People v. Wiggins
2016 IL App (1st) 153163
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- On Nov. 15, 2012, Peter Wiggins (a Texas resident and Army reservist) was observed with a handgun outside a Chicago Heights bar; police later found a loaded .45 in his parked SUV. He had no Illinois FOID card.
- Wiggins possessed a Fort Bliss (U.S. Army Provost Marshal) weapon permit and testified it authorized ownership/possession; Texas law did not require a license to possess firearms generally.
- State charged and convicted Wiggins of two counts of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (AUUW) based on carrying/possessing a firearm without a FOID card (720 ILCS 5/24-1.6). He moved unsuccessfully for acquittal and was sentenced to 30 months’ felony probation.
- Wiggins appealed, arguing (1) he fell within the FOID Act nonresident exception for persons “licensed … to possess a firearm in their resident state” (430 ILCS 65/2(b)(10)), and (2) the FOID/FOID-based AUUW element violated the Second Amendment as applied to him.
- The appellate court held Wiggins did not qualify under section 2(b)(10) because Texas did not issue a state license for mere possession and his military permit was not a state-issued license; the FOID/ AUUW requirement did not violate the Second Amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Wiggins) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a nonresident from a state that authorizes firearm possession without a licensing procedure is “licensed” under FOID Act § 2(b)(10) | § 2(b)(10) requires an actual state-issued license or registration; mere authorization without a licensure process does not qualify | A state’s authorization to possess firearms without licensing equates to being “licensed” (or otherwise the statute should be read to cover legal eligibility) | The court held “licensed” means an official state licensure/registration process; Texas’s lack of such a process does not satisfy § 2(b)(10). |
| Whether a military/Provost Marshal permit qualifies as a resident-state license under § 2(b)(10) | The statutory text requires licensing/registration in the person’s resident state (not military installations); the legislature distinguished armed forces elsewhere in § 2(b) | The Fort Bliss weapon permit is functionally equivalent to a state license and satisfies the FOID Act’s informational/identification purpose | The court held the military permit does not satisfy § 2(b)(10), which requires state-issued licensure/registration. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for carrying a firearm on person (Count V) | Witness testimony and discovery of firearm in vehicle support conviction | Witness’s memory was vague; testimony insufficient to prove on-person possession | The court deferred to trial judge’s credibility findings and affirmed sufficiency of evidence for Count V. |
| Whether FOID-card requirement (as element of AUUW) violates the Second Amendment (facial and as-applied) | FOID requirement is a reasonable regulatory measure and its incorporation into AUUW is constitutional; nonresident can obtain comparable out-of-state license (e.g., Texas concealed-carry) to fit § 2(b)(10) | The FOID/ AUUW element functionally imposes a flat ban on nonresidents from lawfully possessing firearms in Illinois; thus violates Second Amendment | The court held the FOID requirement is a permissible regulation under Second Amendment precedent (Mosley, Aguilar); Wiggins’s as-applied and facial challenges fail. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Holmes, 241 Ill. 2d 509 (Ill. 2011) (FOID Act exceptions incorporated into AUUW statute)
- People v. Mosley, 2015 IL 115872 (Ill. 2015) (FOID-card requirement is a permissible regulation under the Second Amendment)
- People v. Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116 (Ill. 2013) (Second Amendment protects some right to possess firearms for self-defense outside the home but is subject to regulation)
- Mishaga v. Schmitz, 136 F. Supp. 3d 981 (C.D. Ill. 2015) (federal district court holding “licensed” can mean legal eligibility absent a physical license)
- Berron v. Illinois Concealed Carry Licensing Review Bd., 825 F.3d 843 (7th Cir. 2016) (upholding concealed-carry licensing regime against Second Amendment challenge)
- Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2012) (discussing flat bans on carrying ready-to-use guns outside the home)
- Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F.3d 1244 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (upholding registration/related requirements against Second Amendment challenges)
- Kwong v. Bloomberg, 723 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2013) (upholding handgun licensure fee as constitutional)
- Drake v. Filko, 724 F.3d 426 (3d Cir. 2013) (upholding state licensure showing “justifiable need")