Seventh Circuit Upholds Illinois’s Carry Ban on Public Transportation

A three-judge panel from the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has upheld an Illinois law that bans the carrying of loaded firearms on public transportation.

Following the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, Illinois enacted the Firearms Concealed Carry Act (FCCA), which permits its residents to obtain a license to carry a concealed firearm in public. The law enumerates places where citizens are prohibited from carrying a gun, even with a concealed carry license. One of the areas highlighted by the law is public transportation.

Gun owners can not have easily accessible loaded firearms on buses or trains operated by Illinois localities. Anyone violating the law can be charged with a Class B misdemeanor and face up to six months in jail and a fine of $1,500.

The law reads: “[a]ny bus, train, or form of transportation paid for in whole or in part with public funds, and any building, real property, and parking area under the control of a public transportation facility paid for in whole or in part with public funds.”

Three Illinois residents came together to sue the state because they feel that the law banning the carrying of loaded firearms on public transportation violates their Second Amendment-protected right to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court’s Heller decision stated that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. The Supreme Court’s Bruen opinion would go further and clarify that the right extends outside the home with very few exceptions. The plaintiffs believed that public transportation is not one of those exceptions.

At the District Court level, the state tried to argue that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring a case challenging the law. The judge rejected the standing challenge by stating, “[t]he undisputed facts show that each plaintiff would carry a concealed handgun on public transportation for the purpose of self-defense if not for the Firearm Concealed Carry Act’s ban and its threat of arrest and prosecution.” Therefore, the district court concluded that “Plaintiffs’ injuries trace back to the threat of enforcement” and “a declaration would redress that injury.”

Illinois then attempted to argue that the law was constitutional. The District Court used a Bruen analysis to determine if it was unconstitutional. The plain text covers the plaintiffs, as they are part of the people, and they wanted to carry bearable arms, so the conduct was presumably constitutional. The state presented historical analogues to demonstrate that the concealed carry law banning the carrying of guns on public transportation was consistent with the nation’s firearms regulation history and tradition from the founding era. They failed because the provided examples were too unrelated or far removed from the founding era. The District Court issued summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.

The state would appeal to the Seventh Circuit. They first tried to argue that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the case. The defendants tried to argue that the District Court lost jurisdiction to enter a declaratory judgment. The Circuit Court rejected the argument without much justification, as the state’s argument was deemed so far-fetched. The state also attempted to argue that other rules are preventing the plaintiffs from carrying firearms on public transportation; therefore, even if the plaintiffs were to win the case, they would still be unable to carry guns, and they would face no injury if the law were allowed to stand. That argument also failed to sway the panel.

The three-judge panel would not address the sensitive area issue in the case. Instead, the judges would side-step the question of sensitive places by saying that the plaintiffs still have a right to bear arms on public transportation. According to the judges, the plaintiff’s rights are not violated because they can carry an unloaded gun in a secure case on a bus or train. To most people, this defeats the purpose of carrying a firearm for self-defense because a locked-up gun with no ammunition is useless. The judges remanded the case back to the District Court to issue a ruling consistent with the Circuit Court’s opinion.

The plaintiffs are expected to request an en banc hearing before the Circuit Court, where the full bench will consider the case. If an en banc hearing is granted, the panel’s decision will be vacated, and the District Court’s decision will stand until the en banc hearing.

Tenth Circuit Finds Ban On Gun Owners for Marijuana Use Is Unconstitutional

Fifth Circuit Rules NFA Registration is Constitutional

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.