Federal Court Strikes Down Illinois Ban on Right to Carry Weapons on Public Transport

AmmoLand ^ | September 7, 2024 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

On August 30, 2024, Judge Iain D. Johnston of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued an order and opinion showing the ban on carrying concealed weapons on public transportation is unconstitutional. The ban is “as applied”. It is only applicable to the individuals before the court in this case. The Chicago Transit Authority is commonly referred to as the CTA.  From the opinion and order:

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.4 For the following reasons, Ms. Foxx’s motion is denied, State Defendants’ motion is denied, and Plaintiffs’ motion is granted in part.

Illinois prohibits people with legal permits from carrying concealed handguns on all public transportation. From the act a:(8):

 (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 government defendants put forward some worn and inappropriate arguments. They are trying to keep infringements on the people’s right to be armed in case of confrontation, a right protected by the Second Amendment. The defendants tried to argue the government is the property owner, so they can exclude anyone they want to. The judge did not treat it as a serious argument. From page 15 of the order and opinion:

[marktwain]

A clear violation of the Second Amendment, aimed particularly at poor people.

[jeffc]

The ban is “as applied”. It is only applicable to the individuals before the court in this case.

What? Why? Weird....

[Lockbox]

It is only applicable to the individuals before the court in this case.

WTF? So if an African American sues the government for discrimination, a judge can rule for the African American bring the case, state the ruling only apples to that one person and the government can continue to discriminate against all other African Americans?

Did I read it correctly? Because I think anti constitutional against one is anti-constitutional against all.

[escapefromboston]

Public transport is where you NEED to be armed

[unread]

"The ban is “as applied”. It is only applicable to the individuals before the court in this case."

So, the right is yours ONLY if your willing to hire a lawyer and and take it to court.. (?)

You must pay and thank a lawyer for your inalienable rights.. And I always thought they came from God..

[WaterWeWaitinFor]

Pretty scary to ride public transportation in Chicago.

Come On, Freepers. If everyone donated just $5 or $10 to JimRob, he could wrap up this quarter Freepathon. Please fill the tank, everyone.

[marktwain]

A facial challenge has to prove the law is unconstitutional in all cases.

The judge was not willing to say that.

However, the arguments used by the judge in his opinion and order apply to most people most of the time.

The arguments used in this case will be used in future court cases.

[dasboot]

Nibble nibble.