2025 IL App (1st) 240467
Ill. App. Ct.2025Background
- Curtis McTizic was convicted in 2014 of being an armed habitual criminal (AHC) for possessing a firearm after two prior felony convictions, and sentenced to 18 years in prison.
- McTizic previously unsuccessfully challenged his conviction on appeal, and in 2023 filed a petition for relief from judgment under section 2-1401.
- In the 2-1401 petition, McTizic originally argued his predicate felony convictions would not be qualifying offenses under current law.
- On appeal, McTizic abandoned his original argument, instead contending that the AHC statute is facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment (U.S. Const. amend. II) and the Illinois Constitution (art. I, § 22).
- The appellate court addressed whether the AHC statute violates the Second Amendment rights of felons or Illinois’ constitutional right to bear arms.
- The circuit court denied McTizic's petition, and the appellate court affirmed that denial.
Issues
| Issue | McTizic's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the AHC statute is facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment | The Second Amendment covers felons’ possession of firearms; nation’s history does not justify permanent disarmament of felons | The Second Amendment only protects "law-abiding citizens"; multiple precedents uphold felon firearm bans | The Second Amendment does not apply to felons; statute is constitutional |
| Whether the AHC statute is unconstitutional under the Illinois Constitution, Art. I, § 22 | Illinois Constitution’s broader "individual citizen" language includes felons’ rights | Longstanding police power permits firearm prohibitions for felons; post-McDonald precedent supports state restriction | State’s police power allows firearm bans for felons, including under Illinois Constitution |
| Applicability of Bruen framework to felon firearm prohibitions | Bruen test should apply to all, not just “law-abiding” citizens | Bruen and Supreme Court precedent restrict right to "law-abiding"; Bruen test inapplicable for felons | Bruen test does not apply to felons; prior precedent reaffirmed |
| Relevance of recent Supreme Court decisions (Rahimi) to felon exclusion | Rahimi shows status as felon is not a basis for exclusion from Second Amendment rights | Rahimi reiterated felon possession bans are “presumptively lawful” | Rahimi does not undermine precedents upholding felon exclusions |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (Supreme Court identifies longstanding prohibitions on felons possessing firearms as presumptively constitutional)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (Supreme Court reiterates Heller, extending Second Amendment via Fourteenth Amendment)
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court articulates two-step test for Second Amendment challenges but limits protection to law-abiding citizens)
- United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (Supreme Court upholds restrictions for non-responsible persons but confirms felon bans are lawful)