Federal judge rules Illinois concealed-carry ban on public transportation violates Second Amendment

by Joe D. "Buck" Ruth

6:00am Wednesday, September 11, 2024

A federal judge issued a ruling Aug. 30 against the Illinois Firearms Concealed Carry Act, which bans carrying concealed firearms on public transit.

Judge Iain D. Johnston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled that the state law, 430 ILCS 66/65(a)(8), violates the Second Amendment, issuing declaratory judgment in favor of plaintiffs Benjamin Schoenthal, Mark Wroblewski, Joseph Vesel, and Douglas Winston.

Under the statute:

(a) A licensee under this Act shall not knowingly carry a firearm on or into: …

(8) Any 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.

The plaintiffs said they don't use public transportation as often as they would like because of the statute’s threat of criminal prosecution for carrying a concealed firearm on public transportation.

Johnston, who was appointed by President Donald J. Trump in 2020, wrote:

The Court finds that Defendants (state officials) failed to meet their burden to show an American tradition of firearm regulation at the time of the Founding that would allow Illinois to prohibit Plaintiffs — who hold concealed-carry permits — from carrying concealed handguns for self-defense onto the CTA and Metra.

The Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) operates about 140 bus routes and 242 miles of rapid transit railroad track in the Chicago region, according to court documents. The Metra commuter rail agency operates 11 lines in the six-county region. Those are the specific two public transit systems the plaintiffs said they would use, and they asked the judge to prohibit the state from enforcing the statute against them, claiming it is unconstitutional.

Johnston concluded:

Plaintiffs’ proposed conduct — carrying concealed handguns on public transit for self-defense — falls within the presumptive ambit of the Second Amendment, shifting the burden to Defendants to show that the Firearm Concealed Carry Act’s ban falls within the historical tradition of firearm regulation in this country. On the record before the Court in this case, Defendants (state officials) have failed to meet their burden.

Specifically, he ruled:

Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is granted in part. The Court grants declaratory relief against (Attorney General) Kwame Raoul, (Cook County State's Attorney) Kimberly Foxx, and (DuPage County State's Attorney) Robert Berlin, in their official capacities, that the Firearm Concealed Carry Act’s ban on carrying concealed firearms on public transportation, as defined in the statute, 430 ILCS 66/65(a)(8), violates the Second Amendment, as applied to:

Benjamin Schoenthal carrying a concealed firearm for self-defense on Metra, and on Metra’s real property to the extent necessary to ride Metra. …

Mark Wroblewski carrying a concealed firearm for self-defense on Metra, and on Metra’s real property to the extent necessary to ride Metra;

Joseph Vesel carrying a concealed firearm for self-defense on Metra and the CTA, and on Metra and the CTA’s real property to the extent necessary to ride Metra and the CTA; and

Douglas Winston carrying a concealed firearm for self-defense on Metra and the CTA, and on Metra and the CTA’s real property to the extent necessary to ride Metra and the CTA.

Johnston noted New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen (2022), a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court laid out the framework to be applied in analyzing regulations that restrict the bearing of arms:

... the Court introduced a new and fundamentally different two-step test, holding that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amend-
ment’s “unqualified command.”

The ruling highlights the importance of voting for a president who will appoint federal judges and justices who apply the Constitution and precedent to new cases, as opposed to legislating from the bench.