Case Name: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v. WALTER G. AMERMAN, Appellant
Court: Illinois Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1971-11-30
Citations: 50 Ill. 2d 196
Docket Number: No. 43743
Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v. WALTER G. AMERMAN, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Reports, Second Series
Volume: 50
Pages: 196–201

Head Matter:
(No. 43743.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v. WALTER G. AMERMAN, Appellant.
Opinion filed November 30, 1971.
GOLDENHERSH, J., dissenting.
DONALD R. MITCHELL, of Murphysboro, and WILLIAM KENT BRANDON, of Carbondale, appointed by the court, for appellant.
WILLIAM J. SCOTT, Attorney General, of Springfield, (THOMAS J. IMMEL, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel,) for the People.

Opinion:
MR. JUSTICE WARD
delivered the opinion of the court:
The defendant, Dr. Walter G. Amerman, was fined $50 after he was found guilty in a bench trial in the circuit court of Jackson County on a charge of having possessed a pistol without having obtained a firearm owner's identification card from the Illinois Department of Law Enforcement in violation of the Firearm Owner's Identification Act. Ill.Rev.Stat. 1969, ch. 38, par. 83—1 et seq.
On appeal he contends that the Firearm Owner's Identification Act is unconstitutional as denying due process and equal protection of the law. He argues, too, that the statute is an improper exercise of the police power, as it is really a revenue measure subject to and here in violation of the uniformity provision of the constitution of Illinois.
Officers of the Murphysboro police department on May 30, 1970, observed the defendant using a pistol at target practice. A complaint against him was filed after Dr. Amerman told the officers that he had obtained the weapon from a German prisonér during World War II and advised them that he did not have an identification card issued under the Firearm Owner's Identification Act. At trial the defendant did not move to quash the complaint or make any other pretrial motion. In an opening statement his attorney told the court that the defendant's position was that "this law is totally unconstitutional" and if found guilty the defendant intended to appeal the conviction. Thereafter there was no development of the question. There was no argument on it, no ruling by the trial court on it and no request for a ruling. The judgment makes no reference to it. There were no post-trial motions. The only mention of the question in the record is in the opening statement.
We cannot entertain this appeal. The rule is familiar that a nonjurisdictional question which has not been properly presented in the trial court and preserved for review will not be considered on appeal. (People v. Allen, 17 Ill.2d 55, 61.) This rule is, of course, applicable to constitutional questions. "It is fundamental that the question of the constitutionality of a statute cannot be properly raised for the first time in a court of review, but must have been presented to the trial court and ruled upon by it, and the person challenging its validity must have preserved proper exceptions to such ruling. [Citations.] " People v. Brand, 415 Ill. 329, 337; see also People v. Luckey, 42 Ill.2d 115, Van Meter v. Stout, 45 Ill. 2d 7.
The charge in the opening statement that "this law is totally unconstitutional" was obviously inadequate as a foundation for appeal.
The appeal from the judgment of the circuit court of Jackson County is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.