People v. Benson: IL Felon Firearms Ban Under Bruen

On September 24, 2026, the Illinois Supreme Court decided People v. Benson, 2026 IL 131191. It affirmed his unlawful-possession-by-a-felon conviction and vacated the appellate court's analysis of his as-applied constitutional challenge because the trial record was inadequate to decide it. Read the official opinion.^[2]

Case Background

James Benson, a Chicago resident, was arrested following a domestic dispute with his girlfriend that began on December 23, 2021. During the altercation, a .40 caliber handgun was fired. Testimony at trial conflicted regarding who fired the weapon and who owned it.^[2]

Benson was charged with aggravated discharge of a firearm, misdemeanor domestic battery, and unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon under 720 ILCS 5/24-1.1. The felon-in-possession charge was based on a 2015 felony conviction for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (AUUW) without a Firearm Owner's Identification card. He was convicted of misdemeanor domestic battery, the lesser included offense of reckless discharge of a firearm, and unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. He received concurrent three-year sentences for domestic battery and reckless discharge and a concurrent four-year sentence for unlawful possession by a felon.^[3]

The Constitutional Challenge

Before the Illinois Supreme Court, Benson abandoned his facial challenge and argued that 720 ILCS 5/24-1.1 is unconstitutional as applied to his specific circumstances because his prior felony conviction was for a nonviolent offense. Section 24-1.1 prohibits any person convicted of any felony from "knowingly possess[ing] any firearm or any firearm ammunition." The statute draws no distinction between violent and nonviolent felonies, but it expressly exempts a person granted relief under Section 10 of the FOID Act (430 ILCS 65/10). Relief requests go to the FOID Card Review Board or the circuit court, as applicable.^[1]

The Bruen Framework

The U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen established a two-step test for evaluating firearms regulations under the Second Amendment. First, a court must determine whether the regulation burdens conduct that falls within the Second Amendment's plain text. If it does, the government must justify the regulation by demonstrating that it is "consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." Under Bruen, courts may no longer apply the means-end scrutiny (intermediate or strict scrutiny) that was previously common in firearms cases. Instead, the government must identify historical analogues that demonstrate a tradition of similar regulation.^[2]

Defense Arguments

Elizabeth Cook of the State Appellate Defender's Office argued that people with past felony convictions remain among "the people" protected by the Second Amendment. Cook contended that applying Section 24-1.1 to all felons, regardless of whether the underlying offense involved any threat of violence, fails to satisfy Bruen's historical tradition requirement.^[4]

She argued that historical practice does not support permanently disarming people based solely on a past felony conviction, irrespective of dangerousness.^[4]

State's Response

Assistant Attorney General Garson Fischer argued that historical tradition firmly supports the felon-in-possession statute. He argued that historical penalties of death and estate forfeiture, including for nonviolent offenses, support disarming convicted felons.^[3]

Fischer also pointed to Illinois's existing mechanism for firearm rights restoration. Section 10 of the FOID Act routes relief requests to the FOID Card Review Board or the circuit court depending on the basis for denial. Relief requires that the applicant have no forcible felony conviction within the previous 20 years or that at least 20 years have passed since the end of imprisonment for that conviction. The applicant's conviction circumstances, criminal history and reputation must show that the applicant is unlikely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety. Granting relief must not be contrary to the public interest or federal law. This process, Fischer argued, provides an individualized safety valve that addresses the concern about overbroad disarmament without requiring a constitutional ruling.^[3]

Cook countered that the FOID restoration process itself is constitutionally problematic under Bruen, because it places the burden on the individual to demonstrate fitness rather than requiring the government to justify the restriction. Under Bruen, the burden of historical justification is on the government.^[4]

National Context

Federal circuit courts have reached conflicting conclusions on whether the Second Amendment protects nonviolent felons from permanent firearms prohibitions. In United States v. Rahimi, the U.S. Supreme Court held in 2024 that a person found by a court to pose a credible threat to another person's physical safety may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment. The decision did not resolve whether the government may permanently disarm an individual. In Benson, the court required a factual record developed in the circuit court before it could decide the as-applied challenge.^[2]

The Court's Decision

The court declined to decide the merits of Benson's as-applied challenge because he had not raised it in the circuit court for an evidentiary hearing. It vacated the appellate court's merits analysis and affirmed his conviction. The decision does not hold the felon-possession statute unconstitutional. Read the official opinion.

Current Status

People v. Benson was decided on September 24, 2026. The court left his conviction in place without resolving the merits of his as-applied Second Amendment challenge. Read the official opinion.^[2]