Background
Following a June 2023 incident at a restaurant drive-through, Andre Griffin was found guilty on two counts of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (AUUW) and one count of unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon (UPWF). The incident began when Mr. Griffin cut in line and, during an argument with another customer, was seen holding an object the customer believed was a firearm. Police responded and recovered a loaded revolver from under the driver’s seat of Mr. Griffin’s vehicle.
It was established that Mr. Griffin did not possess a valid Firearm Owner’s Identification (FOID) card or a concealed carry license (CCL). The parties also stipulated that he had a prior felony conviction for conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, making him ineligible to possess a firearm.
On appeal, Mr. Griffin made two main arguments. First, he contended that both the AUUW and UPWF statutes were unconstitutional under the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen. Second, he argued that two of his three convictions must be vacated under Illinois’s “one-act, one-crime” rule, as all three charges stemmed from the single act of possessing one firearm.
The Court’s Holding
The court first addressed the one-act, one-crime issue, agreeing with both Mr. Griffin and the State. The rule prohibits multiple convictions based on the exact same physical act. Since all three convictions arose from possessing a single firearm, the court determined that only the conviction for the “more serious” offense could stand. Following Illinois Supreme Court precedent, it compared the offenses and concluded that the Class 2 AUUW conviction was more serious than the Class 3 UPWF conviction. Accordingly, the court vacated the UPWF conviction and one of the two AUUW convictions.
The court then turned to the constitutional challenge to the remaining AUUW conviction. It rejected Mr. Griffin’s facial challenge, holding that the Illinois Supreme Court’s recent decision in People v. Thompson was controlling. That case affirmed that Illinois’s “shall-issue” licensing scheme (requiring a FOID card and CCL) is not unconstitutional on its face under Bruen.
The court also rejected Mr. Griffin’s as-applied challenge, in which he argued the law was unconstitutional as applied to him because his felony status prevented him from obtaining the required licenses. The court stated that the Second Amendment protections discussed in Bruen apply to “law-abiding citizens,” not felons. It reiterated that longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons are historically justified and constitutional. Because Mr. Griffin was a felon, his as-applied challenge failed.
Key Takeaways
- Under Illinois’s one-act, one-crime rule, multiple convictions stemming from the single act of possessing one firearm cannot stand; the conviction for the less serious offense must be vacated.
- An Illinois AUUW conviction is considered a more serious offense than a UPWF conviction when comparing a Class 2 AUUW with a Class 3 UPWF.
- Illinois’s firearm licensing statutes, which require a FOID card and CCL for public carry, remain facially constitutional after the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen.
- The Second Amendment right to bear arms does not extend to felons, and a felon cannot successfully challenge Illinois’s firearm possession laws by arguing they are unconstitutional as-applied to them.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that, while Bruen expanded Second Amendment rights for law-abiding citizens, its reach is not limitless. The ruling affirms the authority of Illinois to maintain its firearm licensing system and to continue prohibiting felons from possessing firearms. For practitioners, the case serves as a strong indicator that post-Bruen constitutional challenges to the AUUW and UPWF statutes brought by defendants with felony convictions are unlikely to succeed in Illinois courts.
The opinion demonstrates a clear legal path for lower courts: apply recent state supreme court precedent on facial challenges, and distinguish that the core holding of Bruen does not apply to individuals who are not “law-abiding.” It solidifies the principle that historical prohibitions on firearm possession by felons remain a valid exception to the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.