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

[2A4Cook]

Shame on Plaintiff's attorneys for failing to argue that the prohibition is unconstitutional on its face, as opposed to unconstitutional as applied to Plaintiff.  If that was, indeed, the case, of course.  

 

These kinds of rulings always make my skin crawl.  If it's unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional.  It's ok for them to hold their Marxist jackboots to the rest of our throats???

[RECarry]

In Chicago, officials want to treat guns like a health crisis, but catching scabies, TB, or other diseases from homeless people sleeping on CTA trains is just fine.  Not in purple.

[yurimodin]

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. 

That's why you don't let them take you alive. Freedom isn't free.

[Molly B.]

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 3, 2024 at 08:18 PM by mikew
FIFY Molly. - mikew

[John Q Public]

Thanks Val....

[apmonte]

Yea!  Now do municipal parks and other prohibited places.

Edited September 3, 2024 at 09:15 PM by apmonte

[Quiet Observer]

On 9/2/2024 at 4:01 PM, starwatcher said:

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

 

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

There was surveillance video. The shooter was captured about 90 minutes later. He no longer presents a threat to that community. 

The news release concerned this specific incident. It was not intended to predict the possibility of future events. 

[Euler]

On September 3, 2024 at 07:31 AM (CDT), 2A4Cook said:→

Shame on Plaintiff's attorneys for failing to argue that the prohibition is unconstitutional on its face, as opposed to unconstitutional as applied to Plaintiff. If that was, indeed, the case, of course.
...

The complaint asked to have the prohibition enjoined ("injunctive relief"). The judge decided that the plaintiffs didn't make an argument (or at least an effective argument) for it, so they only got declarative relief (unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiffs).

[mab22]

On 9/3/2024 at 8:35 PM, Euler said:

The complaint asked to have the prohibition enjoined ("injunctive relief"). The judge decided that the plaintiffs didn't make an argument (or at least an effective argument) for it, so they only got declarative relief (unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiffs).

So these people have to walk around with the court order in order to legally carry on public transportation?
 

[Upholder]

https://www.thecentersquare.com/illinois/article_56264ba4-6a1f-11ef-bc1d-2bc23521b1c3.html

 

Governor disagrees with judge's ruling regarding guns on public transportation

 

(The Center Square) – Gov. J.B. Pritzker says he is confident that an appeals court will overrule a federal judge's decision that a portion of Illinois’ concealed carry law is unconstitutional.

[...]

“Unfortunately many of the conservative judges who have been appointed have misunderstood what it means to uphold public safety,” Pritzker said Tuesday at an unrelated event in Skokie. 

 

 

Edited September 4, 2024 at 01:51 AM by Upholder
add snippets of the article

[Euler]

The plaintiffs shouldn't need to carry a copy of the decision with them. Even if they would, I doubt any cop intent on arresting them is going to care about some piece of paper. Cops aren't judges. There's no value in arguing the law with them.

More exactly, prosecutors are ordered not to prosecute the plaintiffs. If any of them gets arrested, things could get interesting.

[mab22]

On 9/3/2024 at 8:50 PM, Upholder said:

https://www.thecentersquare.com/illinois/article_56264ba4-6a1f-11ef-bc1d-2bc23521b1c3.html

 

Governor disagrees with judge's ruling regarding guns on public transportation

 

(The Center Square) – Gov. J.B. Pritzker says he is confident that an appeals court will overrule a federal judge's decision that a portion of Illinois’ concealed carry law is unconstitutional.

[...]

“Unfortunately many of the conservative judges who have been appointed have misunderstood what it means to uphold public safety,” Pritzker said Tuesday at an unrelated event in Skokie. 

 

 

Should we guess if he donated to their campaigns as well?
 

[mikew]

On 9/3/2024 at 8:50 PM, Upholder said:

https://www.thecentersquare.com/illinois/article_56264ba4-6a1f-11ef-bc1d-2bc23521b1c3.html

 

Governor disagrees with judge's ruling regarding guns on public transportation

As if the esteemed governor could even identify public transportation...

[TomKoz]

Is there, or is there not, a specific USSC case that specifically ruled (now law of the land) that unconstitutional laws (prohibiting carry on public transportation as declared by this judge) do Not have to be followed ??

 

 

[Silhouette]

On 9/3/2024 at 11:56 PM, TomKoz said:

Is there, or is there not, a specific USSC case that specifically ruled (now law of the land) that unconstitutional laws (prohibiting carry on public transportation as declared by this judge) do Not have to be followed ??

 

 

 

The challenge to the law was interpreted by the court to be that the law was unconstitutional "as applied" to the plaintiffs.  This interpretation followed specific supreme court precedent including Doe v. Reed, 561 U.S. 186, 194 (2010) and Moody v. NetChoice, LLC (2024).  When a law is declared unconstitutional as applied, the ruling only pertains to the plaintiffs.  Such a ruling is meant for circumstances that are very particular to a given plaintiff but does not presume that the law is unconstitutional for all situations. If the law were challenged as facially unconstitutional and found to be so, then the law would not apply to anyone.

 

That said, the ruling (assuming it withstands appeals) makes it much more likely that a facial challenge will succeed, that the state will stop enforcing the law, or that the law will change.

 

(Please understand that I am trying to answer the question, but I am not suggesting that I agree that the ruling needed to be limited to an "as applied" challenge.  In fact, to my eye, this case didn't turn on facts specific to these plaintiffs.  It's a bit more like they wrote a narrow challenge for strategic reasons to avoid certain defense strategies from the State of Illinois.)

 

[TomKoz]

On 9/4/2024 at 6:42 AM, Silhouette said:

 

The challenge to the law was interpreted by the court to be that the law was unconstitutional "as applied" to the plaintiffs.  This interpretation followed specific supreme court precedent including Doe v. Reed, 561 U.S. 186, 194 (2010) and Moody v. NetChoice, LLC (2024).  When a law is declared unconstitutional as applied, the ruling only pertains to the plaintiffs.  Such a ruling is meant for circumstances that are very particular to a given plaintiff but does not presume that the law is unconstitutional for all situations. If the law were challenged as facially unconstitutional and found to be so, then the law would not apply to anyone.

 

That said, the ruling (assuming it withstands appeals) makes it much more likely that a facial challenge will succeed, that the state will stop enforcing the law, or that the law will change.

 

(Please understand that I am trying to answer the question, but I am not suggesting that I agree that the ruling needed to be limited to an "as applied" challenge.  In fact, to my eye, this case didn't turn on facts specific to these plaintiffs.  It's a bit more like they wrote a narrow challenge for strategic reasons to avoid certain defense strategies from the State of Illinois.)

 

Would not “equal protection under the law” apply EVEN though the ruling was on an “as applied” basis ?

[Euler]

On September 4, 2024 at 07:19 AM CDT, TomKoz said:→

Would not "equal protection under the law" apply EVEN though the ruling was on an "as applied" basis ?

"As applied" means "as applied to the plaintiffs' circumstances." "Equal protection" means "equal protection to everyone in the same circumstances." If you wanted the ruling to apply to you, you'd have to prove in court that your circumstances were identical to those of the original plaintiffs. You might want to argue that "the same circumstances" are "possesses a valid CCL," but that's what the plaintiffs did NOT show in this case, so the law was not enjoined.

Meanwhile, your criminal trial for carrying on public transit would provide you with an opportunity to make that case, if that's the opportunity that you want.

[Euler]

On September 4, defendants filed a motion to stay the decision pending appeal.

[Euler]

On September 5, the judge set the following schedule:

09/12: plaintiffs' response to motion to stay due
09/19: defendants' reply due

[2A4Cook]

Every citizen should not have to file and prosecute a court case in order to enjoy his or her natural and/or Constitutional rights.  That's why they do this crap, and why they continue to get away with it.  Governor toilet-remover thinks the court doesn't understand what it means to uphold public safety.  Uhm, no.  It is Governor Hubris who doesn't understand that the SCOTUS has ruled that such a balancing of interests is no longer allowed by law.  He thumbs his nose at the law, while threatening to imprison anyone who doesn't obey HIS unlawful "law."  These people make me vomit, but more so, the idiots who vote for them.

 

I wonder why Governor Hypocrite doesn't understand what it means to uphold public safety on the south side of Chicago?  Oh yeah, that doesn't fit in with his Marxist agenda.

[SiliconSorcerer]

With the quantity of headlines being blasted all across the nation on this and many do not include the "details" it's going to be hard for a prosecutor to argue ignorance of the law on this one.

A whole lot of people just think it's just legal now. 

 

 

[mab22]

On 9/5/2024 at 11:15 PM, 2A4Cook said:

Every citizen should not have to file and prosecute a court case in order to enjoy his or her natural and/or Constitutional rights.  That's why they do this crap, and why they continue to get away with it.  Governor toilet-remover thinks the court doesn't understand what it means to uphold public safety.  Uhm, no.  It is Governor Hubris who doesn't understand that the SCOTUS has ruled that such a balancing of interests is no longer allowed by law.  He thumbs his nose at the law, while threatening to imprison anyone who doesn't obey HIS unlawful "law."  These people make me vomit, but more so, the idiots who vote for them.

 

I wonder why Governor Hypocrite doesn't understand what it means to uphold public safety on the south side of Chicago?  Oh yeah, that doesn't fit in with his Marxist agenda.

 

Don't forget he has a Marxist congress to aide him in doing this.

 

[Euler]

On September 6, 2024 at 09:33 AM CDT, SiliconSorcerer said:→

....
A whole lot of people just think it's just legal now.

A whole lot of opportunity to file as-applied challenges (not that that's the preferred way to do it)

[davel501]

On 9/6/2024 at 5:59 PM, Euler said:

A whole lot of opportunity to file as-applied challenges (not that that's the preferred way to do it)

 

How would the court handle if 1000's filed at once? 

[TomKoz]

On 9/6/2024 at 5:59 PM, Euler said:

A whole lot of opportunity to file as-applied challenges (not that that's the preferred way to do it)

HMMM 🤔,  just throwing this out there.

Given the outcome of this case - could an individual petition the court on an “as applied” “equal protection” basis to Preemptively get permission (court order) to be allowed to conceal carry on public transportation ??  Why, or why not?

[Euler]

The criminal convictions would be 1000s (or 100s, at best) of individual (probably misdemeanor) cases. The civil suits citing Schoenthal as an authority would be consolidated and stayed pending the outcome of the Schoenthal appeal.

[2A4Cook]

On 9/6/2024 at 9:34 PM, davel501 said:

 

How would the court handle if 1000's filed at once? 

Order the cases consolidated.

[Molly B.]

The state files an appeal of district court’s order granting partial summary judgment to Plaintiffs.

115 - Notice of Appeal.pdf

[skinnyb82]

Illinois facing possible sanctions over their motion that claims the judge's ruling caused that quadruple murder on the CTA. 

[MrTriple]

On 9/25/2024 at 12:04 PM, skinnyb82 said:

Illinois facing possible sanctions over their motion that claims the judge's ruling caused that quadruple murder on the CTA. 

Nice to see a judge call them out.