A United States District Court judge refused to stay an injunction against an Illinois law blocking the carrying of firearms on public transportation.
Last month, in a case brought by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled that the Illinois law banning firearms from being carried on public transportation by concealed carry holders was unconstitutional. The judge granted an injunction to the plaintiffs, blocking the enforcement of the law. Illinois vowed to appeal the judge’s ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Illinois would then ask U.S. District Court Judge Iain D. Johnston to stay his ruling pending an appeal by the defendants to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The state tried to appeal to the judge’s emotions by citing a recent shooting on public transportation, but this move would backfire. Only days after the judge’s decision, a person shot and killed someone on local public transit. The state tried to exploit the situation to prove how dangerous public transportation is without its restrictive laws against carrying concealed firearms.
The judges asked the defendants if the person who did the shooting was a concealed permit holder. The state could not answer the judge’s simple question. The judge was unhappy with the state’s lack of knowledge and read them the riot act. If the shooter didn’t have a concealed carry permit, he would have been in violation of the law, no matter if the judge sided with the state and never issued an injunction. The shooter turned out not to be a concealed firearms permit holder. Instead of the judge being swayed by the state’s argument to issue a stay, it seemed to make the Trump appointee even more determined not to give into the state’s demands.
Illinois tried to argue about interest balancing and why it should get a stay. Interest balancing weighs the rights of the people against the wishes of the state. Illinois tried to argue that “public safety” outweighed an individual right to bear arms. In the past, states would use this defense to push back against lawsuits filed by pro-gun organizations. States stopped using the tactic after the Supreme Court’s Bruen opinion. In that case, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas said that the “Second Amendment is not a second-class right.” SCOTUS stated that courts could not use interest balancing in determining if a law was constitutional. Only the history, tradition, and original text of the Second Amendment from the founding era can be used by the courts to decide if a gun law is constitutional.
The Illinois law was a response to the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision. It seemed like the state, through its argument for a stay, was once again thumbing its nose at the high court and its conservative majority. Even if a district judge is a liberal who disagrees with the opinion of SCOTUS, they are still bound by its ruling because the District Court is inferior to the Supreme Court.
For now, Illinois will remain enjoined from enforcing its concealed carry ban on public transportation. The state is expected to go to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the judge’s ruling. This case taught lawyers everywhere that emotions cannot persuade some judges and that those judges will stand firmly behind the Constitutional rights of Americans.
About John Crump
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
Rahm Emanuel: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste”. They thought that they could use this to move the opinion of the judge to favor their wishes. Yep he wasn’t a permit holder and that whole section of read was an absolute laugh. So, since he wasn’t a CCW holder, he was in violation of the law. I want to know was he a felon? That way you could say, see, even your laws don’t protect innocent people from felons and only make them unwilling targets. To bad he didn’t go the extra step to shove more… Read more »
The judges asked the defendants if the person who did the shooting was a concealed permit holder. The state could not answer the judge’s simple question. The judge was unhappy with the state’s lack of knowledge and read them the riot act. If the shooter didn’t have a concealed carry permit, he would have been in violation of the law, no matter if the judge sided with the state and never issued an injunction. The shooter turned out not to be a concealed firearms permit holder. Instead of the judge being swayed by the state’s argument to issue a stay,… Read more »