statute “does not implicate the fundamental right announced by Heller and ... McDonald, the right to possess a loaded handgun in the home for self-protection”); Aguilar, 408 Ill.App.3d at 143, 348 Ill.Dec. 575, 944 N.E.2d 816; Dawson, 403 Ill.App.3d at 508, 343 Ill.Dec. 274, 934 N.E.2d 598; but see Mimes, 352 Ill.Dec. 119, 953 N.E.2d at 73 (finding that the Second Amendment right as defined by Heller and McDonald is not limited to the home but ultimately holding that the AUUW statute’s ban on the carrying of an uncased, loaded, and accessible firearm in public nevertheless passed constitutional scrutiny). The Illinois Appellate Court has held repeatedly that the Illinois UUW and AUUW statutes do not violate the Second Amendment. See Williams, 357 Ill.Dec. 247, 962 N.E.2d at 1151-52 (<HOLDING>); People v. Montyce H., 2011 IL App (1st)
holding that exclusion of testimony as collateral and of speculative relevance did not violate defendants sixth and fourteenth amendment rights holding district court did not violate sixth amendment by admitting defendants outofcourt statement holding that statute which prohibited polygamy did not violate first amendment holding that the auuw statute did not violate the defendants second amendment rights holding that admitting evidence of a defendants prior statement to an investigator proffered by the commonwealth did not violate the defendants fifth amendment rights by forcing him to testify to dispute it