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

[mab22]

On 9/3/2025 at 2:37 PM, Euler said:

McGlynn issued a preliminary injunction, which was vacated, in Barnett. Then he issued a ruling after the trial. Barnett hasn't been lost for a second time yet. Arguments are set for September 22 for the state's appeal.

FWIW, appeals courts don't hear trials. They just hear arguments. Trials determine facts. Appeals determine law.

Can they request the "dog ate my cat which ate my papers I was going to use to argue" excuse to get more continuances?

 

[Euler]

Short of someone burning down the courthouse, the Barnett arguments will be September 22.

[mab22]

Watching the video from Washington Gun law I find it ironic the they put this in the ruling. 

"The virtue of our federal system is that citizens who find
themselves on the losing end of legislative disputes in their
state may vote with their feet and move to a jurisdiction
where their views have prevailed. "

At the same time our dumb slob of a GUV, who could NOT have came up with this on his own, let alone the D party in Illinois, also made the similar comment about leaving the state if you don't like it here. Did the ruling get leaked and give them some catchy slogan to use? 
 

NO WAY that is a coincidence in this crap-a-licious state!

 

 

[ealcala31]

On 9/3/2025 at 9:39 AM, ealcala31 said:

We lost PICA in the 7th Circuit. Let's get ready for months of PICA Conferences and hope we're still not 1.5yrs out. Whoever thought Judge Amy St.Eve was an impartial jurist was dead wrong. She's an anti-gun federal judge, let's make no bones about it.

I apologize, after going over the Schoenthal Decision, I didn't think I was premature in making a calculated assumption that the PICA case stands no chance in the 7th Circuit. I honestly didn't think anyone took it literally that the decision was already made. I figured that after Schoenthal, we all came to the same assumption that Judge Easterbrook and Judge St. Eve are guaranteed NO votes in any 2A case that comes before them, especially the soon to come PICA case.

 

We all love winning the federal district court ruling but it makes no difference if we immediately lose it at the 7th Circuit (albeit Freedom Week). I don't think there's anything in the PICA case that is so profound, that we could convince Judge St. Eve to change her preconditioned no vote to a yes vote. My 0.03 cents...

[ealcala31]

On 9/3/2025 at 3:23 PM, mab22 said:

Watching the video from Washington Gun law I find it ironic the they put this in the ruling. 

"The virtue of our federal system is that citizens who find
themselves on the losing end of legislative disputes in their
state may vote with their feet and move to a jurisdiction
where their views have prevailed. "

At the same time our dumb slob of a GUV, who could NOT have came up with this on his own, let alone the D party in Illinois, also made the similar comment about leaving the state if you don't like it here. Did the ruling get leaked and give them some catchy slogan to use? 
 

NO WAY that is a coincidence in this crap-a-licious state!

 

 

I honestly can't believe a governor, our governor, would say that about a significant amount of his constituents. As far as the 7th Circuit, that's a beyond WoW. We entrust these "Black Robe Wearers" to be impartial jurists. I guess not. The only thing I can take from the governor and these judges is that they truly hate us, our viewpoint, and the way we live. I mean, they're telling us to get out!

[davel501]

On 9/3/2025 at 2:37 PM, Euler said:

McGlynn issued a preliminary injunction, which was vacated, in Barnett. Then he issued a ruling after the trial. Barnett hasn't been lost for a second time yet. Arguments are set for September 22 for the state's appeal.

FWIW, appeals courts don't hear trials. They just hear arguments. Trials determine facts. Appeals determine law.

 

Oh that was a preliminary injunction. I wish we could bring a civil rights suit against everyone involved in this with their assets frozen for the duration. It would be poetic if we didn't win but they still couldn't access their assets for years. 

[Tvandermyde]

 

[Tango7]

If partially or totally publicly funded transit is truly a "sensitive area", then why does the state refuse to provide armed security on board and magnetometers at entry points? Is it because, despite their claims of "safety" they know us little people have no standing to sue them if they fail to actually protect us? <Rhetorical question, we know it's true, and it's the same reason we don't protect our schoolchildren with the same diligence as we do our money, art and politician's families.>

[Euler]

On October 3, plaintiffs filed a statement of intent to petition the US Supreme Court for Certiorari. Meanwhile the state asked the district court to vacate its injunction in accordance with the 7th Circuit decision.

[Tango7]

On 10/8/2025 at 12:21 AM, Euler said:

On October 3, plaintiffs filed a statement of intent to petition the US Supreme Court for Certiorari. Meanwhile the state asked the district court to vacate its injunction in accordance with the 7th Circuit decision.

 

If, as the State claims, transit is "sensitive" enough to prohibit individual citizens from having the means to defend themselves, then the State should secure said "sensitive area" with passive (magnetometers) and active (armed officers) means. 

 

If they claim they have no obligation to do so (South v Maryland (or Keane v. City of Chicago, Huey v. Cicero, Jamison v. Chicago or Porter v. Urbana) then it seems they are admitting that the area isn't really as "sensitive" as they are alleging.

 

Such a position should also reinforce the proven legal position that the individual citizen, rather than the state, is responsible for their own protection. Removing the most modern effective tool to achieve that goal harms the law abiding.

[ragsbo]

On 10/10/2025 at 1:16 PM, Tango7 said:

 

If, as the State claims, transit is "sensitive" enough to prohibit individual citizens from having the means to defend themselves, then the State should secure said "sensitive area" with passive (magnetometers) and active (armed officers) means. 

 

If they claim they have no obligation to do so (South v Maryland (or Keane v. City of Chicago, Huey v. Cicero, Jamison v. Chicago or Porter v. Urbana) then it seems they are admitting that the area isn't really as "sensitive" as they are alleging.

 

Such a position should also reinforce the proven legal position that the individual citizen, rather than the state, is responsible for their own protection. Removing the most modern effective tool to achieve that goal harms the law abiding.

There you go using common sense and the law to explain the way it should be, not allowing the left of use their "feelings" and "wants" to do what ever they want. 

[Tango7]

On 10/10/2025 at 2:27 PM, ragsbo said:

There you go using common sense and the law to explain the way it should be, not allowing the left of use their "feelings" and "wants" to do what ever they want. 

 

Yeah...I got unfriended quite a bit on FB for doing so.

[mab22]

On 10/10/2025 at 1:16 PM, Tango7 said:

 

If, as the State claims, transit is "sensitive" enough to prohibit individual citizens from having the means to defend themselves, then the State should secure said "sensitive area" with passive (magnetometers) and active (armed officers) means. 

 

If they claim they have no obligation to do so (South v Maryland (or Keane v. City of Chicago, Huey v. Cicero, Jamison v. Chicago or Porter v. Urbana) then it seems they are admitting that the area isn't really as "sensitive" as they are alleging.

 

Such a position should also reinforce the proven legal position that the individual citizen, rather than the state, is responsible for their own protection. Removing the most modern effective tool to achieve that goal harms the law abiding.

There you go expecting a black robe and their clerks to give 2 💩's, neither the judge nor the clerks would go near such a peasant infested mode of transportation like the subway or bus. They would rather share an Uber or Lyft. 

 

[Euler]

On November 4, the US Supreme Court created a docket for the petition for certiorari, which was filed October 31.

[Euler]

On December 1, Raoul (IL) and O’Neill Burke (Cook County) separately waived their right to respond.

[Tvandermyde]

Several groups a couple I am involved with filed amici in support of granting cert

 

 

2025-12-04 Schoenthal v. Raoul Amicus Br. of SADEC, et al..pdf

[Upholder]

SCOTUS has requested a response to the cert petition.  It is due Jan 16th.

 

 

[Euler]

On January 6, Illinois requested an extension to respond, joined by Cook County.

On January 7, the Court extended to the deadline to respond to February 17.