Federal judge rules section of Illinois’ concealed carry law unconstitutional (2024)

JEREMY GORNERChicago Tribune

A federal judge in Rockford ruled it unconstitutional for Illinoisans with concealed carry permits to be prohibited from carrying guns on public transportation, a decision with uncertain implications for a decade-old state law.

The decision was a result of a 2022 lawsuit filed by four people who alleged the section of Illinois’ concealed carry law that bars holders of concealed carry licenses, or CCLs, from carrying the guns on public buses or trains violated their Second Amendment right to self-defense under the U.S. Constitution.

At issue in U.S. District Judge Iain Johnston’s ruling was a constitutional test requiring gun laws to be “historically” consistent with laws on the books in the 18th century, when the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms was written, or before that.

This arose from the landmark 2022 case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, in which the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative 6-3 majority established the new constitutional standard, which will also take center stage later this month when a federal judge representing southern Illinois hears arguments over the constitutionality of the state’s ban on so-called assault weapons.

Illinois was the last state to adopt a concealed carry law, which went into effect in 2014 and included a number of places where permit holders were not allowed to carry guns such as government buildings, stadiums where sporting events are taking place, hospitals and public buses or trains.

In his ruling on Friday, Johnston wrote that the defendants, among them Democratic Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, Democratic Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx and Republican 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, the plaintiffs’ attorney, David Sigale, welcomed the ruling and said that while its “technical impact is unclear” and mentions only his four clients, “the court’s analysis and ultimate declaration of unconstitutionality is arguably applicable to any CCL holder on any public transportation in Illinois.” Sigale still recommended that “until the judgment is final and the broader applicability is made clear,” CCL holders should continue to follow the law as written so they don’t have any trouble with authorities.

“But 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 said in an e-mail, noting the defendants may appeal.

Spokespeople for Raoul, Berlin and Foxx had no comment on Monday.

The case was brought by three suburban Chicago residents and one from DeKalb County who are CCL holders and “don’t use public transportation as much as they would like because of the statute’s threat of criminal prosecution for carrying a concealed firearm on public transportation,” according to court papers.

The case is being litigated at a time when Chicago crime has been a concern for some people who typically rely on public transportation to get around the city. For instance, according to statistics through Aug. 27 provided by city officials, there have been 626 instances of violent crime reported this year on the CTA, up from 547 in the same time period last year.

And on Monday, four people were found shot to death on a CTA Blue Line train in suburban Forest Park, a mass shooting that occurred less than a week after the transit agency announced an AI-based program that seeks to more quickly notify police when guns are detected at CTA train stations.

Johnston, who was appointed to the bench in 2020 by then-Republican President Donald Trump, noted in his ruling that in satisfying Bruen’s historical test standard, the defendants tried to cite a nearly 700-year-old law that prohibited people from carrying firearms in certain instances. But the plaintiffs argued that law “is too old and should therefore be afforded no weight in ascertaining an American tradition” and that it “has little bearing” on the Second Amendment.

Johnston ruled that nearly 700-year-old law and far more recent ones cited by the defendants “do not serve as an appropriate historical analogue” to the plaintiffs’ argument about their right to self-defense.

The judge also noted how the defendants presented, among other arguments, restrictions by railroad companies in the late 19th century, some of which required passengers to keep their guns unloaded in their bags or barred the guns outright. But the plaintiffs argued the companies are private entities and the restrictions aren’t relevant under Bruen.

“The Court agrees that the private nature of these restrictions defeats State Defendants’ attempt to show a national tradition that would support the Concealed Carry Act’s prohibition,” Johnston wrote. “The Second Amendment protects against governmental — not private — intrusion on rights and liberties.”

The judge also opposed State’s Attorney Foxx’s arguments and her cited case law in justifying the prohibitions under the concealed carry law, describing one of her arguments as “breathtaking, jawdropping, and eyepopping” in claiming the government has a right of exclusion if it owns certain property, just like private property owners do.

“On her view, when the government regulates its own property, that regulation is exempt from the coverage of the Second Amendment, or any other constitutional guarantee of individual rights,” Johnston wrote. “… Under Ms. Foxx’s argument, demonstrators could be barred from the Daley Center Plaza, despite it being a quintessential public forum.”

“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,” Johnston also wrote. “The cited cases don’t treat government ownership of property as a trump to the protection ordinarily due to an individual right.”

Johnston’s ruling also addressed a dispute over whether the plaintiffs had legal standing in the lawsuit. But the judge, citing case law, wrote the plaintiffs’ proposed actions of carrying a concealed handgun on public transportation for self-defense purposes in the face of the threat of arrest and prosecution is “arguably affected with a constitutional interest.”

“State Defendants challenge Plaintiffs’ standing on the basis that Plaintiffs have failed to show an injury with respect to buildings, real property, and parking areas,” Johnston wrote. “But Plaintiffs all say they would take Metra more often if they could carry their (handguns) onto the train, and boarding a Metra train requires stepping foot on Metra’s real property.”

The case was among several legal challenges to Illinois gun laws in the last few years.

In the last year and a half, challenges by gun rights advocates to the state’s assault weapons ban, which was signed into law by Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker in January 2023, have largely been unsuccessful. That ban, which applies to many high-powered semiautomatic guns and high-capacity magazines, was put into place following a mass shooting at Highland Park’s 2022 Fourth of July parade that left seven people dead and dozens more injured.