Source: https://illinoiscaselaw.com/uuw-provision-banning-stun-guns-is-shot-down/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 16:30:31+00:00

Document:
April 3, 2019 By Samuel Partida, Jr.
Another version of UUW is held unconstitutional; this time it’s the one banning tasers.
Defendant was charged by misdemeanor complaint with violating section 24-1(a)(4) of the UUW statute (720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)(4)) after he was discovered carrying a stun gun in his jacket pocket while in his vehicle on a public street.
He was charged by misdemeanor complaint with violating section 24-1(a)(4) after he was found carrying a stun gun in his backpack in a forest preserve, a public place.
At issue is the constitutionality of the portion of section 24-1(a)(4) of the UUW statute relating to stun guns and tasers.
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), the Supreme Court of the United States held that the second amendment secures for individuals the right to keep and bear arms and that, through the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution (U.S. Const., amend. XIV), this right is fully applicable to the states.
Then came Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2012) and People v. Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116 (holding the provision of the aggravated unlawful use of a weapon statute that categorically prohibited the possession and use of any operable firearm for self-defense outside the home violated the second amendment).
See also Mosley, 2015 IL 115872 (holding unconstitutional under the second amendment the portion of the aggravated unlawful use of a weapon statute that criminalized the possession of an uncased, loaded firearm on a public way).
In determining whether a statutory provision violates the second amendment we first consider whether the provision imposes a burden on conduct that falls within the scope of the amendment. People v. Chairez, 2018 IL 121417, ¶ 21.
If it does not, our analysis comes to an end.
Otherwise, we move to the second step of the inquiry, in which we must determine and apply the appropriate level of constitutional scrutiny.
Heller defined “bearable arms”: Stun guns and tasers may be taken into one’s hands and used both for defense or “to cast at or strike another.” Clearly, stun guns and tasers are bearable arms within the meaning of the second amendment. People v. Yanna, 824 N.W.2d 241, 244 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
Accordingly, the State concedes that stun guns and tasers are bearable arms that fall within the scope of the second amendment.
Subparagraph (iv) of section 24-1(a)(4) excludes from the offense of UUW only those weapons that are carried or possessed “in accordance” with the Carry Act by a person who has been issued a concealed carry license.
To be “in accordance” with a statute means to be in agreement or conformance with that law.
In our view, the most natural reading of the requirement that weapons be carried or possessed “in accordance” with the Carry Act is that the weapons, themselves, are of the type for which a valid concealed carry license may be issued under the Carry Act.
Indeed, any other reading would lead to absurd results.
Under the State’s reading of the statute, as long as a person has a concealed carry license for a handgun, that person may carry any other weapon, including a rifle or shotgun, and still be acting “in accordance” with the Carry Act, even though the Carry Act is specifically limited to handguns and does not allow for the concealed carry of rifles or shotguns.
We do not think the State’s interpretation is what the legislature intended.
Our conclusion that stun guns and tasers cannot be carried or possessed “in accordance” with the Carry Act because a concealed carry license cannot be issued for those weapons is further supported by section 24-2(a-5) of the UUW statute.
This provision states that section 24-1(a)(4) of the UUW statute does not “apply to or affect any person carrying a concealed pistol, revolver, or handgun and the person has been issued a currently valid license under the Firearm Concealed Carry Act at the time of the commission of the offense.” 720 ILCS 5/24-2(a-5).
When read together with section 24-1(a)(4), section 24-2(a-5) makes clear that only those weapons that can be licensed under the Carry Act are meant to be excluded from the reach of the UUW statute.
Given the foregoing, we reject the State’s argument that section 24-1(a)(4) is merely a regulation of stun guns and tasers. Rather, that provision sets forth a comprehensive ban that categorically prohibits possession and carriage of stun guns and tasers in public.
Thus, that provision necessarily cannot stand.
Accordingly, we hold the portion of section 24-1(a)(4) that prohibits the carriage or possession of stun guns and tasers is facially unconstitutional under the second amendment.
If you are an Illinios attorney and keeping up with the case law is important to you then read below to see how to get a free copy of my book.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.