2023 IL App (1st) 221264
Ill. App. Ct.2023Background
- Carl Mobley was convicted by a jury of unlawful use of a weapon by a felon (UUWF) in relation to a November 2018 incident in which he was accused of possessing a firearm after having a prior felony conviction (escape).
- The State proceeded on one count—UUWF—highlighting Mobley’s history of multiple felony convictions, some of which were violent (robbery, aggravated battery), but the predicate for the current charge was a nonviolent offense.
- Mobley did not challenge the constitutionality of the UUWF statute at trial or in post-trial motions, but raised an as-applied challenge on appeal based on recent Second Amendment jurisprudence.
- Mobley argued the statute was unconstitutional as applied to him given his conviction for a nonviolent felony, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen.
- The State argued Mobley forfeited the claim, but the court considered it, finding the record sufficient to review the as-applied constitutional challenge.
- The appellate court affirmed Mobley’s conviction, holding that individuals with felony convictions, especially with violent histories, are not "law-abiding citizens" protected by Bruen.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of UUWF as-applied to nonviolent felons | Mobley cannot possess firearm due to prior (nonviolent) felony | UUWF statute infringes 2nd Amendment rights for nonviolent felon | Mobley cannot raise Bruen claim; UUWF constitutional as-applied to felons; not a "law-abiding citizen". |
| Application of Supreme Court’s Bruen test | Bruen applies only to law-abiding citizens | Bruen test should extend to nonviolent felons like Mobley | Bruen test applies only to regulations impacting law-abiding citizens; Mobley excluded due to felon status. |
| Forfeiture of constitutional claim not raised below | Claim forfeited due to not being raised at trial or in motions | As-applied constitutional claim can be raised on appeal | Appellate court could review claim given sufficient record; did not excuse Mobley from the substantive outcome. |
| Historical tradition as justification for felon disarmament | Felon gun bans have roots in historical tradition, supporting ban | Not all felons historically disarmed; nonviolent felons excluded | Court acknowledges tradition but cautions against reliance on laws rooted in discrimination; but affirms ban. |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (establishes the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (incorporates Second Amendment against the states)
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) (establishes historical tradition test for firearm regulations)