People v. Smith, 2023 IL App (4th) 220958

In March 2020 Smith was charged with aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (AUUW) and possession of a firearm without a valid FOID card after a traffic stop produced a handgun in the vehicle; Smith had a prior AUUW conviction (2007) and no FOID.
On January 27, 2022 Smith pleaded guilty to AUUW in a plea agreement and received four years’ imprisonment; he did not file a postplea motion or a direct appeal.
In September 2022 Smith filed a pro se postconviction petition claiming his plea was coerced and the traffic stop/search violated the Fourth Amendment; he also argued the FOID-card requirement in 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(a)(3)(C) is unconstitutional under Bruen.
The circuit court summarily dismissed the petition for failing to state the gist of a constitutional claim; Smith appealed challenging the FOID requirement’s constitutionality.
The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding the FOID requirement is a shall-issue licensing regime distinguishable from the may-issue regime invalidated in Bruen and noting Illinois precedent upholding the FOID requirement under historical/Second Amendment analysis.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the FOID-card requirement in 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(a)(3)(C) is facially unconstitutional under Bruen	People: FOID is a shall-issue licensing regime with objective criteria and is consistent with Bruen and Illinois precedent	Smith: FOID diverges from historical tradition of firearm regulation under Bruen and is therefore unconstitutional	Affirmed dismissal — FOID is a shall-issue regime distinguishable from the may-issue regime Bruen invalidated; prior Illinois cases support constitutionality
Whether Smith forfeited the constitutional challenge by not raising it earlier	People: Forfeiture would apply to abandoned postconviction claims	Smith: Constitutional challenge may be raised at any time	Court: Not forfeited — challenges to statute constitutionality may be raised at any time, so the claim was considered on the merits

New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (U.S. 2022) (establishes historical-tradition test for Second Amendment challenges and distinguishes may-issue from shall-issue regimes)
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for self-defense)
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (incorporation of the Second Amendment against the states)
People v. Bochenek, 183 N.E.3d 61 (Ill. 2021) (facial-unconstitutionality standard; statutes presumed constitutional)
People v. Gray, 91 N.E.3d 876 (Ill. 2017) (statutes construed to uphold constitutionality when reasonably possible)
In re M.I., 989 N.E.2d 173 (Ill. 2013) (constitutional challenges to statutes may be raised at any time)
People v. Taylor, 3 N.E.3d 288 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013) (upheld FOID-card requirement under constitutional analysis)
People v. Mosley, 33 N.E.3d 137 (Ill. 2015) (Illinois Supreme Court recognized FOID licensure consistent with permissible regulation of Second Amendment rights)
People v. Wiggins, 68 N.E.3d 457 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016) (reaffirmed constitutionality of requiring licensure before handgun possession in Illinois)