Rockford, Illinois Federal Judge, Iain Johnston has ruled Illinois’ concealed carry ban on public transportation unconstitutional, yet it is clear that just days after the murder of four CTA Blue Line passengers, city officials and policymakers still don’t get it or simply don’t care. The U.S. District Judge’s decision pertains specifically to Illinois residents who have already been vetted and approved for concealed carry permits, a bad look for opponents of the ruling as they are unable to stop criminals from carrying firearms and committing murder but have instead targeted law-abiding citizens, callously leaving them unable to defend themselves in Chicago, one of America’s most violent and crime-ridden cities.
Illinois became the last state to adopt a concealed carry law in 2013, however, the measure forbids permit holders from carrying firearms in government buildings, stadiums where sporting events are taking place, hospitals and public buses or trains. Ironically, lawmakers do not seem to understand that violent criminals don’t really concern themselves with relatively petty restrictions. If they did, they wouldn’t be out trying to murder people in the first place.
This week’s decision is the result of a 2022 lawsuit filed by four concealed carry permit holders who alleged the ban violated their Second Amendment right to self-defense. Johnston’s ruling is a constitutional test requiring gun laws to be “historically” consistent with the right to bear arms when it was written, the established standard arising from New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, a 2022 landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision. The Bruen decision will be tested again later this month during arguments in front of a southern Illinois federal judge over the state’s ban on so-called assault weapons.
Johnson, in his Aug. 30 ruling, wrote that defendants, including Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx and DuPage County State’s Attorney Robert Berlin, “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.”
On Monday, attorney David Sigale, representing plaintiffs in the case, applauded the decision but urged permit holders to avoid trouble with authorities “until the judgment is final and the broader applicability is made clear.” While a wise recommendation, the fact that it must be made out of fear that officials and authorities will act in disobedience of Johnson’s ruling is a chilling yet demonstrable scenario that is played out often in Democratic-run states. It would be nice to see justice served in those cases with officials and authorities brought up on contempt of court charges in the same manner as private citizens would for defiance of a judge’s ruling.
“This is an important ruling regarding locations where law-abiding persons have too often been vulnerable, and we are gratified by the Court’s ruling upholding their Second Amendment right of self-defense,” Sigale added in an email. It was a well pointed statement as this past Labor Day weekend alone saw at least 31 shot and 5 killed in Chicago. Is it really possible, in light of overwhelming evidence, that lawmakers can’t understand the fact that criminals don’t care, or is there a larger elitist agenda at play here that overshadows the need for law-abiding citizens to be able to defend themselves? Realize that one of these options must be true, but that neither would be acceptable as officials and policymakers should neither be ignorant, nor of nefarious intention when representing the public.
Speaking of these types, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul’s office said in a Tuesday email that it was reviewing the decision “and will likely appeal,” even in light of four murder victims on the CTA Blue Line just one day prior. Contempt for the safety of law-abiding citizens continued to spew from Raoul’s office.
“In the meantime, it should be noted that the court’s decision is limited to the four named plaintiffs,” he wrote, warning citizens not to assume that the ruling on constitutionality applies to everyone. It doesn’t even make sense.
Democratic Governor JB Pritzker on Tuesday, also ignoring the four murder victims only a day before, criticized the ruling as a “misguided decision” adding, “Well, unfortunately, many of the conservative judges who’ve been appointed have misunderstood what it means to uphold public safety, and we still believe in the Second Amendment. It’s part of the Constitution. You have rights as a result of the Second Amendment. But there are limitations to that.” With palpable doublespeak, it’s clear the Governor does not know or cares very little about the safety of his constituents. As for the Second Amendment, he seems to suggest that he believes it exists, but that he has the authority to regulate it into a right that law-abiding citizens will not be able to exercise legally.
The delusional roller coaster ride did not end there as the governor continued, “If it has to go all the way to the Supreme Court, it’ll 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.” Yes, he really said that. It’s a quote. With a heaping spoon of additional irony, the case is being argued during a time of heavy concern for overall violent crime in Chicago, but specifically for those who rely on public transportation, as statistics provided by city officials through Aug. 27 report 626 instances of violent crime this year on the CTA, up from 547 at the same time last year. It is also important to note the mass shooting that took place on the Blue Line this past Monday morning occurred less than a week after the transit agency announced the implementation of an AI-based program being used to detect firearms on the CTA and notify the police.
Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx threw her “progressive” hat in the ring arguing that the government has a right of exclusion if it owns the property, similar to that of a private property owner. Johnson rejected this argument in court, describing it as “breathtaking, jawdroppin, and eyepopping.” With a firm grasp of constitutional law, Johnson added, “Ms. Foxx’s position — that government’s powers over public property are equivalent to those of private owners of property — is untenable, and was rejected by the Supreme Court long ago… Under Ms. Foxx’s argument, demonstrators could be barred from the Daley Center Plaza, despite it being a quintessential public forum.”
Read the full article here