Illinois Public Transportation Carry Ban Ruled Unconstitutional

An Illinois Federal District Court Judge ruled that the state’s ban on carrying firearms on public transportation violates Second Amendment protections.

The plaintiffs sued over a law preventing carrying firearms on public transportation. After the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, Illinois passed the Illinois Firearm Concealed Carry Act (IFCCA), which placed restrictions on concealed carrying of guns. Many view the move as a rebuke of the SCOTUS decision. Places like Chicago have some of the strongest gun control in the country yet have rampant violence, including murders and robberies.

The first step of a Bruen analysis is to see if a law is consistent with the original text of the Second Amendment. The burden falls to the plaintiffs to prove that the Second Amendment covers the person and “arms” in question. The plaintiff in this case is a law-abiding citizen over the age of 18, which makes him a member of the “political class.” These distinctions mean that the man is part of “the people.” The arms in question are handguns. These are also protected “arms,” as SCOTUS affirmed in Heller.

Since the first step of Bruen was satisfied in the eyes of District Court Judge Iain Johnston, the burden shifts to the state to prove that the law is consistent with the history and tradition of firearms regulations from the founding era. Most legal scholars agree that the founding era started with the ratification of the Second Amendment in 1791. However, some liberal courts across the country chose the ratification date of the 14th Amendment in 1868 during the reconstruction period when the South was overrun with racist Jim Crow laws to disarm freed black Americans. The further a law is from the founding era, the less weight it carries.

The state must provide historical analogs from the founding era to prove that a law is allowed under the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court’s Rahimi opinion said that a historical analog doesn’t have to be a historical twin but must be similar to the challenged law. In the judge’s opinion, none of the historical analogs supplied by the state were close enough to the Illinois law banning firearms on public transportation.

“So as to not bury the lede, the Court finds that Defendants have failed to meet their burden,” the judge wrote. “That failure is dispositive. Still, mindful of the Seventh Circuit’s directive to develop a full record in the trial court, the Court will address the parties’ many arguments relating to historical analogues and other possible approaches to analyze the constitutionality of the Firearm Concealed Carry Act’s prohibition against carrying concealed firearms on public transportation.”

One of the laws the state cited was a North Hampton law from 1328, almost 450 years before the founding era. The plaintiff’s lawyer argued that this law was too far removed from the founding era to impact the case. The plaintiffs also argued that the law wasn’t American and had no weight in the case. The defendants argued that two commonwealth/state statutes were based on the North Hampton law, so the analogue should be allowed. The judge sided with the plaintiffs.

“Plaintiffs’ response to this argument draws on two reasons that Bruen deemed the Statute of Northampton to not be probative in that case,” the judge wrote. “First, they argue that the Statute of Northampton is too old and should therefore be afforded no weight in ascertaining an American tradition. Bruen, 597 U.S. at 41 (/[T]he Statute of Northampton—at least as it was understood during the Middle Ages—has little bearing on the Second Amendment adopted in 1791.’). State Defendants address this issue by citing the later state statutes that were based on the Statute of Northampton. This includes two commonwealth/state statutes from the Founding era: one from Virginia and one from North Carolina.”

The Trump-appointed judge ruled that the ban was unconstitutional and enjoined the state from enforcing the law as applied to the plaintiff. Illinois is expected to appeal the judge’s ruling to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

About John Crump

Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.