Background
Calvillo was charged in 2001 with six counts of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon for offenses allegedly committed when he was 17. After a bench trial, the circuit court found him guilty of possessing an uncased firearm in public and possessing a firearm before age 21. The court merged the under-21 count into the uncased-firearm count and imposed probation, which was later revoked.
Years later, Calvillo challenged that conviction and a 2006 felon-in-possession conviction for which it served as the predicate felony. In a prior appeal, the appellate court vacated the circuit court’s attempt to transfer the original sentence to the under-21 count nunc pro tunc, remanded for sentencing on that count, and vacated the 2006 conviction. On remand, the circuit court sentenced Calvillo to one year in prison and six months of mandatory supervised release on the under-21 count, finding the sentence already satisfied.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed, holding that the version of the aggravated-unlawful-use statute prohibiting firearm possession by a person under 21 was not unconstitutional on its face or as applied to Calvillo. Binding Illinois Supreme Court decisions had already rejected Second Amendment challenges to age-based firearm restrictions.
The court also rejected Calvillo’s argument that New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen displaced those precedents. Although Bruen changed the analytical framework for Second Amendment claims, the Illinois decisions had relied on a longstanding historical tradition of restricting minors’ access to firearms. That historical reasoning remained relevant under Bruen, and the appellate court followed its own post-Bruen decisions reaching the same conclusion.
Key Takeaways
- Illinois precedent upholding age-based firearm restrictions remains binding after Bruen.
- The court found that the historical tradition of firearm restrictions concerning minors supported the statute’s constitutionality.
- Calvillo’s facial and as-applied Second Amendment challenges both failed, so his conviction on the under-21 count was affirmed.
Why It Matters
The order reinforces the First District’s view that Bruen does not invalidate Illinois Supreme Court precedents sustaining firearm restrictions based on age. Defendants challenging the under-21 provision face binding authority grounded in the historical regulation of minors and firearms.
The order was issued under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 and is nonprecedential except in the limited circumstances permitted by Rule 23(e)(1).