Case Name: MICHAEL KALODIMOS et al., Appellants, v. THE VILLAGE OF MORTON GROVE, Appellee
Court: Illinois Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1984-10-19
Citations: 103 Ill. 2d 483
Docket Number: No. 58467
Parties: MICHAEL KALODIMOS et al., Appellants, v. THE VILLAGE OF MORTON GROVE, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Reports, Second Series
Volume: 103
Pages: 483–529

Head Matter:
(No. 58467.
MICHAEL KALODIMOS et al., Appellants, v. THE VILLAGE OF MORTON GROVE, Appellee.
Opinion filed October 19, 1984.
RYAN, C.J., and MORAN and UNDERWOOD, JJ., dissenting.
James W. Kissell, David W. Carpenter, and Ted K. Yasuda, of Sidley & Austin, of Chicago (Richard V. Houpt, Sheldon Davidson and Donald J. Moran, of Pederson & Houpt, of Chicago, and Michael K. McCabe, Richard E. Gardiner, and Robert Dowlut, of Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellants.
Martin C. Ashman, of Martin C. Ashman, Ltd., and Thomas P. Sullivan, Michael H. Salsbury, and Eugene R. Wedoff, of Jenner & Block, of Chicago, for appellee.
Stephen P. Halbrook, of Fairfax, Virginia, and James Valentino, Jr., of Chicago, for amici curiae Illinois Small Business Men’s Association et al.
Victor D. Quilici, of Bensenville, and Robert G. Johnston and Kenneth A. Michaels, Jr., of Chicago, for amici curiae Illinois State Rifle Association and the Illinois Gun Collectors Association.
Gregory C. Picken, of Barron, Lehman, Picken & Raskin, P.A., of Miami, Florida, for amicus curiae American Federation of Police.
Duane D. Morse and Valerie A. Lambiase, of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, of Washington, D.C. (James S. Campbell, of counsel), for amicus curiae Handgun Control, Inc.

Opinion:
JUSTICE SIMON
delivered the opinion of the court:
An ordinance of the village of Morton Grove banning the possession of all operable handguns, apparently the first of its kind in the nation, withstood a challenge under the second and ninth amendments to the United States Constitution. (Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove (7th Cir. 1982), 695 F.2d 261, cert. denied (1983), 464 U.S. 863, 78 L. Ed. 2d 170, 104 S. Ct. 194.) In that decision the Federal court also concluded that the ordinance was permissible under the Illinois Constitution. (695 F.2d 261, 265-69.) This appeal calls upon this court to determine the meaning of our State constitution by defining the scope of the relevant State constitutional provision, deciding whether the ordinance passes muster under it, and, if so, deciding whether it is permissible under the constitutional home rule power and the police power.
The ordinance (Morton Grove, Ill., Ordinance 81 — 11 (June 8, 1981)) provides that "[n]o person shall possess, in the Village * [a]ny handgun, unless the same has been rendered permanently inoperative." It exempts from its operation peace officers, prison officials, members of the armed forces, reserve units and the Illinois National Guard, security guards duly employed by a commercial or industrial enterprise or a public utility, and members of licensed gun clubs who entrust their handguns to the club for safekeeping when not using them for target shooting or other recreational purposes. Antique firearms are also specifically exempted from the ordinance.
Morton Grove residents filed this action seeking an injunction and a declaratory judgment that the ordinance violates article I, section 22, of the Illinois Constitution and is an unreasonable exercise of the police power. The circuit court of Cook County entered summary judgment in favor of the village, and the appellate court affirmed (113 Ill. App. 3d 488). We granted leave to appeal and permitted various parties to file briefs amicus curiae on both sides.
I. THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO ARMS
Article I, section 22, added to the Illinois Constitution in 1970, provides:
"Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, sec. 22.)
The section does not mirror the second amendment to the Federal Constitution (U.S. Const., amend. II); rather it adds the words "[sjubject only to the police power," omits prefatory language concerning the importance of a militia, and substitutes "the individual citizen" for "the people." The majority report of the Bill of Rights Committee of the constitutional convention, which framed the provision, makes clear that the latter two changes were intended to broaden the scope of the right to arms from a collective one applicable only to weapons traditionally used by a regulated militia (see United States v. Miller (1939), 307 U.S. 174, 83 L. Ed. 1206, 59 S. Ct. 816) to an individual right covering a wider variety of arms. Report of the Bill of Rights Committee on the Preamble and Bill of Rights (hereinafter cited as Committee Report), 6 Record of Proceedings, Sixth Illinois Constitutional Convention (hereinafter cited as Proceedings) 87 (1970).
Equally distinctive, however, is the explicit recognition of "the police power" as a limitation on the liberty the provision affords. The Bill of Rights Committee explained in its report that "[bjecause arms pose an extraordinary threat to the safety and good order of soci ety, the possession and use of arms is subject to an extraordinary degree of control under the police power." (Committee Report, 6 Proceedings 88.) The committee report described, with specific citations, five types of regulatory measures that had been approved in other States as not infringing an individual right to arms, including a complete ban on "certain deadly weapons not commonly and peacefully used by individuals, such as machine guns, firearms equipped with silencing devices, gas-ejecting devices, blackjacks, artillery weapons, bombs, etc." (Committee Report, 6 Proceedings 89) and a total prohibition of "the sale of some weapons in some circumstances" (Committee Report, 6 Proceedings 90, citing Biffer v. City of Chicago (1917), 278 Ill. 562, and a Texas case, Caswell & Smith v. State (Tex. Civ. App. 1912), 148 S.W. 1159, which approved a confiscatory tax on all sales of pistols).
Plaintiffs contend that section 22 is ambiguous and that the ambiguity can only be resolved to mean that while the State and its subdivisions have the power to regulate the possession and use of weapons which are commonly used for recreation or protection of person and property, such as by requiring that all purchasers of handguns be licensed (see Biffer v. City of Chicago (1917), 278 Ill. 562), they may not enact a flat ban on such weapons or any discrete category of them. Plaintiffs also argue that the proper focus in' interpreting a constitutional provision such as section 22 must be on the common understanding of the citizens of the State who voted to adopt the Constitution.
The meaning of a constitutional provision depends, of course, on the common understanding of the citizens who, by ratifying the Constitution, gave it life. (People ex rel. Cosentino v. County of Adams (1980), 82 Ill. 2d 565, 569; Client Follow-Up Co. v. Hynes (1979), 75 Ill. 2d 208, 222.) This understanding, however, is best deter mined by referring to the common meaning of the words used. (Coalition for Political Honesty v. State Board of Elections (1976), 65 Ill. 2d 453, 464.) The plain language of the provision clearly leaves the right to bear any type of arms subject to the police power. This belies any assertion that a majority of the voters must have interpreted the plain words of the provision as ruling out any specific regulatory measure. The official explanation which all voters received also left considerable leeway for regulation of guns by stating that under section 22 "the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed, except as the exercise of this right may be regulated by appropriate laws to safeguard the welfare of the community." 7 Proceedings 2689.
The insight offered by these materials is consistent with the interpretation of the provision advanced by the delegates who voted to adopt it. The meaning which the delegates to the convention attached to a provision in the Constitution before sending it to the voters for ratification is relevant in resolving ambiguities which may remain after consulting the language of the provision. (Client Follow-Up Co. v. Hynes (1979), 75 Ill. 2d 208, 220; People ex rel. Keenan v. McGuane (1958), 13 Ill. 2d 520, 527; see, e.g., Drury v. County of McLean (1982), 89 Ill. 2d 417, 422-23.) The reason is that it is only with the consent of the convention that such provisions are submitted to the voters in the first place.
When presented with the report of the Bill of Rights Committee, the delegates to the convention were faced with a choice of adopting the so-called "majority report," which set forth section 22 in substantially the form in which it was enacted; adopting the "minority report," which recommended that the constitution remain silent concerning a right to arms; or adopting the "Lawlor amendment," which read: "The right of the individual to firearms or other means necessary for de fense of his person or safeguarding of his property shall not be denied or infringed. The use of deadly weapons for hunting or other sports shall be subject to regulations established by law." (3 Proceedings 1704.) The Lawlor proposal and the minority report were both rejected. The majority report, which was accepted by the convention, was introduced by Delegate Leonard Foster, who stated:
"[I]t was urged on us that the right to keep and bear some form of firearm should be put into the constitution. * [W]e added a qualifier that the right to bear arms would be subject only to the police power of the state
In general, the committee feels that the state has the right * to regulate firearms; that is to say, to determine who can have them and under what circumstances *. [W]e feel that under this provision, the state would have the right to prohibit some classes of firearms, such as war weapons, handguns, or some other category." (Emphasis added.) 3 Proceedings 1687 (statement of Delegate Foster).
In the debate following the opening statements, Mr. Foster was questioned as follows by Delegate Elmer Gertz:
"MR. GERTZ: * [Ujnder [the] provision, would it be possible for the city or the state to ban all hand guns, except those in the hands of police officers?
MR. FOSTER: It would be possible to ban all hand guns, including those in the hands of police officers." (Emphasis in original.) (3 Proceedings 1689.)
This response was amplified the following day when, in his introduction of the minority report, Mr. Gertz asserted that "[i]t was admitted yesterday, that the [majority report] would prevent a complete ban of hand guns, for example," and Mr. Foster interjected, "[T]hat is inaccurate. The statement of the majority was that it would prevent a complete ban on all guns, but there could be a ban on certain categories." (3 Proceedings 1693.) In addition, Delegate Matthew Hutmacher, who, along with Delegate Foster, presented the majority report stated that the scope of the police power under the right-to-arms provision was coextensive with "due process" (3 Proceedings 1689 (statement of Delegate Hutmacher)). Shortly before the vote which rejected the minority report, Mr. Foster stated:
"It is the position of the majority that under the police power of the state, the legislature would have the authority, for example, to forbid all hand guns. * [I]t is still the position of the majority that, short of an absolute and complete ban on the possession of all firearms, this provision would leave the legislature free to regulate the use of firearms in Illinois." (Emphasis added.) 3 Proceedings 1718 (statement of Delegate Foster).
During the course of the debates, several delegates who later voted in favor of the majority report voiced an understanding of the report that was similar to Mr. Foster's. For example, one delegate observed that "as everyone has said— * hand guns are by far and away the problem in this country and in this state *. This [section] does not in any way attempt or intend * [to] restrict the state or the county or the city or any other government within our confines of a reasonable * control over hand guns. And I submit to you that that would include the prohibition *." (Emphasis added.) (3 Proceedings 1717-18 (statement of Delegate Durr).) Another suggested that, far from obstructing State or local legislation aimed at controlling firearms, the majority report gave constitutional sanction to such legislation for the first time. (3 Proceedings 1709-10 (statement of Delegate Elward).) Others stated that, as they understood it, the majority report was a safeguard against the confiscation of all firearms and nothing more. (3 Proceedings 1711 (statement of Delegate Kelleghan), 1712 (statement of Delegate Downen).) Other delegates simply accepted Mr. Foster's understanding of the extent to which the majority report would permit regulation of guns. 3 Proceedings 1711 (statement of Delegate Kel-Ieghan), 1719 (statements of Delegates Daley and Kamin).
Conspicuously absent from the debates is any expression by any delegate who favored the majority report that handguns could not be banned under the majority proposal. The only suggestions of this kind were made by delegates who opposed the majority report, and were offered only to demonstrate the possibility that voters or the courts might interpret the right bestowed by section 22 too expansively in favor of the right to arms. (See 3 Proceedings 1694 (statement of Delegate Weisberg), 1710 (statement of Delegate Fay), 1714 (statement of Delegate Ladd).) The plaintiffs argue that these statements show that there was no common understanding among the delegates who voted on the section. However, "the court is not justified in relying upon arguments against a proposed constitutional amendment 'as seen by the minority,' to determine its meaning after adoption. A precedent so holding would be mischievous in the opportunity it would afford a minority to frustrate the purpose of the [constitutional convention] and the voters." Hanley v. Kusper (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 452, 460.
Plaintiffs contend that the natural interpretation of the words "police power," and that which the voters must have had. in mind when considering section 22 under which all classes of firearms rather than merely military ones are protected, includes regulation of such firearms but not a prohibition of any class of arms. We see no basis for this argument. This court has long recognized that the police power comprehends laws "restraining or prohibiting anything harmful to the welfare of the people" (People v. Warren (1957), 11 Ill. 2d 420, 425; see Acme Specialties Corp. v. Bibb (1958), 13 Ill. 2d 516, 518-19, cert. denied (1958), 358 U.S. 840, 3 L. Ed. 2d 74, 79 S. Ct. 64 (ban on sale of sparklers upheld as a proper exercise of the police power)), and no convincing evidence has been produced that the voters ascribed a different meaning to the term in the context of section 22.
The plaintiffs refer to newspaper articles and editorials which they argue led voters to believe that no class of weapons would be subject to complete prohibition (e.g., Con-Con Questions, Answers, Illinois State Register, Dec. 10, 1970, at 2, col. 2; Con-Con unit tested—votes conservative, Chicago Daily News, Feb. 27, 1970 (State ed.), at 11, col. 1; Editorial, The sickening rise in gun killings, Chicago Sun-Times, June 11, 1970, at 71, col. 1; Editorial, A document in democracy, Chicago Sun-Times, June 7, 1970, sec. 2, at 11, col. 1; Editorial, Con-con under the gun, Chicago Sun-Times, Mar. 4, 1970, at 35, col. 1; Editorial, Wrong decision on guns, Chicago Daily News, Feb. 27, 1970 (evening ed.), at 14, col. 1; Editorial, Gun play at con con, Chicago Daily News, Feb. 24, 1970 (evening ed.), at 10, col. 1). These articles either expressed the general fear that the provision as debated and passed by the convention would nullify existing gun-control laws and prevent the passage of new ones or reported similar expressions of fear by convention delegates who had opposed the provision.
Consistent with Client Follow-Up Co. v. Hynes (1979), 75 Ill. 2d 208, 224-25, we recognize that it may not be improper to ascertain the common understanding of a constitutional provision by reference to news reports. (See Wolfson v. Avery (1955), 6 Ill. 2d 78, 89-92.) In this case, however, to support the plaintiffs' position on the basis of the materials offered in evidence would be neither fair nor accurate. With one exception, the relevant articles and editorials cited to us were contained in the Chicago Daily News and the Chicago Sun-Times. These were published in the same city and had several competitors in their home market. No evidence has been introduced as to the interpretation which newspapers in other parts of the State placed on the right-to-arms provision or the debates which produced it, nor are we told of the understanding communicated by the other newspapers or magazines which Chicago area residents who voted might have read. We are not aware of how many voters read the publications cited, how many of those read the particular articles in question, or how and to what extent those who did read the articles were influenced by them. By contrast, the text of the right-to-arms provision and the official explanation were made available to everyone who voted. Their import was that regulation consistent with the public welfare would be permitted; they did not suggest that such regulation would not include bans on discrete categories of weapons. For these reasons, we conclude that in this case, because of their inconclusive character, the newspaper articles on which the plaintiffs rely should not change our decision.
Based on the floor debates and the official explanation, as well as on the language of the provision, it is apparent to us that section 22, as submitted to the voters, meant that a ban on all firearms that an individual citizen might use would not be permissible, but a ban on discrete categories of firearms, such as handguns, would be. Convincing indications that the voters ascribed a different meaning to the provision not having been offered by the plaintiffs, we conclude, along with the Federal courts (Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove (7th Cir. 1982), 695 F.2d 261, cert. denied (1983), 464 U.S. 863, 78 L. Ed. 2d 170, 104 S. Ct. 194), that a reasonable prohibition of handguns is constitutional in this State.
Plaintiffs point out that handguns are a form of weapon commonly used for defense of person and prop erty and, consequently, they fall within the general protection of section 22. They argue that there is no principle which permits the complete abridgment of one form of constitutionally protected behavior whenever other forms of behavior which enjoy the same form of protection and lead to a substantially similar end are permitted. However, the authorities which plaintiffs cite for this proposition (Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc. (1976), 425 U.S. 748, 757-58 n.15, 48 L. Ed. 2d 346, 355-56 n.15, 96 S. Ct. 1817, 1823 n.15; New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc. v. Village of Roslyn Estates (E.D.N.Y. 1979), 498 F. Supp. 922, 932) arose in the context of the first amendment. Unlike that amendment, which is designed to encourage the propagation and dissemination of views and ideas (Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment (1980), 444 U.S. 620, 632, 63 L. Ed. 2d 73, 84, 100 S. Ct. 826, 833-34; Hynes v. Mayor of Oradell (1976), 425 U.S. 610, 620, 48 L. Ed. 2d 243, 253, 96 S. Ct. 1755, 1760; Broadrick v. Oklahoma (1973), 413 U.S. 601, 611-12, 37 L. Ed. 2d 830, 839-40, 93 S. Ct. 2908, 2915) and depends to a large extent on the availability of a variety of forms of expression (e.g., Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego (1981), 453 U.S. 490, 500-03 & n.8, 69 L. Ed. 2d 800, 810-12 & n.8, 101 S. Ct. 2882, 2889-90 & n.8), the amendment with which we are dealing was designed neither to encourage nor to discourage the possession of firearms, but merely to guard against the confiscation of all such arms.
Nor do we find merit in plaintiffs' argument that section 22 is a nullity if construed to permit a ban on some of the very categories of weapons it was enacted to protect. We emphasize again that section 22 bestows upon individual citizens for the first time a right to possess some form of weapon suitable for self-defense or recrea tion, regardless of the adaptability of the weapon for use in an organized militia or of whether it is possessed for the purposes of forming a militia. The enactment of such a provision can scarcely be regarded as an idle gesture..
II. THE PROPRIETY OF THE ORDINANCE UNDER THE HOME RULE POWER
Plaintiffs argue that the regulation of firearms is inherently a matter of exclusive statewide concern because of the mobility of guns and gun owners, and that it is thus beyond the power of local governments acting under color of their home rule power (Ill. Const. 1970, art. VII, sec.. 6) to enact an ordinance banning handguns. They observe that it is conceivable that one home rule unit within the State may forbid some form of weapon which another home rule unit affirmatively requires (see Goreville, III, Ordinance 82 — 2 (Dec. 7, 1982) and Pitts-burg, Ill., Ordinance 83 — 3 (June 6, 1983) (requiring all resident heads of households, with certain enumerated exceptions, to own a firearm with ammunition)), that one whose possession of a handgun on his person is legal under the laws of his home town and the State would be severely inconvenienced and precluded from traveling via Morton Grove if possession of handguns by all persons within that village were unlawful (Morton Grove, Ill., Ordinance 81 — 11, sec. 2(B) (June 8, 1981)), and that in any event a handgun ban that applies only to one community without affecting others in the vicinity would do nothing to reduce the incidence of crimes committed with handguns within the affected community and might in fact attract armed criminals to the community from others nearby where handguns are readily available. City of Des Plaines v. Chicago & North Western Ry. Co. (1976), 65 Ill. 2d 1, 5-6; see Doe v. City and County of San Francisco (1982), 136 Cal. App. 3d 509, 186 Cal. Rptr. 380 (holding a municipal ordinance banning hand guns to be preempted by State law).
Article VII, section 6, of our constitution provides in relevant part:
"(a) * Except as limited by this Section, a home rule unit may exercise any power and perform any function pertaining to its government and affairs including, but not limited to, the power to regulate for the protection of the public health, safety, morals and welfare; *
(i) Home rule units may exercise and perform concurrently with the State any power or function of a home rule unit to the extent that the General Assembly by law does not specifically limit the concurrent exercise or specifically declare the State's exercise to be exclusive." (Ill. Const. 1970, art. VII, sec. 6.)
The limitation "pertaining to its government and affairs" has been interpreted to mean that " '*** the powers of home-rule units relate to their own problems, not to those of the state or the nation.' " City of Des Plaines v. Chicago & North Western Ry. Co. (1976), 65 Ill. 2d 1, 5.
Whether a particular problem is of statewide rather than local dimension must be decided not on the basis of a specific formula or listing set forth in the Constitution but with regard for the nature and extent of the problem, the units of government which have the most vital interest in its solution, and the role traditionally played by local and statewide authorities in dealing with it. (Ampersand, Inc. v. Finley (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 537, 539-41; see Report of the Committee on Local Government, 7 Proceedings 1621-22, 1652-57.) The committee which proposed the home rule provision to the constitutional convention gave examples in its majority report of regulations that do not pertain to local government and affairs, together with reasons the subject of the regulations was statewide in scope. Among such examples were ceilings on billing rates for local telephone calls or interest rates on mortgage loans made within the city or county because State or Federal regulation of utility rates and credit institutions was so extensive and long standing and the interest in uniform regulation so strong as to render those functions nonlocal in character, despite the primarily local impact of the specific ordinances in question. 7 Proceedings 1652; see People ex rel. Lignoul v. City of Chicago (1977), 67 Ill. 2d 480.
The plaintiffs seek to apply a free-wheeling preemption rule to the exercise of home rule power. They argue in effect that a subject is preempted whenever it is of significant concern to the State or whenever a uniform statewide solution to the problems it entails might arguably be more manageable than individual control by local units of government. Home rule, however, is predicated on the assumption that problems in which local governments have a legitimate and substantial interest should be open to local solution and reasonable experimentation to meet local needs, free from veto by voters and elected representatives of other parts of the State who might disagree with the particular approach advanced by the representatives of the locality involved or fail to appreciate the local perception of the problem. (See Report of the Committee on Local Government, 7 Proceedings 1605-11; City of Evanston v. Create, Inc. (1981), 85 Ill. 2d 101, 107; Kanellos v. County of Cook (1972), 53 Ill. 2d 161, 166; Baum, A Tentative Survey of Illinois Home Rule (Part I): Powers and Limitations, 1972 U. Ill. L.F. 137, 154-56.) To give home rule the latitude it requires, the court held in City of Evanston v. Create, Inc. that a city's substantial interest in regulating relations between landlord and tenant permitted the passage of an ordinance restricting landlords' rights in residential leases to a greater extent than a State statute on the subject, in the absence of any indication in the statute of an intent that State control of the field be exclusive or of any effect on residential leases outside the city as a result of the ordinance. This court has upheld the right of local governments to enact their own solutions to various other problems of local concern in the face of less stringent or conflicting State regulation, following a determination that the State's expression of interest in the subject as evidenced by its statutory scheme did not amount to an express attempt to declare the subject one requiring exclusive State control. (County of Cook v. John Sexton Contractors Co. (1979), 75 Ill. 2d 494 (county zoning ordinance restricting use of land for sanitary landfill purposes); Stryker v. Village of Oak Park (1976), 62 Ill. 2d 523 (ordinance specifying the composition of village's board of fire and police commissioners); Peters v. City of Springfield (1974), 57 Ill. 2d 142 (ordinance reducing mandatory retirement age for policemen and firemen below that specified by a State statute); Mulligan v. Dunne (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 544, cert. denied (1976), 425 U.S. 916, 47 L. Ed. 2d 768, 96 S. Ct. 1518 (county tax on retail sale of liquor).) These holdings follow the mandate of section 6(i) of the local government article of the Constitution that home rule units may exercise home rule powers concurrently with the State until the General Assembly "specifically" limits such exercise or declares the State's exercise to be exclusive. (Ill. Const. 1970, art. VII, sec. 6(i).) They also are consistent with sections 6(g) and 6(h) of that article (Ill. Const. 1970, art. VII, secs. 6(g), (h)), which provide the exclusive methods by which the legislature may preempt a home rule power.
Although plaintiffs contend that weapons control and crime prevention are matters of statewide rather than local concern, villages such as Morton Grove have an obvious interest not only in reducing premeditated crime within their boundaries but also in minimizing the effects of domestic violence or spontaneous quarrels. They also have an interest in reducing the possibility of serious accidents resulting from the accessibility to children of attractive but dangerous instrumentalities such as handguns. Moreover, the delegates to the constitutional convention acknowledged that weapons control was a field suitable for local regulation pursuant to home rule authority. After the right-to-arms provision emerged from the Bill of Rights Committee prefaced by the words "[s]ubject * to the police powers of the State" (emphasis added) (Report of the Bill of Rights Committee on the Preamble and Bill of Rights, 6 Proceedings 84), the words "of the State" were stricken by vote of the full convention following an objection that their presence might be construed to rule out the exercise of police powers by municipalities and other units of local government. 3 Proceedings 1702-03.
This case does not involve local regulation of a State institution such as the court system (Ampersand, Inc. v. Finley (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 537) or a regional institution such as a sanitary district (Metropolitan Sanitary District v. City of Des Plaines (1976), 63 Ill. 2d 256). Nor does it involve regulation of conduct outside the village of Morton Grove, as in City of Des Plaines v. Chicago & North Western Ry. Co. (1976), 65 Ill. 2d 1, except insofar as it may incidentally cause people who wish to carry a handgun while traveling to route themselves through other communities rather than Morton Grove. We do not view this as a reason to hold that weapons control does not pertain to local government or affairs, any more than the possibility that a village speed regulation might cause people who wish to go faster to route themselves around the village invalidates local speed laws. Nor would the possibility that different home rule units might adopt contradictory handgun laws be of concern in this regard. The grant of home rule powers contemplates that different communities which perceive a problem dif ferently may adopt different measures to address the problem, provided that the legislature has taken no affirmative steps to circumscribe the measures that may be taken and that the measures taken are reasonable.
Plaintiffs finally contend that the enactment by the State of statutes bearing on gun ownership, possession and sale evidence an intent to preempt the field of firearms regulation either expressly or by implication, and leave no room for local laws regulating or restricting possession of firearms. The statutes to which plaintiffs refer are article 24 of the Criminal Code of 1961 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 38, par. 24 — 1 et seq.) and "An Act relating to the acquisition, possession and transfer of firearms and firearm ammunition *" (the Firearms and Ammunition Act) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 38, par. 83 — 1 et seq.). The former is a criminal statute which makes it unlawful to possess certain specified weapons, including pistols and revolvers, on one's person "except when on his land or in his own abode or fixed place of business" (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 38, pars. 24 — 1(4), (10)) and subject to certain other exceptions. In addition, it provides that any possession of firearms or firearm ammunition by convicted felons, narcotics addicts, recent mental hospital patients, and certain other narrowly defined classes of people is illegal. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 38, par. 24 — 8.1.) The Firearms and Ammunition Act, enacted "to provide a system of identifying persons who are not qualified to acquire or possess firearms and firearm ammunition within the State of Illinois" (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 38, par. 83 — 1), requires all firearm owners to obtain an identification card from the Department of Law Enforcement and makes it illegal for anyone to sell or transfer a firearm or ammunition to a person who does not display a card. It gives the Department of Law Enforcement the authority to deny cards "only" to specified classes of people, including those who are narcotics addicts or mentally retarded, convicted felons, and persons under age 21 who have been convicted of misdemeanors or adjudged delinquent or who do not have the written consent of their parents or guardian to possess firearms or ammunition. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 38, par. 83-8.
Neither of these statutes suggests that firearms control is a subject for exclusive State involvement. In fact, the only statement in either act concerning the permissibility of more stringent local control is to the opposite effect: "The provisions of any ordinance enacted by any municipality which requires registration or imposes greater restrictions or limitations on the acquisition, possession and transfer of firearms than are imposed by this Act, are not invalidated or affected by this Act." (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 38, par. 83 — 13.1.) This provision, in the Firearms and Ammunition Act, refutes any contention that the use of the word "only" in section 8 of that act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 38, par. 83 — 8) was intended to declare that all persons not mentioned in that section are qualified to possess firearms notwithstanding municipal regulations to the contrary. This case is therefore distinguishable from Doe v. City and County of San Francisco (1982), 136 Cal. App. 3d 509, 186 Cal. Rptr. 380, in which a California statute otherwise similar to the two statutes we are considering affirmatively provided that persons who were not covered by its restrictions were entitled to possess firearms without a license or permit.
We likewise find no basis for concluding that the two acts on which plaintiffs rely leave no room for more restrictive local laws or are contradicted in any way by Morton Grove's ordinance. In passing, we state that we are not impressed by the fact, relied on by plaintiffs, that section 24 — 3(h) of the Criminal Code of 1961 outlaws the sale or delivery of only those handguns which melt or deform at less than 800 degrees Fahrenheit (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 38, par. 24 — 3(h)) and stops short of criminalizing the possession of all pistols and revolvers by all persons. In the absence of any indication that the legislature meant to bestow an affirmative right on all persons in the State not mentioned in the statute to possess handguns that do not melt at 800 degrees, these provisions do not prevent governmental units which would otherwise be able to regulate the possession of firearms from enacting regulations with a broader scope. See Brown v. City of Chicago (1969), 42 Ill. 2d 501, 504-05.
Plaintiffs argue that applying for an identification card in compliance with the Firearms and Ammunition Act involves disclosing certain information to State officials which may incriminate the applicant for purposes of prosecution under Morton Grove's ordinance in violation of the fifth and fourteenth amendments (see Leary v. United States (1969), 395 U.S. 6, 14-18, 23 L. Ed. 2d 57, 69-71, 89 S. Ct. 1532, 1536-39; Haynes v. United States (1968), 390 U.S. 85, 95-97, 19 L. Ed. 2d 923, 931-33, 88 S. Ct. 722, 729-30; Marchetti v. United States (1968), 390 U.S. 39, 44-49, 19 L. Ed. 2d 889, 895-98, 88 S. Ct. 697, 700-03), and therefore the ordinance cannot be sustained. In Haynes v. United States, a typical holding and the case most readily analogous to the one at bar, a Federal firearms-registration requirement was held to violate the privilege against self-incrimination in conjunction with a Federal statute which outlawed the possession of firearms under substantially the same circumstances as those which gave rise to the obligation to register. By contrast, whereas the Firearms and Ammunition Act requires an identification card of all persons who intend to possess "any firearm or any firearm ammunition within this State" (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 38, par. 83 — 2), the ordinance with which we are dealing out laws only the possession of handguns; permits everyone to possess a handgun that has been rendered permanently inoperative, or which is used solely for recreational purposes within the village and is kept on the premises of licensed gun clubs or outside village boundaries; and permits certain people, including commercial or industrial security guards, to possess operable handguns anywhere within the village. Inasmuch as the application for an identification card under the Firearms and Ammunition Act need not mention the applicant's occupation, the kind of firearm he wishes to possess, the place where he intends to keep it, or the purposes for which he intends to use it (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 38, pars. 83 — 4, 83 — 6), the only information Morton Grove authorities could glean from the application is that a resident of Morton Grove desires to possess a firearm. This information by itself would be of virtually no use in establishing a violation of the ordinance.
We therefore conclude that the ordinance is a permissible exercise of Morton Grove's home rule powers.
III. THE PROPRIETY OF THE ORDINANCE AS AN EXERCISE OF THE POLICE POWER
Plaintiffs contend that, inasmuch as guns and gun owners are highly mobile, the ordinance in question is valueless in preventing crime within the village of Morton Grove and may in fact encourage it by disarming law-abiding citizens. They argue that the ordinance is perverse as a safety measure and violates Federal and State guarantees of due process (U.S. Const., amends. V, XIV; Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, sec. 2). In related contentions, they argue that the ordinance, through its exemptions, arbitrarily discriminates between residents of the village in violation of equal protection guarantees, and that because of the fundamental nature of the right to bear arms in self-defense the ordinance is overbroad for purposes of due process and equal protection in that its substantive goals can be accomplished through various less restrictive means.
Initially we observe that the search for less onerous alternative means of securing a governmental interest is a hallmark of strict scrutiny, which comes into play only when a fundamental right is invaded. Not every right secured by the State or Federal constitutions is fundamental, however, but only those which "lie at the heart of the relationship between the individual and a republican form of nationally integrated government" (People ex rel. Tucker v. Kotsos (1977), 68 Ill. 2d 88, 97). While the right to possess firearms for purposes of self-defense may be necessary to protect important personal liberties from encroachment by other individuals, it does not lie at the heart of the relationship between individuals and their government. The right to arms guaranteed by the Federal Constitution has never been thought to be an individual right, as distinguished from a collective right (United States v. Miller (1939), 307 U.S. 174, 83 L. Ed. 1206, 59 S. Ct. 816); moreover, the right to arms secured by the Illinois Constitution, which did not exist prior to 1970, is subject, as we have explained, to substantial infringement in the exercise of the police power even though it operates on the individual level. See Rawlings v. Department of Law Enforcement (1979), 73 Ill. App. 3d 267, 274-75.
Under the rational-basis test, which is the appropriate level of scrutiny when no fundamental right is involved, the relevant inquiry for purposes of due process and equal protection is whether the Morton Grove ordinance bears a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental interest, not whether it is overly broad. (Lindsey v. Normet (1972), 405 U.S. 56, 70, 31 L. Ed. 2d 36, 48, 92 S. Ct. 862, 872; see Hayen v. County of Ogle (1984), 101 Ill. 2d 413, 421; Illinois Housing Development Authority v. Van Meter (1980), 82 Ill. 2d 116, 120.) In this regard the ordinance in its preamble defines the village's interest as reducing "the potentiality of firearm related deaths and injuries" caused by "the easy and convenient availability of certain types of firearms and weapons" and finds that "handguns play a major role in the commission of homicide, aggravated assault, and armed robbery, and accidental injury and death." (Morton Grove, Ill., Ordinance 81 — 11 (June 8, 1981).) Because of the ease with which handguns can be concealed and handled, as compared with other types of weapons, a ban on handguns under the conditions set forth in the ordinance could rationally have been viewed by the village as a way of reducing the frequency of premeditated violent attacks as well as unplanned criminal shootings in the heat of passion or in overreaction to fears of assault, accidental shootings by children or by adults who are unaware that a handgun is loaded, or suicides. We find of no significance the possibility that the ordinance was passed for the sole purpose of publicizing a political viewpoint, as the plaintiffs contend is demonstrated by the transcribed statements of the village trustees who approved the ordinance: police regulations and statutory classifications will be upheld "if any state of facts reasonably may be conceived to justify" them. McGowan v. Maryland (1961), 366 U.S. 420, 426, 6 L. Ed. 2d 393, 399, 81 S. Ct. 1101, 1105; Illinois Housing Development Authority v. Van Meter (1980), 82 Ill. 2d 116, 122.
For similar reasons, we find no constitutional infirmity in the fact that the ordinance permits security guards or special agents employed by railroads or public utilities to carry handguns regardless of their actual qualifications to possess or handle firearms without endangering the public, whereas ordinary citizens are not permitted to do so regardless of their qualifications or the urgency of their need to carry a gun. The village trustees could validly have believed that security guards as a group were likely to exercise greater responsibility in using their weapons than citizens generally, or it may simply have concluded that the private interest in protecting commercial premises was greater than the public interest in banning handgun possession in those few cases covered by the exemption of which plaintiffs complain. Because we cannot say that the classification is unrelated to the goals of the ordinance, we hold that it is a proper exercise of the police power.
Plaintiffs, noting that the case was dismissed upon the entry of summary judgment by the circuit court, urge us to remand the cause to that court for consideration of additional evidence that may have a bearing on the rationality of the ordinance. Our review, however, is not one of fact but purely one of law, and our conclusion is compelled by the judgment that the ordinance bears a rational relation to the goal of reducing weapons-related injuries and accidents within the village of Morton Grove. Minimal scrutiny requires nothing more, and we do not perceive how a remand might alter this judgment. For the reasons stated, therefore, we conclude that the ordinance is a proper exercise of the police power authority.
The judgments of the appellate and circuit courts are affirmed.
Judgments affirmed.