Background
Brian Conyears pleaded guilty to unlawful use of a weapon by a felon (UUWF) on January 24, 2013, receiving a four-year prison sentence. He did not pursue direct appeal or seek to withdraw his plea. On October 7, 2024—over eleven years after conviction—Conyears filed a pro se petition under section 2-1401 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to vacate his conviction as void ab initio, arguing the UUWF statute is facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment as interpreted in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). The circuit court denied his petition on January 3, 2025.
The Court’s Holding
The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the circuit court, holding that the UUWF statute—which prohibits felons from knowingly possessing firearms or ammunition—is not facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The court identified two analytical approaches, either of which defeats Conyears’s challenge.
First, the court held that the Second Amendment protects only “law-abiding citizens” and does not extend to those with felony convictions. The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently stated that nothing in its Second Amendment jurisprudence—including decisions in Heller (2008), McDonald (2010), and Rahimi (2024)—casts doubt on “longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons.” Under this reading, Conyears’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s scope and therefore need not satisfy Bruen’s two-step framework.
Second, even if Bruen’s framework applied to felons, the UUWF statute survives constitutional scrutiny. Under Bruen’s second step—requiring the government to demonstrate that a firearm regulation is “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation”—Illinois courts have found ample historical support. The court cited People v. Brooks, which documented “widespread acceptance of the legislatures’ authority to disarm felons” during the Founders’ era and recognized a “historical tradition” of status-based restrictions on felon gun possession.
Key Takeaways
- Statutes prohibiting firearm possession by felons survive both traditional and post-Bruen Second Amendment analysis.
- The Second Amendment protects rights of “law-abiding citizens” and does not include those convicted of felonies.
- Even under Bruen’s historical-tradition test, felon disarmament laws have substantial historical pedigree dating to the Founders’ era.
- Facial constitutional challenges to statutes carry a “particularly heavy burden” and are rarely successful; statutes are presumed constitutional.
Why It Matters
This decision resolves uncertainty about how the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision—which significantly expanded Second Amendment protections—applies to felon firearms prohibitions. Despite the Court’s more expansive recent Second Amendment jurisprudence, foundational restrictions on felon gun possession remain constitutionally sound in Illinois and likely nationwide. This settles a potential tension between newer pro-Second Amendment doctrine and longstanding regulatory traditions.
For defendants and criminal practitioners, the decision establishes that felon disarmament statutes will survive Second Amendment challenges under Illinois law. The court’s emphasis on historical tradition as validating felon prohibitions provides a clear roadmap for legislative authority and insulates these long-established restrictions from constitutional attack, even as other firearm regulations face increased scrutiny post-Bruen.