IL: Chicago judge finds ban on guns for felon unconstitutional in controversial ruling

Source: 11/16/23

In a ruling that seems fated to find its way before the U.S. Supreme Court, a judge in Illinois has recently found that the gun rights of a felon convicted of multiple armed robberies are protected by the Second Amendment.

Ex felons prohibited from owning guns unless ex sponged, pardon etc.  Is unconstitutional without historical support and the state failed to meet its burden to show any relationship to increase in gun violence

Read the full article


Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

*Expunged. It seems like spelling and grammar aren’t taught in school anymore in the midwest.

I knew some case like this would eventually be adjudicated in a federal court that follows the precedent laid down in that recent, idiotic Bruen decision. Now I can see how the Supreme Court might whittle down that precedent because this man is a violent offender in that he used guns during robberies, saying that violent felons don’t get to own guns. But what about non-violent felons such as myself? I anticipate if the court does narrow its insane precedent to exclude people with a history of violence, perhaps the door will be open to felons without a history of violence owning guns. If the court is actually going to continue to support the Bruen decision in some form, it’s only right that they eat their own dog food.

I believe this article is something I certainly thought I would never see. But I also think it was put here to show the corrollary between legal reasoning that could be used in PFR cases. “State failed to meet its burden to show any relationship to increase in gun violence.” It can also be argued that the State cannot meet the burden of showing that registries decrease crime or protect the public. That’s my two cents anyway.

Last edited 14 days ago by Chris B

We all agree that nuclear weapons should never again be used, yet more and more rogue states are acquiring them anyway. The only thing that prevents criminal regimes from using them is deterrence.

I personally think that the rise in lawlessness would only be exacerbated by disarming the American public. Criminals who commit gun crimes will continue to do so regardless of the most egregious attempts to remove all guns from communities. Let’s be real, even in prisons, criminals can get their hands on anything they want for a price.

The only thing that may make violent people think twice about committing further crime is if there is a high risk of them ending up dead in the process, in other words, deterrence. Disarming people en masse is a bad idea. Holding people accountable for gun violence and giving the public the means to protect themselves is the way to reduce violent crime where it may be found.

Very interesting ruling, but it certainly makes sense. I’ve always believed that if a convicted felon never had a gun charge, he should be allowed to own a firearm. People who have served time for DUI are certainly allowed to own cars and buy booze.

I’m sure there will be carve outs like there always is.

There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the US Constitution or any State Constitution that says who can and can’t own a gun that includes felons. The 2nd Amendment CLEARLY states the RIGHT of the PEOPLE SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. What is so hard for the States and Federal Governments to comprehend. ALL Federal and State Gun Control Laws are unconstitutional period.

When almost half of American citizens have a “criminal” record now, it’s only a matter of time that people start to realize the Constitution (and this country) is a Scam.

“Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rife Association, told the outlet that even he was opposed to the idea of violent convicted criminals being able to get a handgun or a conceal carry permit.”

You can’t have it both ways, guy! If a person finished their sentence and paid their debts, why shouldn’t they possess firearms? For decades, conservative gun rights groups have been pushing courts to circumvent state & local rights to restrict possession of firearms in their jurisdiction. The NRA went on a victory lap after overturning the Chicago ban. Now these groups are saying certain people shouldn’t possess these weapons? That’s not how it works. I’m glad the judge made this decision. Now I’m anxious to find out if the majority conservative SCOTUS court upholds this judge’s decision. Or will they be hypocrites and not support 2nd amendment constitutional rights for felons.

Seems to me that if ANY felon should be able to own a gun it would be those who are on a public hit list.

The ‘right to bear arms’ is just that-a right that should not be taken away.
This is another way congress has urinated on the US Constitution.
Almost all ‘old west’ scholars agree that upon release from jail, the criminal got a gun back if they possessed one before they went in and also a horse and even release money.. Some of them probably had a horse that died while they were in jail so they were given another one, but gun rights were NOT taken away!
It is possible for a DUI with vehicular homicide to get their license back and drive a vehicle and driving isn’t even a right-it’s a privilege.
There are felons that would use a gun again to commit another crime of course, and if they did they should receive a much harsher sentence, but to make all felons defenseless, especially those whose crimes did not involve a firearm, is unConstitutional no matter how congress slices and dices it.
Another thing, almost all mass shootings are done by people with no criminal background.
They obtained the weapons legally.
So how are those background checks workin’ out to reduce mass shootings and save lives?

I’ve never understood , Why I couldn’t have my guns, My crime had nothing to do with guns. And it did result in socity putting a bulls eye on me . I’ve never gone along with this Bs.

Those on the SOR are quite vulnerable and should have their rights back to protect themselves. There are other options like mase, high powered air pistols (not considered firearms) and teasers.