92 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 2023–2026 92 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Illinois courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Brooksgreen2 sentences2026See, e.g., People v. McCorkle, 2025 IL App (5th) 230238, ¶ 22 (stating that a defendant’s status as a felon is more properly evaluated under Bruen’s second prong); Wade, 2025 IL App (1st) 231683, ¶ 49 , pet. for leave to appeal pending, No. 132355 (filed Oct. 8, 2025) (same); People v. Macias, 2025 IL App (1st) 230678, ¶ 28 , pet. for leave to appeal pending, No. 132054 (filed Sept. 3, 2025) (same); People v. Travis, 2024 IL App (3d) 230113, ¶ 26 , pet. for leave to appeal pending, No. 130696 (filed May 16, 2024) (finding that “second amendment’s plain language does not exclude felons” and pro 2026Compare People v. Baker, 2023 IL App (1st) 220328, ¶ 37 (because felons are not “law abiding citizens,” they are not protected by the Second Amendment, and Bruen’s historical- tradition analysis “does not apply” to them), with Brooks, 2023 IL App (1st) 200435 , ¶¶ 88-89 (“How the defendant’s prior felony might impact his second amendment right to possess a firearm is more properly evaluated under the second step’s historical tradition analysis.”). ¶ 67 We need not decide which step of the Bruen analysis is the more suitable one, for even if defendant falls within the scope of the amendment’s p | 25 | 40 |
New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruengreen2 sentences2026“In performing the historical analysis required by the second step of the Bruen test, courts are required to use analogical reasoning to determine whether regulations from the nation’s founding are ‘relevantly similar’ to the current regulation on review.” People v. Daniels, 2025 IL App (1st) 230823, ¶ 41 (quoting Bruen, 597 U.S. at 28-29 ). ¶ 48 Pursuant to Bruen, then, we first consider whether the “plain text” of the second amendment covers defendant’s conduct. 2026“In performing the historical analysis required by the second step of the Bruen test, courts are required to use analogical reasoning to determine whether regulations from the nation’s founding are ‘relevantly similar’ to the current regulation on review.” People v. Daniels, 2025 IL App (1st) 230823, ¶ 41 (quoting Bruen, 597 U.S. at 28-29 ). ¶ 48 Pursuant to Bruen, then, we first consider whether the “plain text” of the second amendment covers defendant’s conduct. | 13 | 44 |
People v. Travisgreen2 sentences2026See, e.g., People v. McCorkle, 2025 IL App (5th) 230238, ¶ 22 (stating that a defendant’s status as a felon is more properly evaluated under Bruen’s second prong); Wade, 2025 IL App (1st) 231683, ¶ 49 , pet. for leave to appeal pending, No. 132355 (filed Oct. 8, 2025) (same); People v. Macias, 2025 IL App (1st) 230678, ¶ 28 , pet. for leave to appeal pending, No. 132054 (filed Sept. 3, 2025) (same); People v. Travis, 2024 IL App (3d) 230113, ¶ 26 , pet. for leave to appeal pending, No. 130696 (filed May 16, 2024) (finding that “second amendment’s plain language does not exclude felons” and pro 2026See People v. Baker, 2023 IL App (1st) 220328, ¶ 37 (noting that the Bruen majority and concurrences repeated the phrase “law-abiding” 18 times); People v. Martinez, 2024 IL App (2d) 230305-U, ¶ 27 (“Defendant’s challenge to the [UUWF] statute fails at the first step of the Bruen analysis because, contrary to defendant’s assertion, felons are not included in “the people” to whom the Second Amendment refers.”); People v. Burns, 2024 IL App (4th) 230428, ¶ 21 (determining that the Bruen decision does not apply to felons); People v. Stephens, 2024 IL - 10 - 2026 IL App (2d) 240341-U App (5th) 220 | 13 | 26 |
People v. Bakergreen2 sentences2026See, e.g., People v. Rich, 2025 IL App (1st) 230818, ¶ 63 (rejecting challenge to the UPWF statute at the first step of the Bruen analysis because “possessing a firearm while having a felony conviction falls [outside] the scope of the second amendment”); People v. Welch, 2025 IL App (1st) 231116, ¶ 57 (“Because the second amendment only protects the rights of law-abiding citizens to bear arms, the - 20 - 2026 IL App (2d) 240721-U Bruen analytical framework does not apply to the [offense of] UPWF”); People v. Boss, 2025 IL App (1st) 221855 , ¶ 33 (“the second amendment does not apply to a felon 2026See, e.g., People v. Rich, 2025 IL App (1st) 230818, ¶ 63 (rejecting challenge to the UPWF statute at the first step of the Bruen analysis because “possessing a firearm while having a felony conviction falls [outside] the scope of the second amendment”); People v. Welch, 2025 IL App (1st) 231116, ¶ 57 (“Because the second amendment only protects the rights of law-abiding citizens to bear arms, the - 20 - 2026 IL App (2d) 240721-U Bruen analytical framework does not apply to the [offense of] UPWF”); People v. Boss, 2025 IL App (1st) 221855 , ¶ 33 (“the second amendment does not apply to a felon | 13 | 19 |
People v. Kelleygreen2 sentences2026See, e.g., People v. Rich, 2025 IL App (1st) 230818, ¶ 63 (rejecting challenge to the UPWF statute at the first step of the Bruen analysis because “possessing a firearm while having a felony conviction falls [outside] the scope of the second amendment”); People v. Welch, 2025 IL App (1st) 231116, ¶ 57 (“Because the second amendment only protects the rights of law-abiding citizens to bear arms, the - 20 - 2026 IL App (2d) 240721-U Bruen analytical framework does not apply to the [offense of] UPWF”); People v. Boss, 2025 IL App (1st) 221855 , ¶ 33 (“the second amendment does not apply to a felon 2026See, e.g., People v. Rich, 2025 IL App (1st) 230818, ¶ 63 (rejecting challenge to the UPWF statute at the first step of the Bruen analysis because “possessing a firearm while having a felony conviction falls [outside] the scope of the second amendment”); People v. Welch, 2025 IL App (1st) 231116, ¶ 57 (“Because the second amendment only protects the rights of law-abiding citizens to bear arms, the - 20 - 2026 IL App (2d) 240721-U Bruen analytical framework does not apply to the [offense of] UPWF”); People v. Boss, 2025 IL App (1st) 221855 , ¶ 33 (“the second amendment does not apply to a felon | 7 | 8 |
People v. Burnsgreen2 sentences2026See, e.g., People v. Rich, 2025 IL App (1st) 230818, ¶ 63 (rejecting challenge to the UPWF statute at the first step of the Bruen analysis because “possessing a firearm while having a felony conviction falls [outside] the scope of the second amendment”); People v. Welch, 2025 IL App (1st) 231116, ¶ 57 (“Because the second amendment only protects the rights of law-abiding citizens to bear arms, the - 20 - 2026 IL App (2d) 240721-U Bruen analytical framework does not apply to the [offense of] UPWF”); People v. Boss, 2025 IL App (1st) 221855 , ¶ 33 (“the second amendment does not apply to a felon 2026See, e.g., People v. Rich, 2025 IL App (1st) 230818, ¶ 63 (rejecting challenge to the UPWF statute at the first step of the Bruen analysis because “possessing a firearm while having a felony conviction falls [outside] the scope of the second amendment”); People v. Welch, 2025 IL App (1st) 231116, ¶ 57 (“Because the second amendment only protects the rights of law-abiding citizens to bear arms, the - 20 - 2026 IL App (2d) 240721-U Bruen analytical framework does not apply to the [offense of] UPWF”); People v. Boss, 2025 IL App (1st) 221855 , ¶ 33 (“the second amendment does not apply to a felon | 6 | 12 |
United States v. Rahimigreen2 sentences2026If the conduct is protected, then the court asks whether the challenged statute is “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Id. -4- 2026 IL App (2d) 240341-U ¶ 12 Lastly, in United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680, 699 (2024), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the Bruen test and clarified that “Heller never established a categorical rule that the Constitution prohibits regulations that forbid firearm possession in the home.” Indeed, the Court noted that “Heller stated that many such prohibitions, like those on the possession of firearms by ‘felons and the mentally i 2026If the conduct is protected, then the court asks whether the challenged statute is “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Id. -4- 2026 IL App (2d) 240341-U ¶ 12 Lastly, in United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680, 699 (2024), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the Bruen test and clarified that “Heller never established a categorical rule that the Constitution prohibits regulations that forbid firearm possession in the home.” Indeed, the Court noted that “Heller stated that many such prohibitions, like those on the possession of firearms by ‘felons and the mentally i | 5 | 10 |
People v. Hatchergreen2 sentences2026See, e.g., People v. Rich, 2025 IL App (1st) 230818, ¶ 63 (rejecting challenge to the UPWF statute at the first step of the Bruen analysis because “possessing a firearm while having a felony conviction falls [outside] the scope of the second amendment”); People v. Welch, 2025 IL App (1st) 231116, ¶ 57 (“Because the second amendment only protects the rights of law-abiding citizens to bear arms, the - 20 - 2026 IL App (2d) 240721-U Bruen analytical framework does not apply to the [offense of] UPWF”); People v. Boss, 2025 IL App (1st) 221855 , ¶ 33 (“the second amendment does not apply to a felon 2026See, e.g., People v. Rich, 2025 IL App (1st) 230818, ¶ 63 (rejecting challenge to the UPWF statute at the first step of the Bruen analysis because “possessing a firearm while having a felony conviction falls [outside] the scope of the second amendment”); People v. Welch, 2025 IL App (1st) 231116, ¶ 57 (“Because the second amendment only protects the rights of law-abiding citizens to bear arms, the - 20 - 2026 IL App (2d) 240721-U Bruen analytical framework does not apply to the [offense of] UPWF”); People v. Boss, 2025 IL App (1st) 221855 , ¶ 33 (“the second amendment does not apply to a felon | 5 | 9 |
People v. Gardnergreen2 sentences2026In coming to this conclusion, these cases relied on the Court’s repeated statements that the second amendment and Bruen test applied to regulation of gun possession for “law-abiding citizens.” Baker, 2023 IL App (1st) 220328, ¶ 37 (noting that the Court repeated “law-abiding citizens” 18 times throughout the Bruen majority opinion and concurrences); Burns, 2024 IL App (4th) 230428, ¶ 19-20 ; Welch, 2025 IL App (1st) 231116, ¶ 57 ; Gardner, 2024 IL App (4th) 230443, ¶ 68 . ¶ 20 As evidenced by the cases cited above, there is a split on the issue. 2025As a result, [the] defendant cannot show that [the UPWF statute] violates the second amendment on its face under the Bruen framework.” See also People v. Gardner, 2024 IL App (4th) 230443, ¶ 68 (relying on Burns and rejecting a defendant’s facial challenge to the constitutionality of the UPWF statute); People v. Huff, 2025 IL App (4th) 240762, ¶ 16 (collecting cases from this court reaffirming our decision in Burns). ¶ 36 Additionally, even courts that have rejected the argument that felons fall outside the scope of those protected by the second amendment have concluded, under Bruen’s second s | 5 | 7 |
People v. Maciasgreen2 sentences2026See, e.g., People v. McCorkle, 2025 IL App (5th) 230238, ¶ 22 (stating that a defendant’s status as a felon is more properly evaluated under Bruen’s second prong); Wade, 2025 IL App (1st) 231683, ¶ 49 , pet. for leave to appeal pending, No. 132355 (filed Oct. 8, 2025) (same); People v. Macias, 2025 IL App (1st) 230678, ¶ 28 , pet. for leave to appeal pending, No. 132054 (filed Sept. 3, 2025) (same); People v. Travis, 2024 IL App (3d) 230113, ¶ 26 , pet. for leave to appeal pending, No. 130696 (filed May 16, 2024) (finding that “second amendment’s plain language does not exclude felons” and pro 2026We observe that courts have reached differing conclusions on the question of whether possession of a firearm by a felon is encompassed by the plain text of the second amendment, with some courts concluding that the second amendment does not apply to individuals who are not “law-abiding citizens.” See, e.g., People v. Macias, 2025 IL App (1st) 230678, ¶ 28 (noting split in approach); People v. Grace, 2025 IL App (1st) 232429-U , ¶¶ 14-16 (same). 17 No. 1-24-0827 ¶ 46 Here, we agree with defendant that his status as a felon is more appropriately considered under the second step of the Bruen anal | 5 | 7 |
People v. Lopezgreen2 sentences2026“In turn, the appellate court has considered whether the armed habitual criminal statute is facially unconstitutional *** and consistently found that the statute is facially constitutional because felons are not part of ‘the people’ protected by the second amendment resulting in the Bruen test not applying.” Lopez, 2025 IL App (1st) 232120, ¶ 22; see also People v. Gray, 2025 IL App (1st) 191086-B, ¶ 20; People v. Kelley, 2024 IL App (1st) 230569, ¶¶ 16-22, 30; People v. McTizic, 2025 IL App (1st) 240467-U, ¶¶ 8-13, 20; People v. Whitehead, 2024 IL App (1st) 231008-U, ¶¶ 85, 89; People v. Thom 2026“In turn, the appellate court has considered whether the armed habitual criminal statute is facially unconstitutional *** and consistently found that the statute is facially constitutional because felons are not part of ‘the people’ protected by the second amendment resulting in the Bruen test not applying.” Lopez, 2025 IL App (1st) 232120, ¶ 22; see also People v. Gray, 2025 IL App (1st) 191086-B, ¶ 20; People v. Kelley, 2024 IL App (1st) 230569, ¶¶ 16-22, 30; People v. McTizic, 2025 IL App (1st) 240467-U, ¶¶ 8-13, 20; People v. Whitehead, 2024 IL App (1st) 231008-U, ¶¶ 85, 89; People v. Thom | 5 | 5 |
District of Columbia v. Hellergreen2 sentences2026If the conduct is protected, then the court asks whether the challenged statute is “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Id. -4- 2026 IL App (2d) 240341-U ¶ 12 Lastly, in United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680, 699 (2024), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the Bruen test and clarified that “Heller never established a categorical rule that the Constitution prohibits regulations that forbid firearm possession in the home.” Indeed, the Court noted that “Heller stated that many such prohibitions, like those on the possession of firearms by ‘felons and the mentally i 2026If the conduct is protected, then the court asks whether the challenged statute is “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Id. -4- 2026 IL App (2d) 240341-U ¶ 12 Lastly, in United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680, 699 (2024), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the Bruen test and clarified that “Heller never established a categorical rule that the Constitution prohibits regulations that forbid firearm possession in the home.” Indeed, the Court noted that “Heller stated that many such prohibitions, like those on the possession of firearms by ‘felons and the mentally i | 4 | 14 |
People v. Danielsgreen2 sentences2026“In performing the historical analysis required by the second step of the Bruen test, courts are required to use analogical reasoning to determine whether regulations from the nation’s founding are ‘relevantly similar’ to the current regulation on review.” People v. Daniels, 2025 IL App (1st) 230823, ¶ 41 (quoting Bruen, 597 U.S. at 28-29 ). ¶ 48 Pursuant to Bruen, then, we first consider whether the “plain text” of the second amendment covers defendant’s conduct. 2026“In performing the historical analysis required by the second step of the Bruen test, courts are required to use analogical reasoning to determine whether regulations from the nation’s founding are ‘relevantly similar’ to the current regulation on review.” People v. Daniels, 2025 IL App (1st) 230823, ¶ 41 (quoting Bruen, 597 U.S. at 28-29 ). ¶ 48 Pursuant to Bruen, then, we first consider whether the “plain text” of the second amendment covers defendant’s conduct. | 4 | 4 |
People v. Bochenekgreen2 sentences2024See Bochenek, 2021 IL 125889, ¶ 10 (a statute is only facially unconstitutional if there are no circumstances under which it could be validly applied); see also People v. Burns, 2024 IL App (4th) 230428, ¶¶ 18-22 (following Baker to reject facial challenge to UUWF statute). ¶ 22 Defendant requests we depart from our holdings in Baker and Mobley and instead follow the reasoning in Brooks, 2023 IL App (1st) 200435, ¶¶ 88-89 , which found that under the first step of the two-part Bruen analysis, the second amendment protects the conduct of possessing a firearm, regardless of the possessor’s felon 2024See Bochenek, 2021 IL 125889, ¶ 10 (a statute is only facially unconstitutional if there are no circumstances under which it could be validly applied); see also People v. Burns, 2024 IL App (4th) 230428, ¶¶ 18-22 (following Baker to reject facial challenge to UUWF statute). ¶ 22 Defendant requests we depart from our holdings in Baker and Mobley and instead follow the reasoning in Brooks, 2023 IL App (1st) 200435, ¶¶ 88-89 , which found that under the first step of the two-part Bruen analysis, the second amendment protects the conduct of possessing a firearm, regardless of the possessor’s felon | 4 | 4 |
People v. Wadegreen2 sentences2026See, e.g., People v. McCorkle, 2025 IL App (5th) 230238, ¶ 22 (stating that a defendant’s status as a felon is more properly evaluated under Bruen’s second prong); Wade, 2025 IL App (1st) 231683, ¶ 49 , pet. for leave to appeal pending, No. 132355 (filed Oct. 8, 2025) (same); People v. Macias, 2025 IL App (1st) 230678, ¶ 28 , pet. for leave to appeal pending, No. 132054 (filed Sept. 3, 2025) (same); People v. Travis, 2024 IL App (3d) 230113, ¶ 26 , pet. for leave to appeal pending, No. 130696 (filed May 16, 2024) (finding that “second amendment’s plain language does not exclude felons” and pro 2025See, e.g., People v. Wade, 2025 IL App (1st) 231683, ¶50 (“under the second step of the Bruen analysis, the armed habitual criminal statute is consistent with the historical tradition of firearm regulation”); Travis, 2024 IL App (3d) 230113, ¶¶ 27-33 (there is “a history and tradition dating back to the founding era of identifying dangerous individuals and disarming them”). ¶ 20 Defendant, however, contends that there is no historical tradition of permanently disarming felons. ¶ 21 Initially, we note that felons are not permanently banned from firearm possession. | 3 | 4 |
People v. Smithgreen2 sentences2026See People v. Baker, 2023 IL App (1st) 220328, ¶ 37 (finding that Bruen made it clear that its test applied only to laws that attempted to regulate gun possession of “law-abiding citizens” where this phrase was repeated 18 times in the majority opinion and concurrence). ¶ 42 We considered the Bruen analysis in People v. Smith, 2025 IL App (5th) 230656 , which agreed with the reasoning in federal and appellate court decisions which concluded that “felons are not protected under the plain text of the second amendment.” Smith, 2025 IL App (5th) 230656, ¶ 25 . 2026See People v. Baker, 2023 IL App (1st) 220328, ¶ 37 (finding that Bruen made it clear that its test applied only to laws that attempted to regulate gun possession of “law-abiding citizens” where this phrase was repeated 18 times in the majority opinion and concurrence). ¶ 42 We considered the Bruen analysis in People v. Smith, 2025 IL App (5th) 230656 , which agreed with the reasoning in federal and appellate court decisions which concluded that “felons are not protected under the plain text of the second amendment.” Smith, 2025 IL App (5th) 230656, ¶ 25 . | 3 | 4 |
People v. Cadengogreen2 sentences2026See, e.g., People v. Rich, 2025 IL App (1st) 230818, ¶ 63 (rejecting challenge to the UPWF statute at the first step of the Bruen analysis because “possessing a firearm while having a felony conviction falls [outside] the scope of the second amendment”); People v. Welch, 2025 IL App (1st) 231116, ¶ 57 (“Because the second amendment only protects the rights of law-abiding citizens to bear arms, the - 20 - 2026 IL App (2d) 240721-U Bruen analytical framework does not apply to the [offense of] UPWF”); People v. Boss, 2025 IL App (1st) 221855 , ¶ 33 (“the second amendment does not apply to a felon 2026See, e.g., People v. Rich, 2025 IL App (1st) 230818, ¶ 63 (rejecting challenge to the UPWF statute at the first step of the Bruen analysis because “possessing a firearm while having a felony conviction falls [outside] the scope of the second amendment”); People v. Welch, 2025 IL App (1st) 231116, ¶ 57 (“Because the second amendment only protects the rights of law-abiding citizens to bear arms, the - 20 - 2026 IL App (2d) 240721-U Bruen analytical framework does not apply to the [offense of] UPWF”); People v. Boss, 2025 IL App (1st) 221855 , ¶ 33 (“the second amendment does not apply to a felon | 3 | 3 |
People v. Coxgreen2 sentences2026See, e.g., People v. Cox, 2025 IL App (1st) 241260, ¶¶ 15-23 ; Rich, 2025 IL App (1st) 230818, ¶ 66 , pet. for leave to appeal pending, No. 132165 (filed Aug. 21, 2025); Travis, 2024 IL App (3d) 230113, ¶¶ 27-33 , pet. for leave to appeal pending, No. 130696 (filed May 16, 2024); Stephens, 2024 IL App (5th) 220828 , ¶ 34-39, pet. for leave to appeal pending, No. 131232 (filed Dec. 2, 2024). ¶ 54 III. 2026See, e.g., People v. Cox, 2025 IL App (1st) 241260, ¶¶ 15-23 ; Rich, 2025 IL App (1st) 230818, ¶ 66 , pet. for leave to appeal pending, No. 132165 (filed Aug. 21, 2025); Travis, 2024 IL App (3d) 230113, ¶¶ 27-33 , pet. for leave to appeal pending, No. 130696 (filed May 16, 2024); Stephens, 2024 IL App (5th) 220828 , ¶ 34-39, pet. for leave to appeal pending, No. 131232 (filed Dec. 2, 2024). ¶ 54 III. | 3 | 3 |
People v. Thompsongreen2 sentences2026The Bruen test proceeds in two steps: we first ask whether “the Second Amendment’s plain text - 17 - No. 1-23-2112 covers an individual’s conduct;” if it does, the State “must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Bruen, 597 U.S. at 24 . ¶ 64 We should note at the outset that, after the close of briefing, our supreme court released its opinion in People v. Thompson, 2025 IL 129965 . 2026The Bruen test proceeds in two steps: we first ask whether “the Second Amendment’s plain text - 17 - No. 1-23-2112 covers an individual’s conduct;” if it does, the State “must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Bruen, 597 U.S. at 24 . ¶ 64 We should note at the outset that, after the close of briefing, our supreme court released its opinion in People v. Thompson, 2025 IL 129965 . | 2 | 8 |
Sinnissippi Rod & Gun Club, Inc. v. Raoulgreen2 sentences2025But if it does, the individual’s conduct is presumptively protected by the second amendment, and we move to the second inquiry: Is the State’s regulation “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation[?]” ’ [Citation.]” People v. Hatcher, 2024 IL App (1st) 220455, ¶ 52 (quoting Sinnissippi Rod & Gun Club, Inc. v. Raoul, 2024 IL App (3d) 210073, ¶ 13 ). ¶ 38 With this framework, we turn to defendant’s facial challenge to the armed violence statute. 2024As we recently observed in Sinnissippi Rod & Gun Club, Inc. v. Raoul, 2024 IL App (3d) 210073 , under Bruen’s framework: “The first inquiry is: Does the plain text of the second amendment cover an individual’s conduct? [Citation.] If not, the regulation is constitutional because it falls outside the scope of protection. | 2 | 4 |
People v. Richgreen2 sentences2026See, e.g., People v. Rich, 2025 IL App (1st) 230818, ¶ 63 (rejecting challenge to the UPWF statute at the first step of the Bruen analysis because “possessing a firearm while having a felony conviction falls [outside] the scope of the second amendment”); People v. Welch, 2025 IL App (1st) 231116, ¶ 57 (“Because the second amendment only protects the rights of law-abiding citizens to bear arms, the - 20 - 2026 IL App (2d) 240721-U Bruen analytical framework does not apply to the [offense of] UPWF”); People v. Boss, 2025 IL App (1st) 221855 , ¶ 33 (“the second amendment does not apply to a felon 2026See, e.g., People v. Rich, 2025 IL App (1st) 230818, ¶ 63 (rejecting challenge to the UPWF statute at the first step of the Bruen analysis because “possessing a firearm while having a felony conviction falls [outside] the scope of the second amendment”); People v. Welch, 2025 IL App (1st) 231116, ¶ 57 (“Because the second amendment only protects the rights of law-abiding citizens to bear arms, the - 20 - 2026 IL App (2d) 240721-U Bruen analytical framework does not apply to the [offense of] UPWF”); People v. Boss, 2025 IL App (1st) 221855 , ¶ 33 (“the second amendment does not apply to a felon | 2 | 3 |
People v. Welchgreen2 sentences2026See, e.g., People v. Rich, 2025 IL App (1st) 230818, ¶ 63 (rejecting challenge to the UPWF statute at the first step of the Bruen analysis because “possessing a firearm while having a felony conviction falls [outside] the scope of the second amendment”); People v. Welch, 2025 IL App (1st) 231116, ¶ 57 (“Because the second amendment only protects the rights of law-abiding citizens to bear arms, the - 20 - 2026 IL App (2d) 240721-U Bruen analytical framework does not apply to the [offense of] UPWF”); People v. Boss, 2025 IL App (1st) 221855 , ¶ 33 (“the second amendment does not apply to a felon 2026See, e.g., People v. Rich, 2025 IL App (1st) 230818, ¶ 63 (rejecting challenge to the UPWF statute at the first step of the Bruen analysis because “possessing a firearm while having a felony conviction falls [outside] the scope of the second amendment”); People v. Welch, 2025 IL App (1st) 231116, ¶ 57 (“Because the second amendment only protects the rights of law-abiding citizens to bear arms, the - 20 - 2026 IL App (2d) 240721-U Bruen analytical framework does not apply to the [offense of] UPWF”); People v. Boss, 2025 IL App (1st) 221855 , ¶ 33 (“the second amendment does not apply to a felon | 2 | 3 |
People v. Burnsgreen2 sentences2025The first approach ends its analysis at the first step of the Bruen test, finding that the regulated conduct – felon firearm possession – is not protected by the Second Amendment. 4 No. 1-23-2429 See People v. Burns, 2015 IL 117387, ¶ 42 (finding that “our appellate court has upheld as constitutional Illinois statutes governing the possession of weapons by felons on grounds that the Second Amendment is not implicated”); Gray, 2025 IL App (1st) 191086-B, ¶ 20 ; Whitehead, 2024 IL App (1st) 231008-U (same), ¶ 88-89; Kelley, 2024 IL App (1st) 230569, ¶ 16 ; Muhammad, 2023 IL App (1st) 230121-U, ¶ 2025The first approach ends its analysis at the first step of the Bruen test, finding that the regulated conduct – felon firearm possession – is not protected by the Second Amendment. 4 No. 1-23-2429 See People v. Burns, 2015 IL 117387, ¶ 42 (finding that “our appellate court has upheld as constitutional Illinois statutes governing the possession of weapons by felons on grounds that the Second Amendment is not implicated”); Gray, 2025 IL App (1st) 191086-B, ¶ 20 ; Whitehead, 2024 IL App (1st) 231008-U (same), ¶ 88-89; Kelley, 2024 IL App (1st) 230569, ¶ 16 ; Muhammad, 2023 IL App (1st) 230121-U, ¶ | 2 | 3 |
| Yakich v. Auldsgreen | 2 | 2 |
| People v. Huffgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Hill v. Cowangreen | 2 | 2 |
People v. Mobleygreen2 sentences2026See, e.g., People v. Rich, 2025 IL App (1st) 230818, ¶ 63 (rejecting challenge to the UPWF statute at the first step of the Bruen analysis because “possessing a firearm while having a felony conviction falls [outside] the scope of the second amendment”); People v. Welch, 2025 IL App (1st) 231116, ¶ 57 (“Because the second amendment only protects the rights of law-abiding citizens to bear arms, the - 20 - 2026 IL App (2d) 240721-U Bruen analytical framework does not apply to the [offense of] UPWF”); People v. Boss, 2025 IL App (1st) 221855 , ¶ 33 (“the second amendment does not apply to a felon 2026See, e.g., People v. Rich, 2025 IL App (1st) 230818, ¶ 63 (rejecting challenge to the UPWF statute at the first step of the Bruen analysis because “possessing a firearm while having a felony conviction falls [outside] the scope of the second amendment”); People v. Welch, 2025 IL App (1st) 231116, ¶ 57 (“Because the second amendment only protects the rights of law-abiding citizens to bear arms, the - 20 - 2026 IL App (2d) 240721-U Bruen analytical framework does not apply to the [offense of] UPWF”); People v. Boss, 2025 IL App (1st) 221855 , ¶ 33 (“the second amendment does not apply to a felon | 1 | 4 |
McDonald v. City of Chicagogreen2 sentences2025See Bruen, 597 U.S. at 30 ; McDonald, 561 U.S. at 786 ; Heller, 554 U.S. at 626 ; see also Rahimi, 602 U.S. at 735 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring). 2024The Court emphasized that “ ‘individual self-defense is “the central component” of the Second Amendment right.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) Id. (quoting McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 767 (2010), quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 599 ). ¶ 25 Applying Bruen’s framework, we must first determine whether the second amendment’s plain text covers defendant’s conduct. | 1 | 4 |
People v. Aguilargreen2 sentences2026Campbell argues, however, that Thompson was wrongly decided. -5- No. 1-25-0788 ¶ 20 While Campbell’s conduct of publicly carrying a firearm falls within the scope of the Second Amendment protections ( Bruen at 32 ; see also Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116, ¶ 20 ), our supreme court held that “the United States Supreme Court’s express endorsement of shall-issue licensure obviates the need for this court to apply the historical-tradition component of the Bruen analysis to defendant’s facial challenge to section 24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A-5) and its enforcement of CCL and FOID card licensure.” Thompson, 2025 2026Campbell argues, however, that Thompson was wrongly decided. -5- No. 1-25-0788 ¶ 20 While Campbell’s conduct of publicly carrying a firearm falls within the scope of the Second Amendment protections ( Bruen at 32 ; see also Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116, ¶ 20 ), our supreme court held that “the United States Supreme Court’s express endorsement of shall-issue licensure obviates the need for this court to apply the historical-tradition component of the Bruen analysis to defendant’s facial challenge to section 24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A-5) and its enforcement of CCL and FOID card licensure.” Thompson, 2025 | 1 | 3 |
People v. Gunngreen2 sentences2025In People v. Thompson, 2025 IL 129965, ¶¶ 44, 53 , our supreme court held that “the United States Supreme Court’s express endorsement of shall-issue licensure obviates the need for this court to apply the historical-tradition component of the Bruen analysis to defendant’s facial challenge to section 24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A-5)” and held that section was not facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. ¶ 19 Prior to Thompson, in People v. Gunn, 2023 IL App (1st) 221032, ¶ 19 , this court concluded that due to the shall-issue regime in Illinois, there was “no need for us to engage in a hi 2025In People v. Thompson, 2025 IL 129965, ¶¶ 44, 53 , our supreme court held that “the United States Supreme Court’s express endorsement of shall-issue licensure obviates the need for this court to apply the historical-tradition component of the Bruen analysis to defendant’s facial challenge to section 24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A-5)” and held that section was not facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. ¶ 19 Prior to Thompson, in People v. Gunn, 2023 IL App (1st) 221032, ¶ 19 , this court concluded that due to the shall-issue regime in Illinois, there was “no need for us to engage in a hi | 1 | 3 |
| People v. McCorklegreen | 1 | 2 |
| People v. Thompsongreen | 1 | 2 |
| Awkerman v. Illinois State Policegreen | 1 | 2 |
| cluster 10830737green | 1 | 1 |
| Packingham v. North Carolinagreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Martingreen | 1 | 1 |
| Patrick Atkinson v. Merrick B. Garlandgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Jorge Medina v. Matthew Whitakergreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Echolsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Edell Jacksongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Brooksgreen2 sentences2026See, e.g., People v. McCorkle, 2025 IL App (5th) 230238, ¶ 22 (stating that a defendant’s status as a felon is more properly evaluated under Bruen’s second prong); Wade, 2025 IL App (1st) 231683, ¶ 49 , pet. for leave to appeal pending, No. 132355 (filed Oct. 8, 2025) (same); People v. Macias, 2025 IL App (1st) 230678, ¶ 28 , pet. for leave to appeal pending, No. 132054 (filed Sept. 3, 2025) (same); People v. Travis, 2024 IL App (3d) 230113, ¶ 26 , pet. for leave to appeal pending, No. 130696 (filed May 16, 2024) (finding that “second amendment’s plain language does not exclude felons” and pro 2026Compare People v. Baker, 2023 IL App (1st) 220328, ¶ 37 (because felons are not “law abiding citizens,” they are not protected by the Second Amendment, and Bruen’s historical- tradition analysis “does not apply” to them), with Brooks, 2023 IL App (1st) 200435 , ¶¶ 88-89 (“How the defendant’s prior felony might impact his second amendment right to possess a firearm is more properly evaluated under the second step’s historical tradition analysis.”). ¶ 67 We need not decide which step of the Bruen analysis is the more suitable one, for even if defendant falls within the scope of the amendment’s p | 2 | 40 |
McDonald v. City of Chicagogreen2 sentences2025See Bruen, 597 U.S. at 30 ; McDonald, 561 U.S. at 786 ; Heller, 554 U.S. at 626 ; see also Rahimi, 602 U.S. at 735 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring). 2024The Court emphasized that “ ‘individual self-defense is “the central component” of the Second Amendment right.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) Id. (quoting McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 767 (2010), quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 599 ). ¶ 25 Applying Bruen’s framework, we must first determine whether the second amendment’s plain text covers defendant’s conduct. | 1 | 4 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Konigsberg v. State Bar of Cal.
green
2 sentences2026If the conduct is protected, then the court asks whether the challenged statute is “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Id. -4- 2026 IL App (2d) 240341-U ¶ 12 Lastly, in United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680, 699 (2024), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the Bruen test and clarified that “Heller never established a categorical rule that the Constitution prohibits regulations that forbid firearm possession in the home.” Indeed, the Court noted that “Heller stated that many such prohibitions, like those on the possession of firearms by ‘felons and the mentally i 2026If the conduct is protected, then the court asks whether the challenged statute is “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Id. -4- 2026 IL App (2d) 240341-U ¶ 12 Lastly, in United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680, 699 (2024), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the Bruen test and clarified that “Heller never established a categorical rule that the Constitution prohibits regulations that forbid firearm possession in the home.” Indeed, the Court noted that “Heller stated that many such prohibitions, like those on the possession of firearms by ‘felons and the mentally i | 4 | 2024–2026 |
People v. Mosley
green
2 sentences2025Mosley, 2015 IL 115872, ¶ 37 . ¶ 29 Barber’s as-applied challenge to the AUUW statute likewise fails for the same reasons discussed above. 2024The court further stated that it had previously “cited with approval several cases finding it evident from a review of the relevant historical record that age based regulations on minors’ access to firearms for the purpose of ensuring public safety were commonplace and persisted well beyond the Founding Era.” Id. ¶ 24 (citing Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116, ¶ 27 ). ¶ 35 Although these Illinois Supreme Court decisions were issued before Bruen and do not follow the exact Bruen framework, this court has nevertheless concluded that the reasoning in these cases “is consistent with the ‘plain text’ and his | 4 | 2024–2025 |
People v. Rizzo
green
2 sentences2026Therefore, Campbell may raise the facial Bruen challenge. ¶ 10 A presumption exists that all statutes are constitutional, and a defendant carries a “heavy burden” in rebutting that presumption by “clearly establish[ing] that [the statute] violates the constitution.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Rizzo, 2016 IL 118599, ¶ 23 . 2026Because this court has jurisdiction over the parties and the case due to the timeliness of defendant’s appeal -7- No. 1-23-1643 from the denial of his motion for leave to file a successive postconviction petition, we consider his facial Bruen challenge. ¶ 24 Defendant challenges the constitutionality of his AUUW adjudication in case No. 06 JD 40098, for carrying a firearm when he was not on his own land, or in his own abode, or a fixed place of business, without a valid FOID Card (720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(C) (West 2006)). ¶ 25 Litigants raising constitutional challenges “carry the heavy | 3 | 2025–2026 |
| In re the Interest of Jordan G. green | 3 | 2024–2024 |
| People v. Buford green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| People v. Thompson green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| People v. Mallery neutral | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| People v. Stokich neutral | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| People v. Davis green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| People v. Swenson green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Kristin Worth v. Bob Jacobson green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| People v. Gross neutral | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| People v. Campbell green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| People v. Rush green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.