On February 2, 2018, I predicted the Illinois Supreme Court holding for People v. Chairez would cause trouble for the unlawful use of a weapon/aggravated unlawful use of weapon (UUW/AUUW) laws regarding firearms in close proximity to special locations.
People v. Chairez struck down the portion of the unlawful use of a weapon statute which prohibited firearms within 1000 feet of a public park. It appeared that the UUW/AUUW law which prohibited firearms within 1000 feet of a public school was indistinguishable from the law which prohibited firearms within 1000 feet of a public park.
On June 14, 2018 in People v. Green, the 1st District Illinois Appellate Court struck down the prior unlawful use of a weapon statute as unconstitutional based on the logic of Chairez. The Illinois Appellate Court used “elevated intermediate scrutiny” for their standard of review, which required the State to show a “very strong” public-interest justification for the regulation and a close fit between the law’s means and its ends. The elevated standard of review was used because firearm regulation implicates core 2nd Amendment rights. The State was unable to meet their burden by merely showing evidence of firearm violence inside of schools. The Court required the State to produce specific evidence which showed that a 1000 foot zone of safety was effective prior to striking down the statute. Ironically, such evidence would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to produce without a law prohibiting firearms within 1000 feet of a protected location. Future enactments of the same statute would likely need to rely on research from other jurisdictions.
Importantly, the logic of People v. Green was the previously predicted simple extension of the logic in People v. Chairez, namely:
While a gun owner can simply choose not to enter locations deemed sensitive, it is manifestly more difficult to avoid areas within 1000 feet of those locations, particularly given that there is no notification where the restriction zone begins or ends. Indeed, the ban at issue here, just as the ban 1000 feet around public parks at issue in Chairez, effectively operates as a total ban on the carriage of weapons for self-defense outside the home in Chicago.
People v. Green, 2018 IL App (1st) 143874.
Perhaps most importantly, the Illinois Supreme Court striking down the unlawful use of a weapon/aggravated unlawful use of a weapon statutes on constitutional grounds means that prior convictions for the same may be subject to a motion to vacate – clearing the name of many current criminals. Much like other statutes that have been struck down on constitutional grounds, there are many people who have been convicted under the unlawful use of a weapon/aggravated unlawful use of a weapon statute which may qualify to have their convictions be undone by the filing of a proper motion.
I want to file a civil suit for wrongfully conviction of AUUW. I PLEEAD GUILTY to 2 Auuws which are unconstitutional void ab oinito.
I had a uuw/Auuw that was vacated 10/22/2018 I want to know if I have a civil matter
You probably need to consult with a section 1983 expert on this. I don’t know enough to say whether there is or is not a civil matter.
I’m a little confused. I have an auuw. Is the charge unconditional. Does this new law only apply to people that were law abiding gun owners
Unfortunately, the law is filled with exceptions. The answer is “It depends”. You are welcome to call my office for a free consultation. However, there is no way to be able to answer your question because there are so many exceptions.
2011CR2018001 My name is Kinton Jones I’m trying to see if my case is under the unconstitutional Aguilar law
Hi Kinton,
I looked up your case. It may be possible to fix your case. It is from about the right time period at least. We would probably have to pull the file itself to confirm whether or not you are eligible, but at least the online docket search shows preliminary eligibility. Please feel free to send my office a message.
I was charged and pleaded guilty to a uuw back in 2018,I ended up with probation,I was told that it shouldn’t of been a uuw cause the fire arm wasn’t used upon my arrest and it should of been an possession charge, is this true?….also told I should sue
Hi Lashon,
This question requires far more information than you have provided, such as location and exact charge. Please don’t post any further information. However, it sounds like you’ve probably gotten some bad advice. UUW includes possession of firearms, not just use of firearms. You’re free to give me a call to discuss.
Hello,I’m David Fuller 7/18/90 I was charged with an AUUW case #21CR08847-01 I’m trying to see if my case is under the unconstitutional Aguilar law.
Hi David. Generally speaking, Aguilar is applicable to cases before 2019 or so. The legislature passed some new law that updated the AUUW statute after Aguilar came down. I have not looked at your case in specific because that is beyond the scope of a webpage comment, but it looks like your case is from 2021.
Ok I tried calling you aside Aguilar I really want to know was I charged under a unconstitutional section regarding my AUUW case because I believe I was
Hi David,
As I mentioned before – that’s a bit outside of a web comment. Please give my office a call and leave your number and we can have a phone consultation. Thanks!