Jump to content

WI Supreme Court: Can't ban firearms on public transportation


kwc

Recommended Posts

Finally: preemption means preemption.

 

Now all we need to do is bring this idea to Illinois.

Except we have no legal grounds to challenge that here in IL.When the FCCA passed.it specifically forbade carry on public transport. The only way we can change our ban is to have a law passed. which of course is never gonna happen here. We are just as close to moving towards California style gun laws as we are to moving towards Wisconsin. Yet another reason why the FCCA was a bad deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Finally: preemption means preemption.

 

Now all we need to do is bring this idea to Illinois.

Except we have no legal grounds to challenge that here in IL.When the FCCA passed.it specifically forbade carry on public transport. The only way we can change our ban is to have a law passed. which of course is never gonna happen here. We are just as close to moving towards California style gun laws as we are to moving towards Wisconsin. Yet another reason why the FCCA was a bad deal.

 

 

Legislative intent was clear:

 

 

"Public Transit, right now, is out. But you can still carry an unloaded firearm in your briefcase, backpacks, fanny packs, things of that nature, and it's consistent with current law as well."

 

Brandon Phelps, 5/23/2013, House Judiciary Committee Hearing, during the legislative process that became HB 183

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Legislative intent was clear:

 

 

"Public Transit, right now, is out. But you can still carry an unloaded firearm in your briefcase, backpacks, fanny packs, things of that nature, and it's consistent with current law as well."

 

Brandon Phelps, 5/23/2013, House Judiciary Committee Hearing, during the legislative process that became HB 183

 

 

Anyone ever figure out how that unloaded firearm in your briefcase, backpack, fanny pack, things of that nature will shake out with those bag inspections at the Red line stations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Finally: preemption means preemption.

 

Now all we need to do is bring this idea to Illinois.

Except we have no legal grounds to challenge that here in IL.When the FCCA passed.it specifically forbade carry on public transport. The only way we can change our ban is to have a law passed. which of course is never gonna happen here. We are just as close to moving towards California style gun laws as we are to moving towards Wisconsin. Yet another reason why the FCCA was a bad deal.

 

I wasn't talking about public transportation, about which the FCCA is clear. There are plenty of other violations of FCCA's preemption provisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I for one am very glad we have the FCCA. Living outside of Chicago, and not needing to use any form of public transportation, I have been carrying virtually daily ever since three years ago this week. Although Illinois legislators only gave us legal concealed carry under the pressure of Federal courts, the end result is that I legally can carry a firearm for the defense of myself and my family, and for that I am glad. Maybe out best hope is for when the Supreme Court again has a clear conservative majority, and possibly a test case will force the end of many of the restrictions by Illinois and other states on where our 2nd Amendment rights prevail and where they are restricted. Personally I would like to first see the ban end on parks and school property, even if the ban remains for inside school buildings. I guess if I lived in Chicago then the public transportation issue would be my main concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I'm glad we finally have some kind of CC here, for those of us that live or work in Chicago and use public transportation, the IL concealed carry law is basically a "no carry" law for us.

 

I cannot carry on the trains, but even if I did, every building I need to work in is a GFZ. It's very frustrating to have gone through all that trouble with finally getting the law passed, paying all that money for training and a "permit" and yet still be unable to carry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Finally: preemption means preemption.

 

Now all we need to do is bring this idea to Illinois.

Except we have no legal grounds to challenge that here in IL.When the FCCA passed.it specifically forbade carry on public transport. The only way we can change our ban is to have a law passed. which of course is never gonna happen here. We are just as close to moving towards California style gun laws as we are to moving towards Wisconsin. Yet another reason why the FCCA was a bad deal.

 

You keep saying that, and it's just not true. We were unable to get CCW for many years because the antis were able to say we needed a supermajority. The courts decided that they needed to allow carry. Keeping it from happening was no longer an option, it was now a matter of the specifics. When it came to that, the antis didn't even have a simple majority to get what they wanted. Their hand was forced to give us much (not all) of what we wanted because they didn't have enough votes to get the job done themselves. This has not changed. If it had, we'd already have universal background checks, a statewide AWB, and may issue CCW with businesses prohibited by default unless they post a sign that they welcome guns on premises.

 

Our laws here aren't great, but they are nowhere even close to California, New York, New Jersey, Hawaii....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Finally: preemption means preemption.

 

Now all we need to do is bring this idea to Illinois.

 

 

Except we have no legal grounds to challenge that here in IL.When the FCCA passed.it specifically forbade carry on public transport. The only way we can change our ban is to have a law passed. which of course is never gonna happen here. We are just as close to moving towards California style gun laws as we are to moving towards Wisconsin. Yet another reason why the FCCA was a bad deal.

 

The prohibition of CC on public transportation in Madison was baked into the WI carry law as well. If there is precedence to say it is unconstitutional it can have an affect on Illinois too.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The prohibition of CC on public transportation in Madison was baked into the WI carry law as well. If there is precedence to say it is unconstitutional it can have an affect on Illinois too.

 

Can you give a citation? I thought the state statute simply addressed preemption, and the bus prohibition was a Madison Metro Transit rule.

 

Also, unless I missed something, the court didn't rule the prohibition unconstitutional. They just said that the state preemption law overrides the Metro Transit's ability to prohibit carry.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Finally: preemption means preemption.

 

Now all we need to do is bring this idea to Illinois.

 

 

Except we have no legal grounds to challenge that here in IL.When the FCCA passed.it specifically forbade carry on public transport. The only way we can change our ban is to have a law passed. which of course is never gonna happen here. We are just as close to moving towards California style gun laws as we are to moving towards Wisconsin. Yet another reason why the FCCA was a bad deal.

 

The prohibition of CC on public transportation in Madison was baked into the WI carry law as well. If there is precedence to say it is unconstitutional it can have an affect on Illinois too.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

The Madison prohibition was a regulation passed in direct violation of state preemption. The Wisconsin Supreme Court rightly decided that a city, county, town or district can not bestow powers unto its creation that itself can not lawfully exercise.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we challenge the public transport ban in court, it would have to be on constitutional grounds. I do think there is an argument to be made there. If a voter ID requirement is unconstitutional because it might impact minorities more than whites, then the same argument can be made for public transport if one could demonstrate that minorities use public transport at a greater frequency than whites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, I think it's going to take someone with a CCL who is not carrying due to the prohibition on public transport to have standing to sue the state.

 

That means someone with a CCL will have to be gravely injured or killed by a criminal on public transport. The argument will have to be made that had they been allowed to be armed, they would have had a reasonable chance of repelling the attacker and avoiding injury and that the state has stripped them of their right to self defense.

 

Basically, another Mary Shepard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Legislative intent was clear:

 

 

"Public Transit, right now, is out. But you can still carry an unloaded firearm in your briefcase, backpacks, fanny packs, things of that nature, and it's consistent with current law as well."

 

Brandon Phelps, 5/23/2013, House Judiciary Committee Hearing, during the legislative process that became HB 183

 

 

Anyone ever figure out how that unloaded firearm in your briefcase, backpack, fanny pack, things of that nature will shake out with those bag inspections at the Red line stations?

 

 

Maybe not well if you are the first one the catch and the cop isn't familiar with the law. But if you have your FOID and are following proper transportation guidelines, you are clearly in the right. In the end, you'll win out. Also, depending on how the situation went, you might have grounds for a lawsuit.

 

Don't kowtow to the antigun sentiment. Questions about ARs in home rule cities, transporting on the CTA, etc. It's totally understandable in most circumstances, Illinois isn't friendly to gun rights. But the rights we have, we should use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Unfortunately, I think it's going to take someone with a CCL who is not carrying due to the prohibition on public transport to have standing to sue the state.

 

That means someone with a CCL will have to be gravely injured or killed by a criminal on public transport. The argument will have to be made that had they been allowed to be armed, they would have had a reasonable chance of repelling the attacker and avoiding injury and that the state has stripped them of their right to self defense.

 

Basically, another Mary Shepard.

 

 

I don't think you'd have to be attacked.

 

Simply being in the situation of having to use public transport for work puts you in the position that you cannot carry, and it amounts to a continuation of the ban that AUUW and UUW was before the carry law passed.

 

You would have to have willingness to attach your name to the lawsuit, and (given the priorities of the pro-gun organizations currently) the money to fund the lawsuit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...