People v. Aguilar

Last updated

People v. Aguilar
Seal of the Supreme Court of Illinois.svg
Seal of the Supreme Court of Illinois
Court Supreme Court of Illinois
Full case namePeople of the State of Illinois v. Alberto Aguilar
DecidedSeptember 12, 2013
Citation(s)2013 IL 112116; 2 N.E.3d 321; 2013 Ill. LEXIS 853; 2013 WL 5080118 (Ill. 2013)
Case history
Prior action(s)People v. Aguilar, 408 Ill. App. 3d 136, 944 N.E.2d 814, 2011 Ill. App. LEXIS 103 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011)
Case opinions
Reversed in part and affirmed in part. On its face, Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon, 720 ILCS5/24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A) (2008), violated the right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment, because it amounted to a wholesale statutory ban on the exercise of a personal right that was specifically named in and guaranteed by the United States Constitution, as construed by the United States Supreme Court; Defendant's conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Firearm, 720 ILCS5/24-3.1(a)(1) (2008), was proper because the possession of handguns by minors was conduct that fell outside the scope of the Second Amendment's protection.
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingCJ. Thomas L. Kilbride; JJ. Charles E. Freeman, Robert R. Thomas, Rita B. Garman, Lloyd A. Karmeier, Anne M. Burke, Mary Jane Theis
Case opinions
Decision byJ. Thomas

People v. Aguilar, 2 N.E.3d 321 (Ill. 2013), was an Illinois Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon (AUUF) statute violated the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The Court stated that this was because the statute amounted to a wholesale statutory ban on the exercise of a personal right that was specifically named in and guaranteed by the United States Constitution, as construed by the United States Supreme Court. A conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Firearm (UPF) was proper because the possession of handguns by minors was conduct that fell outside the scope of the Second Amendment's protection.

Contents

In 2008, Alberto Aguilar, then 17, was arrested and charged with AUUF and UPF. After being convicted and sentenced to probation by the trial court, he appealed, arguing that both statutes were unconstitutional infringements of his Second Amendment rights. The Illinois Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction, and he appealed that ruling to the Illinois Supreme Court. While Aguilar's appeal was pending, the Federal Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that the AUUF statute was unconstitutional.

When the matter was decided by the Illinois Supreme Court, they agreed with the Seventh Circuit and declared the AUUF law unconstitutional, but upheld the constitutionality of the UPF law.

Background

Illinois was the last state in the nation to allow concealed carry of a handgun. Prior to 2013, Illinois prohibited the carry of a firearm in a loaded condition, other than at one's own property. [fn 1] [2] If the firearm was loaded and not in a locked case, or if it was otherwise available for immediate use, it was a felony offense called Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon (AUUF). [3] Illinois courts had uniformly upheld the constitutionally of the statute prior to 2008. [4] The state also had a law called Unlawful Possession of a Firearm (UPF), which prohibited anyone under the age of 18 from possessing a firearm. [5] Additionally, the City of Chicago had enacted strict gun control laws prohibiting the possession of any handgun that had not been registered prior to 1982, when the law took effect. [6]

On June 26, 2008, exactly two weeks after Aguilar's arrest, the U.S. Supreme Court decided District of Columbia v. Heller . [7] In Heller, the Court ruled that a law of the District of Columbia which had the effect of banning handguns in the city violated the Second Amendment and was unconstitutional. [8] The Court said that the fundamental right protected by the Second Amendment was the right to self-defense; however since the District of Columbia was a federal jurisdiction, it was not clear that this applied to the individual states. [9]

Factual background

On June 12, 2008, Chicago Police Officer Thomas Harris was in a surveillance position in the Little Village neighborhood of Chicago and observed a group of male teenagers creating a disturbance and throwing bottles at cars. [10] Harris observed one of the teenagers, later identified as Alberto Aguilar, holding the right side of his waist, and Harris notified other officers. [11] The other officers made contact with the teens and Officer John Dolan saw Aguilar drop a gun onto the ground. [12] Aguilar, then 17, was arrested. [13] The officers noted that the handgun had three rounds loaded in it and that the serial number was filed off. [fn 2] [15]

Lower courts

Circuit Court

Aguilar was tried for AUUF and UPF at the Circuit Court for Cook County. [16] The officers testified that Aguilar had the gun and had dropped it, while Aguilar claimed that he never had a gun, but was waiting for his mother to pick him up when officers came running into the back yard and tackled him. [17] Aguilar's testimony was corroborated by Romero Diaz, who stated that Aguilar did not have a gun. [18] Judge Charles P. Burns determined that the officers were more credible and found Aguilar guilty on both counts, sentencing him to 24 months probation on the AUUF charge; he did not pass sentence on the UPF charge. [19]

Illinois Court of Appeals

Aguilar then appealed his conviction, arguing that the AUUF statute violated the Second Amendment and was unconstitutional. [20] The Court of Appeals, evaluating Heller, found that Heller only protected the right to possess a handgun in the home. [21] The court also evaluated McDonald and found that while it applied the Second Amendment to the states, it also only applied to handguns possessed in the home. [22] The court, using an intermediate scrutiny test, determined that the Illinois statute was substantially related to an important governmental objective to protect the public from gun violence. [23] The court affirmed the conviction. [24]

Other relevant events

McDonald v. City of Chicago

In 2008, shortly after the Heller decision, three lawsuits [fn 3] were filed in Illinois, challenging the constitutionally of handgun bans in Chicago and Oak Park. [26] All three cases were consolidated and heard in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and were dismissed based on earlier U.S. Supreme Court rulings [fn 4] that the Second Amendment did not apply to the states. [28] The cases were appealed to the Seventh Circuit, which affirmed based on the same reasoning. [29] The U.S. Supreme Court reversed that decision, holding that the Second Amendment was applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, [30] and clarified that "self-defense was 'the central component of the right itself.'" [31]

Moore v. Madigan

In 2011, two federal lawsuits were filed in the Southern District of Illinois [32] and the Central District of Illinois. [33] In both cases, the plaintiffs claimed that AUUF statute violated the Second Amendment in that it did not allow any method for a citizen to bear arms outside the home. Mary Shepard argued that the statutes were facially unconstitutional, [34] while Michael Moore [fn 5] argued that the statutes were unconstitutional as applied. [fn 6] [37] In both cases, the judges granted the state's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, holding that the Second Amendment only protected the right to possess arms in the home. [38] Both Moore and Shepard appealed their cases to the Seventh Circuit, where the cases were consolidated. [39]

The Seventh Circuit found that Illinois law did violate the Constitution in that there was no method for a person to carry a weapon for self-defense outside of the home. [40] The court stated that the district courts had read Heller and McDonald too narrowly—that the right protected was self-defense, and there was as great if not greater need outside the home. [41] The court rejected the state's argument that strict gun regulation lowered crime, noting that the evidence did not support that. [42] The decisions of the district courts were reversed and the cases remanded to those courts with instructions to declare the Illinois law unconstitutional, issuing a permanent injunction against the law's enforcement. [43] The court then stayed the order for 180 days to give the Illinois legislature an opportunity to amend the law to make it constitutional. [44]

Legislative actions

In January 2013 the Illinois Legislature began to look at enacting legislation to address the Moore decision. [45] Lt. Governor Sheila Simon formed a working group of thirteen Democrats and two Republicans to look into the issue. [46] During hearings on the matter, debate centered on concealed carry permits, with gun rights groups preferring shall-issue permits while gun control groups favored may-issue permits. [47] On May 31, 2013, the state house passed a shall-issue bill by a vote of 89–28, after state senate passed it by a vote of 45–12. Both had veto-proof margins. [48] On July 9, 2013, the Illinois legislature overrode Governor Pat Quinn's veto, and concealed carry was authorized for the state once the Illinois State Police issued permits. [49]

Supreme Court of Illinois

Arguments

On appeal, Aguilar again argued that the AUUF statute was unconstitutional on its face. [50] Aguilar also made the argument that the UPF statute was unconstitutional, since at the time the Second Amendment was adopted, 16- and 17-year-olds could lawfully bear arms. [51]

The state argued that Aguilar lacked standing to contest the constitutionality of the statute. The state claimed that since Aguilar denied having committing the act that the statute prohibited, he could not contest the constitutionality of it. [52]

Opinion of the court

Justice Robert R. Thomas delivered the opinion of a unanimous court. [53] Thomas first disposed of the standing argument by the state, noting that Aguilar was not challenging the statute as applied, but was arguing that the statute was facially unconstitutional since it did not provide for any person to legally bear arms. [54] Since anyone could challenge the constitutionality of a statute when they were charged with violating it, even without admitting the underlying conduct, the state's argument was without merit. [55]

Thomas then evaluated the constitutionality of the AUUF statute, noting that the Heller court had "concluded that the second amendment 'guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation . . . .'" [56] He noted that McDonald reiterated that self-defense was at the core of the right. [57] He analyzed what other courts in Illinois had done, noting that they had all focused on the ruling in Heller that the right existed in the home, and that they had held the AUUF statute constitutional since it affected conduct outside of the home. [58] Thomas then compared this to the ruling by the Seventh Circuit in Moore and concluded that their ruling was correct, that the AUUF statute did in fact infringe on the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. [59] Since the statute was unconstitutional, Aguilar's conviction must be reversed. [60]

Thomas rejected the argument on the unconstitutionality of the UPF statute, noting that all courts that had addressed this issue had found that persons under 21 could be barred from possessing firearms. [61] The conviction for UPF was affirmed, and the case was remanded. [62]

Subsequent developments

Following the decision, Cook County prosecutors stated that they would drop charges against some of the pending cases for AUUF, [63] but that only those with valid Illinois Firearms Owner Identification cards would have the charges dropped. [64] By September 16, 2013, the first case had been dismissed in Cook County. [65] A number of law enforcement agences, such as the Springfield Police and the Sangamon Sheriff's Office, made a plea to the public to not immediately begin to carry concealed handguns. [66] Some prosecutors have already announced that they do not intend to prosecute these cases. [67]

Footnotes

  1. ↑ A person could also have a firearm at another person's property, if the other person invited him to do so. [1]
  2. ↑ This would have been a federal felony offense, but he was not charged. [14]
  3. ↑ The lawsuits were filed by Otis McDonald (supported by the Second Amendment Foundation) against Chicago, by the National Rifle Association (NRA) against Chicago, and by the NRA against Oak Park. [25]
  4. ↑ The earlier rulings were United States v. Cruikshank , Presser v. Illinois , and Miller v. Texas . [27]
  5. ↑ Not the Michael Moore of Bowling for Columbine fame. [35]
  6. ↑ A law is unconstitutional on its face if the law interferes with a protected right and that it would be invalid under all circumstances. A law is unconstitutional as applied if it could be constitutionally permissible but is enforced in a way that deprives a party of a protected right. A law that prohibits all public religious speech would be facially unconstitutional, while a permit system for speaking in a particular area, when one group is never granted a permit, would be unconstitutional as applied. [36]

Related Research Articles

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution 1791 amendment protecting the right to keep and bear arms

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms. It was ratified on December 15, 1791, along with nine other articles of the Bill of Rights. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court affirmed for the first time that the right belongs to individuals, for self-defense in the home, while also including, as dicta, that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those forbidding "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill" or restrictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons". In McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) the Supreme Court ruled that state and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing upon this right.

Concealed carry, or carrying a concealed weapon (CCW), is the practice of carrying a weapon in public in a concealed manner, either on one's person or in close proximity. CCW is often practiced as a means of self-defense. Every state in the United States allows for concealed carry either permitless or with a permit, although permits may be difficult to obtain in some areas.

Open carry in the United States Practice of carrying a visible firearm in some US states

In the United States, open carry refers to the practice of visibly carrying a firearm in public places, as distinguished from concealed carry, where firearms cannot be seen by the casual observer. To "carry" in this context indicates that the firearm is kept readily accessible on the person, within a holster or attached to a sling. Carrying a firearm directly in the hands, particularly in a firing position or combat stance, is known as "brandishing" and may constitute a serious crime, but that is not the mode of "carrying" discussed in this article.

In the U.S. state of Illinois, residents must possess a FOID card, or Firearm Owners Identification card, in order to legally possess or purchase firearms or ammunition in the state. The applicable law has been in effect since 1968, but has been subject to several subsequent amendments.

In the United States, access to guns is controlled by law under a number of federal statutes. These laws regulate the manufacture, trade, possession, transfer, record keeping, transport, and destruction of firearms, ammunition, and firearms accessories. They are enforced by state agencies and the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). In addition to federal gun laws, all state governments and some local governments have their own laws that regulate firearms.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or if the right was intended for state militias.

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms", as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and is thereby enforceable against the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

Gun laws in Florida Floridas gun law

Gun laws in Florida regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the state of Florida in the United States.

Gun laws in New York

Gun laws in New York regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the U.S. state of New York, outside of New York City which has separate licensing regulations. These regulations are very strict in comparison to the rest of the United States.

In the United States, the term constitutional carry, also called permitless carry, unrestricted carry, or Vermont carry, refers to the legal public carrying of a handgun, either openly or concealed, without a license or permit. The phrase does not typically refer to the unrestricted carrying of a long gun, a knife, or other weapons. The scope and applicability of constitutional carry may vary by state.

Gun laws in the District of Columbia District of Columbias gun law

Gun laws in the District of Columbia regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the U.S. federal district of District of Columbia.

Gun laws in Illinois

Gun laws in Illinois regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the state of Illinois in the United States.

Gun laws in Pennsylvania Pennsylvanias gun law

Gun laws in Pennsylvania regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the United States.

<i>Woollard v. Gallagher</i>

Woollard v. Sheridan, 863 F. Supp. 2d 462, reversed sub. nom., Woollard v Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865, was a civil lawsuit brought on behalf of Raymond Woollard, a resident of the State of Maryland, by the Second Amendment Foundation against Terrence Sheridan, Secretary of the Maryland State Police, and members of the Maryland Handgun Permit Review Board. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' refusal to grant a concealed carry permit renewal to Mr. Woollard on the basis that he "...ha[d] not demonstrated a good and substantial reason to wear, carry or transport a handgun as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger in the State of Maryland" was a violation of Mr. Woollard's rights under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, and therefore unconstitutional. The trial court found in favor of Mr. Woollard, However, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review that decision.

<i>Moore v. Madigan</i>

Moore v Madigan is the common name for a pair of cases decided in 2013 by the U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, regarding the constitutionality of the State of Illinois' no-issue legislation and policy regarding the carry of concealed weapons. The plaintiffs, Michael Moore, Mary Shepard and the Second Amendment Foundation, sought an injunction against Illinois attorney general Lisa Madigan, Illinois Governor Patrick Quinn, and other named defendants, barring them from enforcing two key provisions of the Illinois Statutes prohibiting public possession of a firearm or other weapon.

Kachalsky v. Cacace is a case regarding the constitutionality of "may-issue" concealed carry laws. The plaintiffs, Alan Kachalsky, Christina Nikolov, and the Second Amendment Foundation, represented by Alan Gura, originally sought an injunction barring Susan Cacace, handgun licensing authority for co-Defendant Westchester County, New York, from enforcing a requirement of New York State law that applicants for handgun carry permits demonstrate "proper cause" for the issuance of a handgun license and subsequent carry of a handgun in public.

The right to keep and bear arms in the United States is a fundamental right protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights, and by the constitutions of most U.S. states. The Second Amendment declares:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

<i>Peruta v. San Diego County</i>

Peruta v. San Diego, 824 F.3d 919, was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pertaining to the legality of San Diego County's restrictive policy regarding requiring documentation of "good cause" that "distinguish[es] the applicant from the mainstream and places the applicant in harm's way" before issuing a concealed carry permit.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), abbreviated NYSRPA v. Bruen, also known as NYSRPA II or Bruen, is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court related to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case challenges the constitutionality of a New York State law that requires applicants for an unrestricted license to carry a concealed pistol on their person to show "proper cause" in their application.

References

  1. ↑ 720 ILCS5/24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A); State Laws and Published Ordinances, Firearms, 2010-2011 167 (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms ed. 2013) (hereinafter cited as State Laws).
  2. ↑ 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A); State Laws, at 167.
  3. ↑ 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A); State Laws, at 167.
  4. ↑ People v. Marin, 795 N.E.2d 953, 958 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003) ("It is well established that the right to bear arms is not a fundamental right."); John Massaro, No Guarantee of a Gun: How and Why the Second Amendment Means Exactly What It Says 167-68 (2009).
  5. ↑ 720 ILCS5/24-3.1(a)(1) (2008); State Laws, at 171.
  6. ↑ Gregg Lee Carter, Gun Control in the United States: A Reference Handbook 209-10 (2006); Christopher Keleher, District Of Columbia v Heller: The Death Knell For Illinois Handgun Bans? 96 Ill. B.J. 402, 406 (Aug. 2008).
  7. ↑ District of Columbia v. Heller , 554 U.S. 570 (2008); Patrick J. Charles, The Second Amendment: The Intent and Its Interpretation by the States and the Supreme Court 5 (2009).
  8. ↑ Heller, 554 U.S. at 635; Charles, at 5.
  9. ↑ Charles, at 10.
  10. ↑ People v. Aguilar, 2 N.E.3d 321 (Ill. 2013); Steve Schmadeke, Ill. Supreme Court strikes down part of gun law , Chi. Trib., Sept. 14, 2013 (archived from the original, Sept. 19, 2013); Debra Cassens Weiss, Second Amendment protects the right to carry a gun outside the home, Illinois Supreme Court says , ABAJournal.com (Sept. 13, 2013 6:40 PM).
  11. ↑ Aguilar.
  12. ↑ Aguilar.
  13. ↑ Beverly Krajelis, Supreme Court issues two gun-related rulings , Madison-St. Clair Record (Sept. 12, 2013 3:08 PM); Schmadeke.
  14. ↑ Gun Control Act of 1968, title II, § 201, Oct. 22, 1968, Pub.L.   90–618, 82  Stat.   1234.
  15. ↑ Aguilar; Weiss.
  16. ↑ Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116, at *1.
  17. ↑ Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116, at *1; Krajelis; Weiss.
  18. ↑ Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116, at *1.
  19. ↑ Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116, at *1-2; Krajelis; Schmadeke; Weiss.
  20. ↑ People v. Aguilar, 944 N.E.2d 816, 822-23 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011), rev'd 2013 IL 112116 (Ill. 2013).
  21. ↑ Aguilar, 944 N.E.2d at 823.
  22. ↑ Aguilar, 944 N.E.2d at 823.
  23. ↑ Aguilar, 944 N.E.2d at 825-26.
  24. ↑ Aguilar, 944 N.E.2d at 829.
  25. ↑ McDonald v. City of Chicago , ___ U.S. ___, ___ 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3027 (2010).
  26. ↑ McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3027; Michael J. Habib, The Future of Gun Control Laws Post-McDonald and Heller and the Death of One-Gun-Per-Month Legislation 44 Conn. L. Rev. 1339, 1354 (June 2012).
  27. ↑ McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3027 (internal citations omitted).
  28. ↑ McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3027; Habib, at 1354.
  29. ↑ McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3027; Habib, at 1354.
  30. ↑ McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3050; Habib, at 1355-56.
  31. ↑ McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3048 (original emphasis); Habib, at 1355.
  32. ↑ Shepard v. Madigan, 863 F. Supp. 2d 774 (S.D. Ill. 2012), rev'd sub nom Moore v. Madigan , 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir.).
  33. ↑ Moore v. Madigan, 842 F. Supp. 2d 1092 (C.D. Ill. 2012), rev'd, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir.); Recent Case: Constitutional Law - Second Amendment - Seventh Circuit Strikes Down Illinois's Ban on Public Carry of Ready-to-Use Firearms. - Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2012), rehearing en banc denied, 708 F.3d 901 (7th Cir. 2013), 126 Harv. L. Rev. 2461, 2462 (June 2013) (hereinafter cited as Recent Case).
  34. ↑ Shepard 893 F. Supp. 2d at 775-76.
  35. ↑ James Taranto, Under the Gun in Springfield: A victory for the Constitution in Obama's home state , Wall St. J., Dec. 12, 2012 (archived from the original, Jan. 26, 2013)
  36. ↑ John M. Scheb, Criminal Law and Procedure 59 (2013).
  37. ↑ Moore, 842 F. Supp. 2d at 1096.
  38. ↑ Moore, 842 F. Supp. 2d at 1110-11; Shepard, 893 F. Supp. 2d at 785; Recent Case, at 2462-63.
  39. ↑ Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2012), rehearing en banc denied 708 F.3d 901 (2013).
  40. ↑ Moore, 702 F.3d at 936; Recent Case, at 2463; Taranto.
  41. ↑ Moore, 702 F.3d at 936; Recent Case, at 2463; Taranto.
  42. ↑ Moore, 702 F.3d at 937-39; Recent Case, at 2463; Taranto.
  43. ↑ Moore, 702 F.3d at 942; Recent Case, at 2464.
  44. ↑ Moore, 702 F.3d at 942; Taranto; Steve Stout, Local law enforcement officials expect reloaded concealed gun bill to pass Archived April 26, 2013, at the Wayback Machine , The Times (Ottawa, Ill.), Jan. 25, 2013.
  45. ↑ Stout.
  46. ↑ 15 Illinois legislators join Firearms Working Group , St. J.-Reg. (Springfield, Ill.), Jan. 29, 2013 (archived from the original July 23, 2013); Stout.
  47. ↑ Tony Arnold & Brian Mackey, Illinois House Committee Considers Concealed Carry , Ill. Pub. Radio, Feb. 19, 2013 (archived from the original Apr. 24, 2013); Susan Stephens, Concealed Carry Law Far From Approval, Despite Court Order , Ill. Pub. Radio, Mar. 25, 2013.
  48. ↑ John O'Connor, Holdout on Concealed Carry, Ill. Gov gets Gun Bill , AP, May 31, 2013.
  49. ↑ Ray Long, Monique Garcia, & Rick Pearson, General Assembly overrides governor's veto of concealed carry bill , Chi. Trib., July 9, 2013 (archived from original Aug. 24, 2013).
  50. ↑ Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116 at *2.
  51. ↑ Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116 at *6.
  52. ↑ Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116 at *2.
  53. ↑ Court says gun law invalid , News-Gazette (Champaign, Ill.), Sept. 20, 2013.
  54. ↑ Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116 at *2.
  55. ↑ Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116 at *2.
  56. ↑ Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116 at *3 (edit in original, internal citation omitted).
  57. ↑ Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116 at *3.
  58. ↑ Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116 at *4; Krajelis.
  59. ↑ Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116 at *5; Krajelis; Court says gun law invalid.
  60. ↑ Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116 at *6; Krajelis; Schmadeke.
  61. ↑ Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116 at *6-7; Krajelis; Schmadeke.
  62. ↑ Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116 at *7; Krajelis.
  63. ↑ Schmadeke.
  64. ↑ Schmadeke; Court says gun law invalid.
  65. ↑ George Houde, Judge reverses herself, charges dropped in gun case after ruling , Chi. Trib. Sept. 16, 2013 (archived from original Sept. 19, 2013).
  66. ↑ Lauren Leone-Cross, Local law enforcement: Hold off on carrying concealed gun , Sept. 22, 2013.
  67. ↑ Leone-Cross.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.