* Tribune…
A federal judge in Rockford ruled it unconstitutional for Illinoisans with concealed carry permits to be prohibited from carrying guns on public transportation, a decision with uncertain implications for a decade-old state law.
The decision was a result of a 2022 lawsuit filed by four people who alleged the section of Illinois’ concealed carry law that bars holders of concealed carry licenses, or CCLs, from carrying the guns on public buses or trains violated their Second Amendment right to self-defense under the U.S. Constitution.
At issue in U.S. District Judge Iain Johnston’s ruling was a constitutional test requiring gun laws to be “historically” consistent with laws on the books in the 18th century, when the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms was written, or before that.
This arose from the landmark 2022 case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, in which the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative 6-3 majority established the new constitutional standard, which will also take center stage later this month when a federal judge representing southern Illinois hears arguments over the constitutionality of the state’s ban on so-called assault weapons. […]
On Monday, the plaintiffs’ attorney, David Sigale, welcomed the ruling and said that while its “technical impact is unclear” and mentions only his four clients, “the court’s analysis and ultimate declaration of unconstitutionality is arguably applicable to any CCL holder on any public transportation in Illinois.” Sigale still recommended that “until the judgment is final and the broader applicability is made clear,” CCL holders should continue to follow the law as written so they don’t have any trouble with authorities.
* Bloomberg…
The state first argued that the Bruen test was inapplicable, because the state, as a property owner can regulate what people bring on its property. Johnston rejected that argument, calling it “breathtaking, jawdropping, and eyepop-ping.” Among other things, he said that the “constitutional protection afforded to other individual rights isn’t nullified on public property.”
The plain text of the Second Amendment applies to the regulated conduct here, Johnston said. But the state didn’t provide any historical analogues to support the public transportation ban, he said.
The regulation of guns in crowded places in England and some US states, weren’t sufficient analogues, “because why they burdened the right to armed self-defense is not sufficiently similar” to the Illinois ban, Johnston said. An 1871 Texas law regulating handguns was an outlier and laws from several other states were insufficient to show a national tradition of handgun regulation to support the Illinois ban, he said.
Public transportation also isn’t a sensitive place where firearms can be regulated, Johnston said. Though trains and buses are moving vehicles with no escape, the state didn’t properly analogize them to enumerated sensitive places, such as government buildings and schools, or provide any evidence to support the creation of a new sensitive place category. he said.
Treating “any place where the government would want to protect public order and safety as a sensitive place casts too wide a net—this would seem to justify almost any gun restriction,” Johnston said.
* The opinion mentions Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx by name dozens of times. It also includes tons of footnotes, including this one…
Keeping in mind Justice Gorsuch’s explanation in his concurrence in Rahimi, this Court’s ruling is specific to the facts presented. See United States v. Rahimi, 144 S. Ct. 1889, 1909-10 (2024) (Gorsuch, J., concurring). “Trump-appointed judge allows firearms on Illinois public transit” is a likely chyron for this decision. That’s unfortunate. Federal judges—including those who will review this decision—engage in exacting, thoughtful, and careful analyses that are not results oriented or reducible to headlines and chyrons. We’re doing the best we can.
This is the same judge, by the way, who called a state law allowing lawsuits against crisis pregnancy centers under the state’s Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act “stupid.”
…Adding… Gov. Pritzker was asked today about the ruling…
Well, unfortunately, many of the conservative judges who’ve been appointed have misunderstood what it means to uphold public safety. And you know, we still believe in the Second Amendment. It’s part of the Constitution that you have rights as a result of the Second Amendment, but there are limitations to that. I mean, just to give one example, the right to bear arms. It’s not the right to a shoulder-fired missile, as one example. There are limitations on the kinds of weapons and the places that we need to, would we allow people to carry an AR 15 into the White House? No. So it’s clear that there are some misguided decisions that get made at the Circuit Court level, the federal court level, and I’m hoping that it will be overturned along the way, if it has to all the way the Supreme Court. It will be disappointing if they uphold this, but I’m hopeful that the law that was passed in Illinois a number of years ago, that’s frankly, done a lot to keep people safe, will be upheld.
- Norseman - Tuesday, Sep 3, 24 @ 1:01 pm:
Didn’t we just see a story about public transit related murders?
Judge says MEH. People have an “historical right” to carry murder weapons on public transit. Others don’t have rights to stay alive on public transit.
- Michelle Flaherty - Tuesday, Sep 3, 24 @ 1:06 pm:
He writes better headlines/chyrons than opinions.
- Quibbler - Tuesday, Sep 3, 24 @ 1:10 pm:
Judge Johnston has become a favorite forum-shopping option for right-wingers seeking to use the courts to implement policies that would otherwise never see the light of day in Illinois. But a significant share of the blame for that lies with Sens. Durbin and Duckworth, who brokered a deal with the Trump White House to confirm a package of judges that included Johnston (as well as two other GOP-backed judges, plus a single Dem pick). We will be living with the consequences of that deal for years to come.
- 47th Ward - Tuesday, Sep 3, 24 @ 1:11 pm:
===But the state didn’t provide any historical analogues to support the public transportation ban, he said.===
Yeah, it’s going to be difficult to find historical analogues for an electrified system of mass transit that hadn’t been invented in the 18th century.
So I guess people are free to carry their muskets on their horse-drawn wagons.
- Big Dipper - Tuesday, Sep 3, 24 @ 1:11 pm:
John Marshall grad who wants to be the new Posner with the goofy footnotes. Didn’t he wig out about background noises when attorneys appear by phone?
- We've never had one before - Tuesday, Sep 3, 24 @ 1:11 pm:
>>>>People have an “historical right” to carry murder weapons on public transit.
No one sued for the right to commit murder. They sued for the right to protect themselves, so that they can stay alive on public transit.
- Google Is Your Friend - Tuesday, Sep 3, 24 @ 1:13 pm:
Duckworth and Durbin were yeas for this nonsense.
- Anyone Remember - Tuesday, Sep 3, 24 @ 1:16 pm:
Apparently Judge Johnston thought this was a SCOTUS ruling … https://youtu.be/-lDb0Dn8OXE?si=hLKkwTR1wYyhsHhs&t=7
- Homebody - Tuesday, Sep 3, 24 @ 1:17 pm:
Isn’t it neat how originalists always seem to discover that the only historical analogues, historical records, or historical periods that apply in their analyses are the ones that they agree with, and the ones that they don’t agree with don’t count for some reason?
“Oh that’s too old. Oh wait that’s too new. Or enclosed crowded public transit is different for reasons that we can’t articulate, but it just happens to end where we wanted it to. What a coincidence.”
- Annonin' - Tuesday, Sep 3, 24 @ 1:33 pm:
Couldsomeone tell the 2Awhack in Rockford the “clear language” of 2A is one gets the right when they join the state militia (aka national guard)?
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Sep 3, 24 @ 1:41 pm:
==he said that the “constitutional protection afforded to other individual rights isn’t nullified on public property.”==
So does this goofball judge think people should be allowed to bring firearms into places like the Capitol building?
Clarence Thomas is perhaps one of the most dangerous Supreme Court justices to have ever served on the Court.
- Great Politics - Tuesday, Sep 3, 24 @ 1:44 pm:
This ruling is horrible and I disagree with it, but it’s great politics.
Another “weird” ruling that normal people will understand to be “weird.”
You already had a right to carry on transit - enclosed and unloaded. A loaded firearm on transit is a horrible idea. No different than a firearm on airplanes.
It’s time to sue on the basis that people have a right to keep and bear arms on airplanes and see what these goofs decide on that.
Imagine walking through life thinking you need a freakin gun everywhere you go. If my number is up, my number is up. I have a pocket knife. If the target is too far away for that to work, they were going to take me down regardless.
- Donnie Elgin - Tuesday, Sep 3, 24 @ 1:45 pm:
To JB’s statement
It’s not the right to a shoulder-fired missile,
There is clear judicial writing on this matter - notably The “common use” standard. JB’s red herring of the shoulder-fired missile is not applicable - as the CCL plaintiffs identify handguns in the motion
” that’s frankly, done a lot to keep people safe, will be upheld:
Everyone has the right to an opinion - but it would be nice if JB could offer some statistics to support his statement.
- JoanP - Tuesday, Sep 3, 24 @ 1:46 pm:
= John Marshall grad who wants to be the new Posner with the goofy footnotes. =
Nothing wrong with being a John Marshall grad.
= So does this goofball judge think people should be allowed to bring firearms into places like the Capitol building? =
Or, perhaps, his courtroom.
- West Side the Best Side - Tuesday, Sep 3, 24 @ 1:46 pm:
If a judge has to add a footnote to an opinion worrying about the what the headline is going to be, maybe the judge should be rethinking the opinion.
- hisgirlfriday - Tuesday, Sep 3, 24 @ 1:51 pm:
If a constitutional protection afforded to other individual rights isn’t nullified on public property does that mean parade permits and speech zones for protesters are illegal in this Trumper’s jurisdiction?
- Notorious JMB - Tuesday, Sep 3, 24 @ 1:51 pm:
The Governor’s comparison to carrying around a shoulder fired rocket launcher is disingenuous. Nobody on the 2a side is talking about carrying around RPGs. At the end of the day a firearm is a machine incapable of thought or action. Just like a car or a computer, it is only as good or as bad as the person using it.
- Nope. - Tuesday, Sep 3, 24 @ 1:54 pm:
“If a judge has to add a footnote to an opinion worrying about the what the headline is going to be, maybe the judge should be rethinking the opinion.“
Totally agree. In fact we should have popularity consultants sign off on all opinions.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Sep 3, 24 @ 2:04 pm:
===Nobody on the 2a side is talking about carrying around RPGs===
Yet
- Norseman - Tuesday, Sep 3, 24 @ 2:23 pm:
=== The Governor’s comparison to carrying around a shoulder fired rocket launcher is disingenuous. Nobody on the 2a side is talking about carrying around RPGs. ===
Not yet. When extremists take over, ridiculous ideas become more thinkable. Who would have thought in 2024 one party would be contemplating banning birth control. The banning of assault weapons was ok after a president was shot. That folk’s think’s it’s not ok now is crazy.
So long as SCOTUS is under the thumb of far-right justices, we will continue to see contortions of the plain language of the 2nd Amendment to allow the in-vogue weaponry of the day.
- Norseman - Tuesday, Sep 3, 24 @ 2:28 pm:
=== There is clear judicial writing on this matter ===
LOL, LOL, LOL
This court has loudly made it known that stare decisis has no meaning any more. It’s now rhetorical writings of the whim of the predominant faction, not judicial writing.
- FormerParatrooper - Tuesday, Sep 3, 24 @ 2:35 pm:
There are those who carry in prohibited places and case mayhem and death. Theses are people who do so who do not have the best intentions and do so only for criminal intent.
These types of rulings are not for the criminally inclined, they are for the rest of the population who wish to have the means of self defense. Courtrooms have armed police, public transportation does not.
- don the legend - Tuesday, Sep 3, 24 @ 2:35 pm:
==JB’s red herring of the shoulder-fired missile is not applicable==
Donnie, is that the same kind of red herring that the right trots out about “9 month abortions”?
- @misterjayem - Tuesday, Sep 3, 24 @ 2:36 pm:
“‘Trump-appointed judge allows firearms on Illinois public transit’ is a likely chyron for this decision. That’s unfortunate.”
What’s even more unfortunate is a federal judge who’s this preoccupied with how he’ll be covered by cable news.
Unfortunate and pathetic.
– MrJM
- Notorious JMB - Tuesday, Sep 3, 24 @ 2:50 pm:
What President was shot in 1994? Awbs focus more on ergonomics and magazine size than the actual things that make a firearm lethal. They are machines and like all machines are only as good or as bad as the person controlling them.
- Juice - Tuesday, Sep 3, 24 @ 2:51 pm:
FormerParatrooper, the RTA actually does have its own police force, in addition to local police forces who also police the trains/stations.
Allowing people to carry firearms on a standing-only el train during rush hour is one of the most reckless and dangerous things I have ever heard of a court allowing. People are consistently bumping into one another, and having to grab onto things in order to keep balance. The opportunity for an accidental discharge in this situation is pretty high. But glad that we have to allow it so that Doug Wilson from Waukegan can look out for his own personal safety when he is taking the Metra from Ogilvie down to St. Louis. (That was the plaintiff’s claim. Not mine.)
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Sep 3, 24 @ 2:59 pm:
===and like all machines===
Very few consumer-available machines are specifically designed to kill things.
I’m not an anti-gunner, but that logic is ridiculous.
- Steve Polite - Tuesday, Sep 3, 24 @ 3:16 pm:
Could the Bruen test lead to a circular negative in that there has to be historical precedence for a new law to be constitutional, but to establish historical precedence laws need to be enacted. Once enacted they are not constitutional because there is no historical precedence?
- chitruth - Tuesday, Sep 3, 24 @ 3:21 pm:
The Blue Line shooting was likely done by someone without a CCL. Although there are valid public safety concerns about allowing guns on the CTA, one problem with the current restriction is that criminals are going to carry guns on the CTA, regardless of whether ordinary citizens follow the law.
- Homebody - Tuesday, Sep 3, 24 @ 3:21 pm:
@Steve Polite - That’s the point of Bruen. The conservative court wants to lock us into a historical world (that never really existed, because it will only recognize the bits of history that the conservative justices pick and choose) and never allow for change over time.