The fight for Second Amendment rights just rolled into a critical stop—Chicago’s Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In a pivotal oral argument in the case Schoenthal v. Raoul, a three-judge panel considered whether Illinois and Cook County can legally ban law-abiding gun owners from carrying on public transportation. This case could reshape how far the government can go in declaring “gun-free zones” in everyday spaces like buses and trains.
What’s the Issue & Why It Matters
Illinois law currently bans even concealed carry permit holders from carrying firearms on public transportation. So if you’ve jumped through all the hoops to legally carry, you’re still stripped of your right to self-defense the moment you board a train or bus. The district court already ruled this kind of blanket ban unconstitutional, agreeing it violates the Second Amendment. But now, the government is appealing, hoping the Seventh Circuit reverses that win for gun owners.
This case isn’t just about Chicago trains. If the Seventh Circuit rules against the Second Amendment, it could open the door for governments across the country to slap “no guns” signs on subways, buses, and any other shared public space—and get away with it. That’s why this case is drawing national attention.
The Bruen Standard: Government Bears the Burden
Mark Smith, host of Four Boxes Diner and a constitutional attorney, broke down the legal battle in plain terms. Under the 2022 Supreme Court ruling in Bruen, any gun control law must first pass the text of the Second Amendment—and then align with history and tradition from the Founding era (1791). Once the right is implicated (and a public carry ban clearly is), the burden shifts to the government to prove a historical basis for the restriction.
Here’s the kicker: Illinois and Cook County couldn’t point to a single Founding-era law banning guns on public transportation—because there wasn’t any.
Instead, they relied on late 1800s private railroad policies. That’s not enough. As Smith explains, private railroad companies in the 1800s aren’t government actors, and the Constitution only limits government actions—not private rules from over 75 years after the Second Amendment was ratified.
Are Trains “Sensitive Places”?
The state argued that public transportation should be treated as a “sensitive place,” like a courthouse or polling station—where guns can be restricted. But as Smith points out, the Supreme Court made it clear in Bruen that being “crowded” or full of “vulnerable people” isn’t enough to declare a place gun-free.
At the Founding, even churches (arguably crowded and vulnerable) didn’t ban guns—in fact, congregants were sometimes required to be armed. What made a location “sensitive” in 1791? Actual, comprehensive security—armed guards, metal detectors, or state protection. A McDonald’s with Secret Service protection for one day during a Trump visit? Maybe. But every day, train cars in Chicago with no armed guards or security screening? That doesn’t cut it.
The Standing Problem: A Legal Double Standard?
Smith also highlighted the frustrating legal obstacle gun rights plaintiffs constantly face—standing. Even though it’s obvious these citizens are being denied their right to carry, courts still tie up cases for years, arguing over whether they even have the right to sue. Meanwhile, activist plaintiffs suing over immigration or social policy get fast-tracked emergency rulings.
It’s a two-tiered system—and it’s time that changed.
What’s Next?
Smith doesn’t expect a win at this stage. With a panel of judges appointed by Reagan, Trump, and Biden—but leaning against gun rights—he predicts the court may rule against plaintiffs either on standing or the merits. But that just sets the stage for a bigger battle ahead—potentially at the Supreme Court.
This is how we advance: step by step, court by court, always fighting to restore the Second Amendment to its full force. And if this bad ruling comes down, expect a strong push for an en banc rehearing or a cert petition to SCOTUS.
Bottom Line:
If the courts say the government can ban guns on subways with no historical justification and no actual security, then no public place is safe from becoming a gun-free zone. That’s why Schoenthal v. Raoul matters—and why we must stay engaged, informed, and ready for the next round.
Stay alert. Stay armed. Stay free. Stay dangerous.
▶ Subscribe to our friend Mark Smith at Four Boxes Diner on YouTube for more legal breakdowns like this.
NRA Files Amicus Brief in Challenge to Illinois’s Public Transit Carry Ban
Federal Judge Strikes Down Illinois Public Transit Gun Ban as Unconstitutional
Portland Oregon’s MAX train system started out banning guns on all trains, which included station areas…. any property owned or controlled by the MAX. Many refused to use those trains for their commute. Things went on that way for some time. then the gangbangers realised it was open season on the trains, and stations, and areas surrounding them. Muggings, armed robberies, beatings, etc became too common. The MAX board held a meeting.. WHY is this happening?WAT can we DO about it? here is a growing decline in ridership,we are not making our needed revenue. One board member stepped up and… Read more »
If bearing arms is a right (it is) and the public has a right to use PUBLIC (there’s a hint there) transportation, it follows that armed citizens should be able ride trains.
This set of Supremes has been all over the map, though, so I don’t expect logic or consistency.
this really shows how crooked courts are
The author states that an unfavorable ruling “could open the door for governments across the country to slap “no guns” signs on subways, buses, and any other shared public space”. It would be a huge surprise to learn that this is not already the case for most all of public transportation.
In my book, if the case involves constitutionally-delineated rights, every American citizen, and even legal non-citizens, have standing. In these kinds of cases “standing” is an excuse used by the courts to avoid ruling the way the Constitution and/or precedent dictates, especially when it will make the powers that be unhappy. Standing makes sense in civil cases. If your car catches on fire due to a manufacturing flaw, and you’re injured, do I have a right to sue the manufacturer even if I have the same kind of car? Probably not, but if you win or settle your case, I… Read more »
I suspect they’ll use the airline firearm ban argument, but if Bruen is really to be followed, they may want to reconsider it because that policy is not as old as the country or civil aviation. As proof, my cousin still has a 1960’s vintage TWA tag on his late father’s shotgun case which reads “Firearm, Carry On”.
Mark Smith should be the next S. Ct. appointee. The libtards, and marxist democrats will say that he is not qualified, but he is and that is what they are afraid of.
So even on passenger trains, liberals fear being shot.
l carry EVERYwhere. Try and stop me.
Mark, you state in many of your videos the reason why teachers, at the time of the founding and acting as parents, COULD restrict students from possessing guns. But WHY did they impose that restriction? To address dueling? So they would not skip class and go hunting? The latter also the reason to ban the keeping of dogs? It would be helpful to have a “why” to go with the “what.”