Wilson v. County of Cook
968 N.E.2d 641
Ill.2012Background
- Cook County enacted Blair Holt Assault Weapons Ban in 2006, expanding the 1993 ordinance with a characteristics-based assault weapon definition and a large-capacity magazine ban.
- The ordinance allowed preexisting weapons to be surrendered or modified within a 90-day window and was renamed Blair Holt Assault Weapons Ban in 2007.
- Plaintiffs filed a preenforcement action challenging vagueness, the Second Amendment, and equal protection, leading to dismissal on 2-615 grounds.
- Appellate court upheld dismissal; this court granted leave to appeal after McDonald v. City of Chicago (incorporation of the Second Amendment) issued and remanded.
- On remand, the appellate court again affirmed dismissal of vagueness and equal protection claims, while this court addressed whether Count IV (Second Amendment) could proceed; the court ultimately reverses in part and remands for further proceedings on Count IV.
- The court holds the ordinance does not violate due process or equal protection on Counts I and VI, but Count IV survives for further development of the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vagueness of the assault weapon definition | Wilson argues definitions are vague and arbitrary | Cook County argues text is clear and capacity-based with enumerated features | Not facially vague; capacity-plus-features logic is clear and definite |
| Second Amendment scope and applicability | Court should recognize right to bear arms includes certain weapons within the home | Assault weapons fall outside protected core; historical regulation applies | Not resolved at this stage; count IV survives for further factual development and review |
| Equal protection challenge to the ordinance | Ordinance arbitrarily differentiates among similar firearms | Ordinance read as a whole and tied to specific prohibitions and copies/duplicates | Rejected at this stage; no equal protection violation found on the pleadings |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (recognized individual right to bear arms and set framework for limits)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. _ (U.S. 2010) (incorporation of Second Amendment through Due Process Clause)
- Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2011) (framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges post-Heller)
- Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F.3d 1244 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (Heller II; framework for intermediate scrutiny and scope of regulation)
- Springfield Armory, Inc. v. City of Columbus, 29 F.3d 250 (6th Cir. 1994) (addressed vagueness in assault weapon bans lacking comparable standards)
- People v. James, 174 Cal. App. 4th 662 (Cal. App. 2009) (California analysis of assault weapons post-Heller)
- Richmond Boro Gun Club, Inc. v. City of New York, 97 F.3d 681 (2d Cir. 1996) (defined specificity of features in weapon definitions)
- Olympic Arms v. Buckles, 301 F.3d 384 (6th Cir. 2002) (vagueness considerations in copying/duplication provisions)
- Marshall v. Marshall, 242 Ill.2d 285 (Ill. 2011) (state statutory construction guidance for interpreting broad schemes)