Schoenthal v. Raoul - State Wins 7th Circuit Appeal Judgement Against Carry Ban on Public Transportation

[Euler]

On May 15, defendants notified the court of their intent to revise their experts' reports. [duh]

[Euler]

On May 15, the judge set the following schedule:

June 28: Defendants' supplemental expert brief due
July 12: Plaintiffs' response brief due; there will be no reply brief

Order said:

...
Briefs are limited to 5 pages and limited to what is presented in the supplemental expert reports. Please don't over litigate this aspect of the case. None of this really should have been a surprise to an "expert" in this field.

[Euler]

On July 2, Foxx filed a motion to request a joint status meeting to discuss the impact of the Rahimi decision on this case. The plaintiffs contend that Rahimi does not affect this case. The defendants contend that Rahimi's loosening of the standards by which text, history, and tradition are applied makes it relevant.

[davel501]

On 7/3/2024 at 9:09 PM, Euler said:

On July 2, Foxx filed a motion to request a joint status meeting to discuss the impact of the Rahimi decision on this case. The plaintiffs contend that Rahimi does not affect this case. The defendants contend that Rahimi's loosening of the standards by which text, history, and tradition are applied makes it relevant.

 

I figured they'd lean into Rahimi. Riding public transportation does not make one dangerous. That should really be the headline here. Foxx says people are dangerous and should be disarmed because they use public transportation.

 

Rahimi did mention that concealed carry was banned in certain places but those were fixed places, not moving gun free zones that are impossible to secure.

[Euler]

On July 8, the judge denied Foxx's motion for a hearing on Rahimi.

[Euler]

On July 9, having been denied a hearing on Rahimi, Foxx filed a motion to supplement briefings with arguments concerning Rahimi. On the same day, the judge denied it.

[Euler]

On July 23, Foxx tried once again to inject the Rahimi decision into this case. She filed it as a supplemental authority.

On July 24, the judge struck Rahimi as a supplemental authority.

[John Q Public]

Sounds like the Judge is getting p*****.

[THE KING]

https://youtu.be/CKEfOJpyT4I?si=TCg1lKe2LM93Upe8

[Molly B.]

A win at the Federal District Court level. Reading now!

 

Expect the other side to appeal.

Schroenthal 108 - Opinion of 083024.pdf

[Molly B.]

Quote

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.4 For the following reasons, Ms. Foxx’s motion is denied, State Defendants’
motion is denied, and Plaintiffs’ motion is granted in part.

 

[Molly B.]

Quote

Not immediately conceding Bruen’s relevance, Ms. Foxx tries to borrow principles
from other areas of law to defend the Firearm Concealed Carry Act’s ban. Both her
arguments fail.

 

[Molly B.]

Quote

Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is granted in part. The Court grants de-
claratory relief against Kwame Raoul, Kimberly Foxx, and Robert Berlin, in their
official capacities, that the Firearm Concealed Carry Act’s ban on carrying concealed
firearms on public transportation, as defined in the statute, 430 ILCS 66/65(a)(8),
violates the Second Amendment, as applied to:

• Benjamin Schoenthal carrying a concealed firearm for self-defense on Metra,
and on Metra’s real property to the extent necessary to ride Metra.

The Court grants declaratory relief against Kwame Raoul and Kimberly Foxx, in
their official capacities, that the Firearm Concealed Carry Act’s ban on carrying con-
cealed firearms on public transportation, as defined in the statute, 430 ILCS
66/65(a)(8), violates the Second Amendment, as applied to:

• Mark Wroblewski carrying a concealed firearm for self-defense on Metra, and
on Metra’s real property to the extent necessary to ride Metra;

• Joseph Vesel carrying a concealed firearm for self-defense on Metra and the
CTA, and on Metra and the CTA’s real property to the extent necessary to ride
Metra and the CTA; and

• Douglas Winston carrying a concealed firearm for self-defense on Metra and
the CTA, and on Metra and the CTA’s real property to the extent necessary to
ride Metra and the CTA.

Date: August 30, 2024

______

[Euler]

Opinion said:

...
Ms. Foxx['s] ... argument -- which is breathtaking, jawdropping, and eyepopping -- is this: the ban applies only to property "funded in whole or in part" by Illinois, so Illinois has a proprietary interest in what it regulates. Because governments, like private property owners, enjoy "an absolute right to exclude others" from their property, Illinois may exclude whomever it wishes. ... 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.
...
Ms. Foxx also relies on Heller's statement that the Second Amendment can protect modern forms of arms in the same way that the First Amendment protects modern forms of communication. ... She cites examples of intermediate scrutiny applied to content-neutral "time, place, or manner" restrictions. ... But the intermediate scrutiny standard applied to content-neutral "time, place, or manner" restrictions is what Bruen unambiguously rejected.
...
As for injunctive relief, Plaintiffs have made no argument regarding why they're entitled to injunctive relief.
...

This decision applies only to the plaintiffs, not anyone else. The prohibition against carry on public transportation is not enjoined.

[Molly B.]

Another crack in the dam!!

[mauserme]

This action has been properly brought before this Court—despite the disputes over venue and standing, the parties can’t escape the Court. The parties also can’t escape that this case requires navigating the murky waters of Bruen. Plaintiffs’ proposed conduct—carrying concealed handguns on public transit for self-defense—falls within the presumptive ambit of the Second Amendment, shifting the burden to Defendants to show that the Firearm Concealed Carry Act’s ban falls within the historical tradition of firearm regulation in this country. On the record before the Court in this case, Defendants have failed to meet their burden

 

It's encouraging to see a judge correctly applying the standard set in NSRPA v Bruen, instead of complaining about it.

 

 

[ragsbo]

On 8/30/2024 at 5:54 PM, Euler said:

This decision applies only to the plaintiffs, not anyone else. The prohibition against carry on public transportation is not enjoined.

I can't get my mind wrapped around that. SO it is unconstitutional for the state to prevent these folks from doing it, but constitutional for the state to prevent the rest of us. Talk about injustice and severe tier justice system. Either it is for all or it is for NONE!!!!

[Euler]

On August 30, 2024 at 06:26 PM CDT, ragsbo said:→

I can't get my mind wrapped around that. SO it is unconstitutional for the state to prevent these folks from doing it, but constitutional for the state to prevent the rest of us. ...

The opinion didn't conclude that it's constitutional for the government to prevent the rest of us from exercising our rights, but only that the plaintiffs did not argue that anyone but themselves had those rights.

[ragsbo]

On 8/30/2024 at 6:37 PM, Euler said:

The opinion didn't conclude that it's constitutional for the government to prevent the rest of us from exercising our rights, but only that the plaintiffs did not argue that anyone but themselves had those rights.

that does not make sense

[mikew]

No more canned hunt on the CTA? Yea.

[mikew]

The CTA will end up being somewhat safer after some self-defense-justified activities by the ridership.

 

 

 

 

[TomKoz]

I am NOT advocating for breaking Any law …

anyone ever heard of the phrase?…

 

Best to be judged by 12 than carried by 6 ?

[davel501]

On 8/31/2024 at 12:37 AM, TomKoz said:

I am NOT advocating for breaking Any law …

anyone ever heard of the phrase?…

 

Best to be judged by 12 than carried by 6 ?

 

It's a phrase that tends to be spoken by people who end up bankrupting their families and getting locked up with the very people they sought to protect themselves from. 

[Smallbore]

One has to be alive to have the system stomp on one. How often in real life has "Best be judged........." proven to be a bad choice?

[TomKoz]

On 8/31/2024 at 11:32 AM, davel501 said:

 

It's a phrase that tends to be spoken by people who end up bankrupting their families and getting locked up with the very people they sought to protect themselves from. 

It’s a phrase that tends to be spoken by people who are not sheep.

[SiliconSorcerer]

All laws are voluntary...

[John Q Public]

For the rich and the left...

[JTHunter]

On 8/30/2024 at 11:47 PM, mikew said:

The CTA will end up being somewhat safer after some self-defense-justified activities by the ridership.

(borrowed from LOU in IL Politics - )

Quote

CHICAGO (CBS) — Four people were killed in a mass shooting on a CTA Blue Line train in Forest Park on Monday morning. 

Forest Park Police Deputy Chief Christopher Chin said all four victims were passengers on a Blue Line train as it was headed into the Forest Park terminal when they were shot shortly before 5:30 a.m.

Police said three victims were found dead at the scene. A fourth victim was taken to a local hospital and pronounced dead. Chin said the victims' ages and genders were not yet available as of 11:15 a.m.

Chin said the shooting appeared to be an isolated incident, and there was no threat to the community. Investigators believe there was only one shooter.

Police said it did not appear the shooter knew any of the victims, who all appeared to be homeless people riding the train. Police also said it did not appear that the shooting involved a robbery, and that the attack was completely random.

 

[starwatcher]

"...there was no threat to the community."

 

That's a pretty bold statement when a gunman on the lose randomly killed 4 people.

Edited September 2, 2024 at 09:02 PM by starwatcher

[mab22]

But the police said they “appeared to be homeless”….. Nothing to see here? Did they have certain political hats on?
 🤷‍♂️🤦‍♂️ 

 

Quote

Police said it did not appear the shooter knew any of the victims, who all appeared to be homeless people riding the train. Police also said it did not appear that the shooting involved a robbery, and that the attack was completely random.