5/24-l(a)(4), (10); 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(a). Additionally, unlike the ordinance at issue in Ezell, neither the UUW statute nor the AUUW statute burdens anything that could be considered a necessary corollary to that right because the statutes do not, for example, prevent qualified individuals from purchasing a firearm, obtaining proficiency in firearm use, or transporting a firearm. See Ezell, 651 F.3d at 708-10. Therefore, the UUW and AUUW statutes do not infringe upon the core Second Amendment right recognized b AUUW statutes do not infringe upon a core right protected by the Second Amendment. Further, the Supreme Court has not recognized a right to bear firearms outside the home and has cautioned courts not to expand on its limited holding. See Heller, 554 U.S. at 635, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (<HOLDING>). Rather, the Supreme Court has validated the
recognizing that the eighth amendment protects individuals from a lingering death holding ban violated the sherman act holding that the eighth amendment to the united states constitution prohibits the execution of mentally retarded individuals holding that ban on unauthorized practice of law did not implicate the first amendment holding only that a ban that prohibits competent individuals from possessing operable handguns for selfdefense in their homes violated the second amendment