People v. Gunn (2023)

People v. Gunn, 2023 IL App (1st) 221032, ¶ 8 (“[g]enerally, [t]o preserve an issue for appellate review, a defendant must both -2- 1-22-1508 object at trial and present the issue in a written posttrial motion.”) (Internal quotation marks omitted.) However, our supreme court has held that “a guilty plea does not preclude a defendant from arguing on appeal that he was sentenced under a statute that was facially unconstitutional and void ab intitio.” People v. Guevara, 216 Ill…

This is exactly the same argument we rejected in People v. Gunn, 2023 IL App (1st) 221032, ¶¶ 19, 28 , a case we find instructive.

Facial Challenge ¶ 58 As to his facial challenge, Bryant contends that we should reverse his conviction because “the requirement that he be issued a FOID card is not consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation and therefore violates the right to bears arms under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.” We disagree. ¶ 59 In his reply brief, Bryant “urges [us] to consider [] Bruen’s historical precedent requirement,” but what he fails to recognize is…

From the reading of the FOID Card Act and Firearm Concealed Carry Act, it is clear that Illinois employs a shall-issue licensing regime because a FOID or CCL shall be issued to an individual who fulfills the criteria in the acts, and “the State does not have any discretion to deny *** an applicant who fulfills these objective criteria.” Gunn, 2023 IL App (1st) 221032, ¶¶ 16, 22 . ¶ 21 Furthermore, our interpretation of Bruen’s footnote comports with other decisions that have…

Gunn, 2023 IL App (1st) 221032, ¶ 19 (citing Bruen, 597 U.S. at 38 n.9).

Kavanaugh, concurring) (clarifying the court’s decision did not affect “shall-issue” licensing schemes like those in Illinois and such licensing regimes may continue to be employed); People v. Gunn, 2023 IL App (1st) 221032, ¶ 16 (noting, “Illinois is known as a shall-issue state because the police must issue a FOID card to any applicant who fulfills the criteria set forth in the statute”); see also 430 ILCS 66/10, 25 (West 2020).

Kavanaugh, concurring) (clarifying the court’s decision did not affect “shall-issue” licensing schemes like those in Illinois and the licensing regimes may continue to be employed); People v. Gunn, 2023 IL App (1st) 221032, ¶ 16 (noting, “Illinois is known as a shall-issue state because the police must issue a FOID card to any applicant who fulfills the criteria set forth in the statute”); see also 430 ILCS 66/10, 25 (West 2022).

Rather, the Illinois State Police shall issue a FOID card when an individual who is 18 to 20 years of age establishes “that he or she has the written consent of his or her parent or legal guardian to possess and acquire firearms and firearm ammunition and that he or she has never been convicted of a misdemeanor other than a traffic offense or adjudged delinquent, provided, however, that such parent or legal guardian is not an individual prohibited from having a Firearm Owner…

Gunn, 2023 IL App (1st) 221032, ¶¶ 7, 19, 29-30 .

The Court further acknowledged that, “[t]hroughout modern Anglo-American history, the right to keep and bear arms in public has traditionally been subject to well-defined restrictions governing - 13 - the intent for which one could carry arms, the manner of carry, or the exceptional circumstances under which one could not carry arms.” Bruen, 597 U.S. at 38 . ¶ 38 Given these principles, the appellate court in People v. Gunn, 2023 IL App (1st) 221032, ¶¶ 7, 32 , rejected the …

People v. Gunn, 2023 IL App (1st) 221032, ¶¶ 16, 22 .

Accordingly, we find that the Court has given its tacit approval of Illinois’ shall-issue licensing regime, as well as the AUUW statute, because the age-based restrictions, as well as the other criteria, contained therein are “narrow, objective, and definite standards.” See also People v. Gunn, 2023 IL App (1st) 221032, ¶ 32 (“Illinois is a shall-issue state with clearly defined, objective criteria regarding firearm possession and carry.”) (Emphasis in original.). ¶ 39 Nonet…

Daniels, 2025 IL App (1st) 230823, ¶¶ 30-31 (facial challenge to subsections 24- 1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(C) of the AUUW statute is meritless); Hatcher, 2024 IL App (1st) 220455, ¶ 57 (subsection 24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(C) of the AUUW statute is not facially unconstitutional); People v. Gunn, 2023 IL App (1st) 221032, ¶ 19 (FOID Card Act complies with federal law; facial challenge to AUUW statute fails).

People v. Daniels, 2025 IL App (1st) 230823, ¶ 30 (FOID Card Act is constitutional as a “shall-issue” license regime that does not prevent law-abiding citizens from exercising second amendment rights; subsection 24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(C) is facially constitutional); People v. Thompson, 2024 IL App (1st) 221031, ¶ 28 (“Bruen’s validation of the Illinois FOID Card Act’s objective, shall-issue licensing regime is, standing alone, a sufficient basis on which to reject [defendant’s…

Gunn, 2023 IL App (1st) 221032, ¶ 19 (citing Bruen, 597 U.S. at 38 n.9).

People v. Gunn, 2023 IL App (1st) 221032, ¶¶ 19, 29 ; People v. Hatcher, 2024 IL App (1st) 220455, ¶ 61 . -5- 1-23-1490 ¶ 16 Accordingly, petitioner’s claims that his conviction are void and unconstitutional under Aguilar are “patently incurable as a matter of law” since he was not charged or convicted under subsection (a)(3)(A) of the AUUW statute, thus; the procedural error at issue was harmless.

(Emphasis in original.) Gunn, 2023 IL App (1st) 221032, ¶¶ 16, 22 ; see also 430 ILCS 65/5(a) (West Supp. 2021) (“every applicant found qualified” under the FOID Card Act “shall be entitled to” a FOID card); 430 ILCS 66/10(a) (West Supp. 2021) (Illinois State Police “shall issue” a CCL to applicants who satisfy statutory requirements).

Gunn, 2023 IL App (1st) 221032, ¶¶ 7, 19, 29-30 .

He asserts there are no historical analogues for the AUUW statute’s requirement that individuals be issued a FOID card before they can exercise their right to carry a firearm. ¶ 21 In People v. Gunn, 2023 IL App (1st) 221032, ¶¶ 19, 32 , this court has previously concluded that the FOID Card Act complies with federal law.

See People v. Gunn, 2023 IL App (1st) 221032, ¶ 16 ; see also Bruen, 597 U.S. at 38 n.9. ¶ 14 In People v. Thompson, 2025 IL 129965 , our supreme court found that “[t]he Bruen Court expressly declared shall-issue licensing regimes facially constitutional under the second amendment.” Id. ¶ 39.

Bruen expressly approved of firearms training programs and background checks designed to ensure the people are law-abiding and responsible, however, as defendant points out, it did not rule out the possibility that challenges may be brought against “shall-issue” regimes where abuses occur, “for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.” Bruen, 597 U.S. at 38 n.9; see People v. Gunn, 2…

See People v. Gunn, 2023 IL App (1st) 221032, ¶ 16 ; see also Bruen, 597 U.S. at 15 nn.1, 9. ¶ 15 Here, Mr. Torres contends the AUUW statute is facially unconstitutional because the plain text of the second amendment covers the conduct which underlies his conviction, namely, carrying a ready-to-use firearm outside the home, and because the United States has no historical tradition of imposing criminal punishment on an individual who bears arms in public without a license. ¶ …

See, e.g., People v. Gunn, 2023 IL App (1st) 221032, ¶ 28 (Concealed - 15 - Carry Act’s 90-day waiting period and 5-year validity period are constitutional); People v. Burns, 2024 IL App (4th) 230428, ¶¶ 37, 41 ; People v. Harris, 2024 IL App (1st) 230122-U, ¶¶ 44, 48 (“We reject defendant’s contention that the AUUW statute is unconstitutional on its face due to the statutory schemes for the issuance of a FOID card and a CCL when the Bruen [C]ourt endorsed such regulations.”…

See, e.g., People v. Gunn, 2023 IL App (1st) 221032, ¶¶ 19, 29-30 (rejecting argument that the FOID Act and Concealed Carry Act are unconstitutional under Bruen); People v. Smith, 2023 IL App (4th) 220958-U, ¶¶ 14-16 (rejecting argument that Illinois’s AUUW statute is facially unconstitutional since Bruen does not affect shall-issue regimes); People v. Kuykendoll, 2023 IL App (1st) 221266-U, ¶ 25 (same). ¶ 17 Trotter urges us to reject Hatcher, arguing that Bruen footnote 9 …

See People v. Gunn, 2023 IL App (1st) 221032, ¶ 19 (noting that the Bruen court “explicitly acknowledged that background checks, which are the cornerstone of the FOID Card Act, are permissible”). ¶ 53 In sum, we do not find that the UUWF statute is unconstitutional on its face or as applied to defendant. ¶ 54 For the reasons stated, we reduce defendant’s sentence for misdemeanor domestic battery to 364 days’ imprisonment and correct the mittimus to reflect the correct senten…

See People v. Gunn, 2023 IL App (1st) 221032, ¶ 19 (rejecting facial challenge to Act, where the defendant had a revoked FOID card and challenged the Act based on requirements that he provide - 16 - 2023 IL App (2d) 220434 evidence of personal information and pay a fee; holding that Bruen did not apply because it explicitly acknowledged that background checks—“the cornerstone of the FOID Card Act”—are permissible, and, thus, the court did not need to engage in a historical a…