Judge Rules Illinois Public Transit Firearms Carry Ban Unconstitutional

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A federal judge recently ruled that Illinois’s ban on carrying guns in public transportation and in transportation facilities is unconstitutional, citing the Supreme Court’s 2022 landmark decision.

“After an exhaustive review of the parties’ filings and the historical record, as required by Supreme Court precedent, the Court finds that Defendants 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,” U.S. District Judge Iain D. Johnston wrote in his Aug. 30 opinion, referring to two Chicago-area transportation systems.

The judge was cited the Supreme Court’s decision, N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which found a New York law unconstitutional and that the ability to carry a pistol in public was a right guaranteed under the Second Amendment. The decision also said that, in future decisions, the judiciary should evaluate firearms regulations in light of the “historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

Under the Supreme Court’s 2022 standard for seeing whether firearms regulations fall under the Constitution, the government must demonstrate that the measure is within U.S. historical traditions.

Treating “any place where the government would want to protect public order and safety as a sensitive place casts too wide a net … [and] would seem to justify almost any gun restriction,” Johnston wrote.

He also rejected Illinois state attorneys’ arguments that the Bruen test did not apply in this case because the state, which owns the property, can regulate what individuals take onto its property.

“[I]ndividual rights isn’t nullified on public property,” he wrote.

Further, he added that the court found that the Second Amendment only “protects against governmental—not private—intrusion on rights and liberties.”

His ruling applies only to four named plaintiffs in the case, meaning that it did not strike down the gun ban in public transit in the state.

The lawsuit was brought by three Chicago-area residents and one individual from DeKalb County who hold concealed carry licenses, according to court papers.

The defendants in the case are Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, DeKalb County State’s Attorney Rick Amato, DuPage County State’s Attorney Robert Berlin, Cook County State’s Attorney Kimberly Foxx, and Lake County State’s Attorney Eric Rinehart.

In their 2022 filing, the plaintiffs argued that “because the public transportation carry ban prohibits persons from carrying a firearm while accessing public transportation, the ban severely restricts plaintiffs from exercising their right to self-defense outside of the home.”

“This directly violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution as held by the U.S. Supreme Court” in the Bruen and other ruling, they wrote.

Raoul had responded earlier this year in court papers saying that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently establish that restrictions on their ability to carry firearms on public transportation infringed on their Second Amendment rights. He also argued that the law is needed to protect public safety.

“All this suit would achieve is shifting the nature of the criminal charge from one statute to another; the desired conduct would still be unlawful,” his office wrote.

The Epoch Times has contacted David Sigale, the plaintiffs’ attorney, as well as Raoul’s office for comment on the ruling. It’s not clear whether Raoul, Foxx, or the other defendants are planning an appeal of Johnston’s decision.

Over the past few years, several legal challenges have been filed against Illinois’ gun laws, including a law that was signed by Gov. JB Pritzker in January 2023 that banned what he describes as “assault weapons” such as AR-15-style rifles and a number of other semiautomatic firearms. In July, the Supreme Court decided not to take up a challenge to the law.