criminal statute is unconstitutional as applied under the Second Amendment	The claim was not preserved but, substantively, felon-based firearm prohibitions are longstanding and disqualify Martin from Second Amendment protection	Martin argued his prior felonies were remote, nonviolent, and he had been rehabilitated, so the statute unconstitutionally burdens his right to bear arms	Court held statute constitutional as applied; claim reviewable on the record and fails on the merits
Whether felon-based firearm bans fall within Second Amendment protection	Such bans are presumptively lawful and the State has an important interest in disarming repeat felons	Martin relied on cases (e.g., Binderup) recognizing some as-applied relief for certain nonserious convictions	Court found felon-disarmament outside core protection and subject to intermediate scrutiny, which the statute satisfied
Whether the age/nonviolent nature of prior convictions or rehabilitation requires individualized relief	State emphasized legislative classification of crimes and Martin’s prior prison terms as indicia of seriousness	Martin argued remoteness/nonviolence and rehabilitation make disarmament unjustified	Court distinguished Binderup (involving misdemeanors and lesser sentences), found Martin’s felonies were serious under Illinois law and his circumstances did not justify relief

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (Sup. Ct.) (recognizes individual right to bear arms but affirms longstanding prohibitions, including possession by felons)
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (Sup. Ct.) (incorporates Second Amendment limits against states and reiterates Heller’s assurances regarding felon bans)
Binderup v. Attorney General, 836 F.3d 336 (3d Cir.) (plurality en banc decision applying as-applied review to some nonserious convictions)
People v. Chairez, 2018 IL 121417 (Ill.) (articulates two-step/ sliding-scale Second Amendment analysis and use of intermediate scrutiny where appropriate)
People v. McFadden, 2016 IL 117424 (Ill.) (discusses as-applied challenges and longstanding felony-based prohibitions)
People v. Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116 (Ill.) (recognizes limits on Second Amendment protection and upholds felon-based restrictions)