The state ‘failed to meet their burden to show an American tradition of firearm regulation at the time of the Founding,’ he wrote.
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 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.
