State high court weighs whether a nonviolent felony bars gun ownership

The Illinois Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday over gun ownership rights for someone convicted of a nonviolent felony.

The case between the state of Illinois and James Benson centers around whether a nonviolent felon should be allowed to own a firearm. The charges stem from a 2021 altercation between Benson, his then-girlfriend and her friend in an apartment on Chicago’s South Side.

The cops were called and Benson, who had a prior felony conviction for unlawfully carrying a firearm in public without a state firearms permit, was convicted of domestic battery, reckless discharge of a firearm, and unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon.

Lower courts held against Benson, who is only appealing the unlawful gun possession conviction.

Elizabeth Cook, the attorney representing Benson, argued that restricting the defendant's right to own a firearm was unconstitutional given that his only felony at the time of the incident was nonviolent.

“Violating the law is not the same as being a dangerous person,” Cook said. “In Illinois, we have a lot of felonies that are not characterized by violence.”

She explained how a court’s ruling in favor of the state would restrict gun access for people convicted of eavesdropping, driving without a permit and transporting hazardous waste without a permit.

“These are all felonies that do not carry any threat of physical violence to another person.”

The state argued that Benson could have petitioned to have his firearm rights restored through legal avenues.

“If the defendant is saying, ‘I should have an opportunity to show that I am not dangerous; to show that I should have my firearm rights restored despite committing a felony, because I am not dangerous,’ he could have taken advantage of the mechanism for restoring his firearm rights and didn’t,” said Garson Fischer, a lawyer in Attorney General Kwame Raoul’s office.

The seven supreme court justices spent considerably more time questioning Benson’s case, citing concerns about how the 2nd Amendment applies to “law-abiding citizens,” and whether he could be considered a “non-violent” felon given the violent convictions associated with the new case.

Benson’s attorney concluded by saying “The 2nd Amendment protects a core constitutional right: the right to bear arms.”

“This right is a fundamental right to being an American and is no less important than the rights to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble peaceably and freedom from unlawful search and seizure,” Cook said. “These basic rights form the foundation of the American government and identity.”