In a landmark ruling, a federal judge has declared Illinois’ ban on carrying concealed firearms on public transportation unconstitutional. U.S. District Judge Iain Johnston, in a decision issued on August 30, 2024, ruled that Illinois’ Firearm Concealed Carry Act, which prohibits carrying firearms on buses, trains, and public transit facilities, violates the Second Amendment rights of lawful gun owners. This ruling could have significant implications for gun regulations, especially regarding location-based restrictions.
The case, Schoenthal v. Raoul, was brought forward by four Illinois residents who hold concealed carry permits. They argued that the state’s restrictions prevented them from carrying firearms for self-defense while using public transit, thereby infringing on their Second Amendment rights. Judge Johnston agreed, stating that the plaintiffs’ right to bear arms for self-defense is protected under the Constitution, even on public transportation.
In his opinion, Judge Johnston dismissed the state’s argument that it could regulate firearms on public property the same way a private property owner could. He called this view “breathtaking” and emphasized that such a broad interpretation of government powers had been rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court long ago. Johnston found that the law was not supported by any historical tradition of firearms regulation dating back to the nation’s founding.
Illinois had argued that public transportation should be considered a “sensitive place,” similar to schools and government buildings, where firearm restrictions are more widely accepted. However, the judge ruled that Illinois failed to provide a valid historical precedent for this claim, pointing out that public transportation is not equivalent to those traditionally sensitive areas. Johnston also rejected the state’s attempt to use historical analogues, such as statutes from the 19th century, as a defense, finding them insufficient to justify the ban.
Although the ruling only applies directly to the four plaintiffs involved in the case, it paves the way for broader legal challenges to the ban.
The case is part of a growing wave of lawsuits following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which set a new standard for evaluating gun laws. Under Bruen, governments must demonstrate that gun regulations are consistent with the historical tradition of firearm regulation in the U.S., a burden Illinois could not meet in this case.
The decision has sparked a strong reaction from both sides. Gun rights advocates hailed the ruling as a victory for lawful gun owners. Alan Gottlieb, the founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, praised the court for rejecting the state’s expansive claims of authority over public transportation. On the other hand, Illinois officials, including Attorney General Kwame Raoul and Governor J.B. Pritzker, expressed disappointment. Raoul’s office indicated they are considering an appeal, with Governor Pritzker criticizing what he called “misguided decisions” by conservative judges and expressing hope that the ban could still be upheld at a higher court.
This ruling represents a significant development in the ongoing legal battle over Second Amendment rights, particularly in urban areas where gun control laws are often more stringent. While the immediate impact is limited to the plaintiffs, the broader implications could be far-reaching, potentially leading to the lifting of firearm restrictions on public transit across Illinois.
For now, legal experts and gun rights activists are watching closely as the case proceeds, with many anticipating that this ruling is one more stepping stone toward further expansion of Second Amendment protections in public spaces.
“…where firearm restrictions are more widely accepted.”
I don’t recall accepting that. Did some one accept it for me?
HLB
What I don’t understand is why this ruling would only apply to the 4 plaintiffs in the case. If the court rules it’s unconstitutional for them, why isn’t it unconstitutonal for everyone? Does everyone who wants the carry on public transit in Chicago need to file their own lawsuit, to get their very own “permission slip” from the court?
if shitzker would take public transit, with no personal security detail paid for by the citizens of illinois, to and from work then maybe i would be open to listening to his fat face.
what are the odds that he would ever take public transit, even with his personal security detail? i would take that bet.
he and raoul should think long and hard about an appeal because this just might set precedent that will come back to bite them in their fat backside.
Oh, hey, we say that you have no right to protect yourself where ever we deem it to be so. That law is in place for your protection and the safety of others, cant you understand that? If there is a problem, call law enforcement and we will protect you if we can get a LEO to the next stop in time if you are able to call us and let us know on your cell phone while the criminal, who holds a gun, is pointing it at you the government never said!!! Oh, and by the way, let us… Read more »
Politicians with laws never stop bad guys with guns, evil intent.
They only control the good guys, which is their true agenda..
Good ruling for the four plaintiffs, but not good enough for the four poor souls who were murdered while sleeping on a Chicago train last week. When will this restrictive gun control nonsense end?
IMOA, full auto strapped on my back until needed.
HLB
The following statement from the article is false or misleading:
All Bruen did was provide a paint-by-numbers picture of how to apply Heller for the multitude of judges too illiterate to comprehend. What SCOTUS failed to account for was not the illiteracy of the judges but their political activism.