People v. Webb
2019 IL 122951
Ill.2019Background
- Two defendants (Isiah J. Webb and Ronald A. Greco) were charged under 720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)(4) for carrying stun guns/tasers in public (in a vehicle; in a forest preserve).
- Both moved to dismiss, arguing the statute’s public-possession prohibition on stun guns/tasers violated the Second Amendment; the circuit court granted the motions.
- The circuit court concluded stun guns/tasers are "bearable arms" protected by the Second Amendment (citing Caetano) and that 24-1(a)(4) functioned as a categorical public ban on such devices.
- The State argued 24-1(a)(4) is a permissible regulation, relying on an exception referencing the Firearm Concealed Carry Act (Carry Act) (§24-1(a)(4)(iv)).
- The Illinois Supreme Court rejected the State’s interpretation of the Carry Act exception (holding "in accordance" requires the weapon itself be license-eligible), found the provision a categorical ban, and held that portion facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
- The court affirmed the circuit courts’ judgments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Webb/Greco) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether stun guns/tasers are arms protected by the Second Amendment | Stated protection is limited; regulation permissible | Stun guns/tasers are bearable arms entitled to Second Amendment protection | Court: Stun guns/tasers are bearable arms within Second Amendment scope (agreeing with defendants) |
| Whether 720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)(4) is a categorical ban or a regulation | Statute is a regulation; Carry Act exception saves possession in many cases | Statute effectively imposes a categorical public ban on stun guns/tasers | Court: Provision is a categorical ban on public carriage/possession of stun guns/tasers |
| Whether the Carry Act exception (§24-1(a)(4)(iv)) allows licensed handgun carriers to lawfully carry stun guns/tasers | Exception permits weapons carried "in accordance" with Carry Act, so licensed carriers may carry stun guns/tasers when concealed like a handgun | "In accordance" requires the weapon itself be eligible for a Carry Act license; stun guns/tasers are excluded from Carry Act licensing | Court: "In accordance" means the weapon must be license-eligible; Carry Act does not save stun guns/tasers |
| Whether the categorical ban is constitutional under the Second Amendment | Regulation is permissible; not a total ban on protected arms | Categorical ban on public carriage violates Second Amendment precedents protecting public carry | Court: Ban is facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment (citing Aguilar, Mosley, Moore) |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (individual right to possess and use arms for lawful self-defense)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (Second Amendment incorporated against the states)
- Caetano v. Massachusetts, 136 S. Ct. 1027 (2016) (per curiam) (stun guns qualify as "arms" protected by the Second Amendment)
- People v. Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116 (Ill. 2013) (invalidated categorical ban on carrying operable firearms for self-defense outside the home)
- People v. Mosley, 2015 IL 115872 (Ill. 2015) (invalidated statute criminalizing possession of an uncased, loaded firearm on a public way)
- Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2012) (struck down Illinois ban on carrying concealed firearms)
- People v. Chairez, 2018 IL 121417 (Ill. 2018) (articulated the two-step framework for Second Amendment challenges)