In a very disappointing move, the U.S. Supreme Court chose to not hear an important lawsuit challenging the Illinois law banning carry of firearms for self-defense on modes of public transportation.
In the case Schoenthal v. Raoul, the justices denied certiorari, leaving in place a disastrous 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that upheld the ban.
In a poorly thought-out decision last September, the court ruled that “crowded spaces” like subways qualify as “sensitive places” where the government may broadly prohibit the exercise of the right to bear arms.
“The Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to self-defense… It does not bar the people’s representatives from enacting laws—consistent with our nation’s historical tradition of regulation—that ensure public transportation systems remain free from accessible firearms,” the court ruling stated.
The court added that the country’s Founding Fathers likely never envisioned people traveling around in “crowded and confined metal tubes.” Yet somehow, the Supreme Court chose to let that reasoning stand rather than intervene.
For Illinois gun owners, the Supreme Court’s decision not to take up the case is a dangerous one. Commuters who depend on public transportation are effectively disarmed not only on their way to and from work, but while there and during any other activities during the day. The ruling affects those not owning a vehicle more than car owners, so leaves a person’s ability to carry a firearm for self-defense dependent on whether he or she can afford a car.
Note that Illinois isn’t exactly the safest place in the world, especially Chicago. It’s so dangerous there that, as we recently reported, the mayor spends $30 million annually for his armed security detail—and he doesn’t even use public transportation.
The NRA and other gun-rights groups filed briefs with the Supreme Court urging them to take up the case, but apparently their arguments fell on deaf ears.
In its brief, the NRA argued: “The 7th Circuit upheld Illinois’s public transit carry ban as a ‘sensitive place’ restriction, despite acknowledging that public transportation bears little resemblance to the historically recognized sensitive places—courthouses, polling places, legislative buildings, and schools. Rather than analogizing to those categories of places, the court created a new ‘sensitive place,’ concluding that ‘crowded spaces restrictions fall under the sensitive places doctrine.’ That holding contradicts this Court’s clear instruction that a place may not be deemed sensitive ‘simply because it is crowded.’”
Ultimately, it’s hard to understand why the Supreme Court didn’t take up the case and reverse the 7th Circuit’s ruling. At some point, justices need to decide whether they really meant what they wrote in the Bruen ruling and, if so, make lower courts follow that decision.
