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

[Molly B.]

Very disappointed.

[Black Flag]

"Supreme Court of the US clears the way for TSA checkpoint takeover of Illinois Mass Transit  to ensure passenger safety"

Yea, right.

 

 

 

[AlphaKoncepts aka CGS]

I'm really really just hoping they are waiting for a circuit split or something. The problem is the court isn't getting any younger. 

[mab22]

Maybe they want something with someone facing the loss of liberty, as in arrested or rotting in Jail waiting for an appeal? 

 

[ealcala31]

Instead of counting on the Supreme Court, how about we do something for ourselves, like voting in a Pro-2A Governor to start. The AG is a state-wide election as well. It seems like we neglect the fact that the majority of FOID Card Holders vote against the 2nd Amendment.

[AlphaKoncepts aka CGS]

On 4/6/2026 at 8:51 PM, ealcala31 said:

Instead of counting on the Supreme Court, how about we do something for ourselves, like voting in a Pro-2A Governor to start. The AG is a state-wide election as well. It seems like we neglect the fact that the majority of FOID Card Holders vote against the 2nd Amendment.

A pro-2a governor is absolutely powerless when nearly the entire legislature is anti-2a. There's not much an executive can do unilaterally. 

Not all gun owners are single-issue voters. Some say Bailey lost the last election due to his abortion stance. He will probably lose it this time due to immigration. I know many union members who voted against Rauner in his second run because their unions scared them that they would be out of a job. I say that to say this, our voices are meaningless in the gun debate. The anti-gun politicians know we won't vote for them even if they change their stance on guns because of other issues. So, why would they listen to us? What we really need to do is to convince all the people who vote for their union, for abortion, for open borders, etc... we need to convince these people to become 2a activists and start hammering their politicians because their voices have weight.  

But instead, I see gun owners constantly arguing and bickering with other gun owners about issues unrelated to gun rights. Instead of coming together, we push away potential allies because of unrelated issues. One thing is for sure, the opposition is very unified against us and rarely infights. 

[ealcala31]

On 4/6/2026 at 11:08 PM, AlphaKoncepts aka CGS said:

A pro-2a governor is absolutely powerless when nearly the entire legislature is anti-2a. There's not much an executive can do unilaterally. 

Not all gun owners are single-issue voters. Some say Bailey lost the last election due to his abortion stance. He will probably lose it this time due to immigration. I know many union members who voted against Rauner in his second run because their unions scared them that they would be out of a job. I say that to say this, our voices are meaningless in the gun debate. The anti-gun politicians know we won't vote for them even if they change their stance on guns because of other issues. So, why would they listen to us? What we really need to do is to convince all the people who vote for their union, for abortion, for open borders, etc... we need to convince these people to become 2a activists and start hammering their politicians because their voices have weight.  

But instead, I see gun owners constantly arguing and bickering with other gun owners about issues unrelated to gun rights. Instead of coming together, we push away potential allies because of unrelated issues. One thing is for sure, the opposition is very unified against us and rarely infights. 

What you are saying is nothing new, talked ad nauseum here, in the IL Guns SubReddit, and on all the FB IL Gun Groups. The Cook County/Chicago FOID Card Holders are not single issue voters, you are correct. They are Party-Line Democrats who want to own ARs/AKs but still vote Democrat. 2A can't have their cake & eat it too, especially in IL.

 

2A gets a bad reputation of being a single issue vote, it's not. We're basically asking Cook County/Chicago FOID Card Holders to vote for a Republican if they want 2A to be represented in Springfield, which they won't do for the various hot-button political issues you listed above.

 

Every time I hear an IL Republican Governor will have no power because of the Democrat super majority in Springfield, I consider that an excuse. Bruce Rauner held the line on the Gun Licensing Bill, and would not cave to a Madigan yearly budget. Yes, Bailey can veto and get his veto overrode by the super majority. But damn, 2A doesn't even want to try and battle this out.

 

Cook County/Chicago FOID Card Holders are now blaming IL FFLs for "enforcing" PICA, or SCOTUS for not immediately ruling in OUR favor. Yet, they voted for these anti-gun politicians who said in Nov 2022 if they win, they're voting in an AWB. This is their vote. Or the, I'm a Liberal, but I want a Conservative Supreme Court to rule in my favor.

[Vodoun da Vinci]

On 4/6/2026 at 11:08 PM, AlphaKoncepts aka CGS said:

A pro-2a governor is absolutely powerless when nearly the entire legislature is anti-2a. There's not much an executive can do unilaterally. 

Not all gun owners are single-issue voters. Some say Bailey lost the last election due to his abortion stance. He will probably lose it this time due to immigration. I know many union members who voted against Rauner in his second run because their unions scared them that they would be out of a job. I say that to say this, our voices are meaningless in the gun debate. The anti-gun politicians know we won't vote for them even if they change their stance on guns because of other issues. So, why would they listen to us? What we really need to do is to convince all the people who vote for their union, for abortion, for open borders, etc... we need to convince these people to become 2a activists and start hammering their politicians because their voices have weight.  

But instead, I see gun owners constantly arguing and bickering with other gun owners about issues unrelated to gun rights. Instead of coming together, we push away potential allies because of unrelated issues. One thing is for sure, the opposition is very unified against us and rarely infights. 

 

Thanks to You for this. 100% agreed.

 

VooDoo

[springfield shooter]

On 4/7/2026 at 7:45 AM, ealcala31 said:

.......Cook County/Chicago FOID Card Holders are now blaming IL FFLs for "enforcing" PICA, or SCOTUS for not immediately ruling in OUR favor. Yet, they voted for these anti-gun politicians who said in Nov 2022 if they win, they're voting in an AWB. This is their vote. Or the, I'm a Liberal, but I want a Conservative Supreme Court to rule in my favor.

 

In a free country, the people (collectively) get the representation they deserve. Maybe these FOID card holders need to look in the mirror. In the meantime, like H.L. Menken said: "good and hard". 

[EdDinIL]

On 4/6/2026 at 11:08 PM, AlphaKoncepts aka CGS said:

The anti-gun politicians know we won't vote for them even if they change their stance on guns because of other issues.

I was pondering this.  Let's assume a traditional Chicago-area liberal came out and said "I'm pro 2A", but really meant it in the way that we believe it, would that person have a chance of getting elected?  My fear is that such a person would say all the right things and then just toe the party line once in office.

[TomKoz]

On 4/8/2026 at 9:18 AM, EdDinIL said:

I was pondering this.  Let's assume a traditional Chicago-area liberal came out and said "I'm pro 2A", but really meant it in the way that we believe it, would that person have a chance of getting elected?  My fear is that such a person would say all the right things and then just toe the party line once in office.

Dem party leadership will Never allow their politicians vote pro 2A, or pro any conservative policy or pro American policy for that matter.

 

A Dem politician will never vote for anything that may disrupt their power or reduce their control.   Their party leadership won’t allow it.

[AlphaKoncepts aka CGS]

On 4/8/2026 at 9:18 AM, EdDinIL said:

I was pondering this.  Let's assume a traditional Chicago-area liberal came out and said "I'm pro 2A", but really meant it in the way that we believe it, would that person have a chance of getting elected?  My fear is that such a person would say all the right things and then just toe the party line once in office.

Sure they will toe the party line, but only if their voting base lets them. Let me reiterate something I said in my last comment... OUR voices, meaning Republican voters, are meaningless in the gun debate. What we need is for Democratic gun owners to stand up and voice opposition. Then and only then will democrat politicians listen, maybe. We, Republican gun owners, need to find a way to build bridges with the Democrat gun owners. But instead, we gatekeep and start bashing them over the head about issues unrelated to gun rights and firearm freedoms. 

[Vodoun da Vinci]

On 4/8/2026 at 10:14 AM, AlphaKoncepts aka CGS said:

Sure they will toe the party line, but only if their voting base lets them. Let me reiterate something I said in my last comment... OUR voices, meaning Republican voters, are meaningless in the gun debate. What we need is for Democratic gun owners to stand up and voice opposition. Then and only then will democrat politicians listen, maybe. We, Republican gun owners, need to find a way to build bridges with the Democrat gun owners. But instead, we gatekeep and start bashing them over the head about issues unrelated to gun rights and firearm freedoms. 

 

I believe there may be as many Liberal gun owners in Illinois as there are conservative gun owners. Or a lot of them anyway.  I have been trying to get my local circle of gun owners invested in the idea that we will *all* be infringed to the point of disarmament unless we find a way to connect and leverage the unity against legislators. The problem with Illinois/America is our government which is controlled by a 2 party system where both parties are owned and operated by Oligarchs that have no interest going forward in seeing Americans armed.

 

But both sides seem more intent on alienating the other side with party rhetoric and hate. We are being disarmed by our .Gov and if we think things are not so good now, wait until the Oligarchy gets US disarmed or infringed to the point of virtual disarmament. In my opinion, the forces that control America have plans to do things to US that we will wanna shoot them for....hence the infringement.

 

YMMV - my point is that unless we find a way to embrace all the gun owners in Illinois/the US and unify despite political philosophy we are done as gun owners.

 

VooDoo

[Tip]

On 4/8/2026 at 9:18 AM, EdDinIL said:

I was pondering this.  Let's assume a traditional Chicago-area liberal came out and said "I'm pro 2A", but really meant it in the way that we believe it, would that person have a chance of getting elected?  My fear is that such a person would say all the right things and then just toe the party line once in office.

There are presently two parties.

On one side of the aisle we see the politicians quite often question the party stance and actively disagree and vote accordingly.

On the other side of the aisle we almost always see the politicians in lockstep and voting strictly party line with very few exceptions. 
You, as a voter, need to decide whether you’ll vote a party that allows dissension in the ranks or one that doesn’t. To claim to “vote the candidate and not the party” fails miserably in light of the two statements above. As to the accuracy of those statements one needs only look at the voting records on contentious for verification…

 

 

 

[EdDinIL]

One question to ask a gun owner, regardless of political affiliation:

 

Would you be willing to surrender your firearms if your elected officials did everything else they promised and then ordered you to turn your guns in?

 

There should only be two possible answers - YES or NO.  "That'll never happen" or "That's not nuanced enough" or some other hemming and hawing over the answer gets us where we are today.

 

None of this is going to fix Schoenthal v Raoul, so maybe we need to relocate our crushed hopes and dreams to a back room thread.

[springfield shooter]

On 4/8/2026 at 11:23 AM, EdDinIL said:

One question to ask a gun owner, regardless of political affiliation:

 

Would you be willing to surrender your firearms if your elected officials did everything else they promised and then ordered you to turn your guns in?

 

There should only be two possible answers - YES or NO.  "That'll never happen" or "That's not nuanced enough" or some other hemming and hawing over the answer gets us where we are today.

 

None of this is going to fix Schoenthal v Raoul, so maybe we need to relocate our crushed hopes and dreams to a back room thread.

No.

[TomKoz]

On 4/8/2026 at 11:23 AM, EdDinIL said:

One question to ask a gun owner, regardless of political affiliation:

 

Would you be willing to surrender your firearms if your elected officials did everything else they promised and then ordered you to turn your guns in?

 

There should only be two possible answers - YES or NO.  "That'll never happen" or "That's not nuanced enough" or some other hemming and hawing over the answer gets us where we are today.

 

None of this is going to fix Schoenthal v Raoul, so maybe we need to relocate our crushed hopes and dreams to a back room thread.

Anyone that answers “No” should Never vote Democrat then … yet they do. 😖

[Vodoun da Vinci]

I don't know if it translates to State wide, but, in my neighborhood group of Illinois gun owners (all Liberals) they were/are unaware of PICA and are ignorant of most of the new laws regarding transportation/storage of firearms/ammunition and are ignorant in general about modern firearms. Several of them have long expired FOID cards. All of them are what I call "Fudds" and they are perfectly fine with banning "assault weapons" and hi cap mags, suppressors, threaded barrels, etc. because, they only own "sporting arms" for shooting skeet and target. We have been, US gun owners, neatly divided against our firearm interests by politics and rhetoric. SCOTUS seems owned and operated by the same Oligarchy that owns and operates our Representation and Legislators.

 

We have been divided and conquered. We have dug ourselves a hole and it's way past time to stop digging except that it has gone too far now and polarized US against the neighbors we need to keep our Rights.

 

SCOTUS is not gonna save US. Enlisting neighbors who are gun owning Democrats/Liberals to help US stop the rampant infringement might be our only hope. 

 

VooDoo

[Jeffrey]

Godspeed getting an Illinois dumdum to flip red.  I don't disagree with the things you're saying but faith isn't real high either.

[Yeti]

On 4/8/2026 at 10:14 AM, AlphaKoncepts aka CGS said:

Sure they will toe the party line, but only if their voting base lets them. Let me reiterate something I said in my last comment... OUR voices, meaning Republican voters, are meaningless in the gun debate. What we need is for Democratic gun owners to stand up and voice opposition. Then and only then will democrat politicians listen, maybe. We, Republican gun owners, need to find a way to build bridges with the Democrat gun owners. But instead, we gatekeep and start bashing them over the head about issues unrelated to gun rights and firearm freedoms. 

I agree with you that the Democratic gun owners are the voices that prevent us from getting our 2A rights restored and often allow more 2A rights to be taken or restricted.  This forum community even contains "Democratic voters who like guns" who are presented with the pro 2A arguments and cases of 2A infringement put clearly in front of them daily yet still won't vote 2A in meaningful elections because they prioritize and vote for reproductive rights (their term) and social welfare (their term) vs. 2A rights in their minds.  Some have even communicated to this 2A-focused forum and told us we are wrong not to make their priorities our priorities in elections vs. voting 2A.  After years of generally civil fact-based communication, this has not changed with "gun-vested" Democrats and there is no inertia in the Democratic party or even "gun liking Ds" on this forum to change this.  Polling has shown the 2A to be a minority issue amongst Democrats and highlights the lack of prioritization with "Democrats who like guns" to make it their primary issue and vote pro 2A.   Gun control is in the Democratic party platform and they know it yet still vote D, effectively endorsing more gun control.  How do you propose resetting their votes when the R platform isn't going to change to be pro-abortion or pro-wealth redistribution to accommodate their MAIN priorities?  Is there of a level of "being even nicer" that hasn't been tested towards people who know that they are voting against us and even vote against their own 2A interests? 

 

All it would take is "gun-liking Democrats" to all vote pro-2A for one or two election cycles nationally and gun control would be dead.  It is not their personal priority to lead with the 2A.  I don't believe "being nicer" is going to shock the system to change that that but would love to be proven wrong.

 

 

[ealcala31]

I pretty much ask people to vote for the 2A. That's it. No party, no Dem vs Repub, but it always leads to that. IL Liberals do not vote for candidates, they vote for the party. The 3 biggest hot-button issues listed above; immigration, abortion, and unions are the answers most IL Liberal gun owners give on why they voted against any Repub, or the i JusT HAte TruMP line as well. If Liberal gun owners even considered voting for the candidate and not the party, former Gov. Bruce Rauner would have won a 2nd term.

 

The Trust Act was huge in the Mexican/Latino Community. It was/still is a pro-immigration bill. Passed during Trump 1.0

 

HB40 is a pro-abortion bill signed by Rauner as well.

 

The Janus Decision is definitely anti-union. Rauner never really got to implement it, and it never spread to private unions because he got voted out of office.

 

2 out of 3 should have been enough to pull a Liberal gun owner, but again, they don't vote for candidates, they vote for the party. Pritzker was not the best candidate on his first run. Enough scandal to lose against an incumbent, but... IL gun owners (in general) have never had "skin in the game." Chicago had a 28+ year ban on handgun ownership, yet Liberal gun owners voted for Democrats. Total ban on conceal and carry, yet Liberal gun owners still voted for Democrats. PICA, 3years & running, and yet Liberal gun owners are still supporting Democrats. I seriously do not believe confiscation would be enough, either. So, the only recourse 2A Advocates have, are the Courts...

[Yeti]

On 4/8/2026 at 6:19 PM, ealcala31 said:

I pretty much ask people to vote for the 2A. That's it. No party, no Dem vs Repub, but it always leads to that. IL Liberals do not vote for candidates, they vote for the party. The 3 biggest hot-button issues listed above; immigration, abortion, and unions are the answers most IL Liberal gun owners give on why they voted against any Repub, or the i JusT HAte TruMP line as well. If Liberal gun owners even considered voting for the candidate and not the party, former Gov. Bruce Rauner would have won a 2nd term.

 

The Trust Act was huge in the Mexican/Latino Community. It was/still is a pro-immigration bill. Passed during Trump 1.0

 

HB40 is a pro-abortion bill signed by Rauner as well.

 

The Janus Decision is definitely anti-union. Rauner never really got to implement it, and it never spread to private unions because he got voted out of office.

 

2 out of 3 should have been enough to pull a Liberal gun owner, but again, they don't vote for candidates, they vote for the party. Pritzker was not the best candidate on his first run. Enough scandal to lose against an incumbent, but... IL gun owners (in general) have never had "skin in the game." Chicago had a 28+ year ban on handgun ownership, yet Liberal gun owners voted for Democrats. Total ban on conceal and carry, yet Liberal gun owners still voted for Democrats. PICA, 3years & running, and yet Liberal gun owners are still supporting Democrats. I seriously do not believe confiscation would be enough, either. So, the only recourse 2A Advocates have, are the Courts...

As noted, it is obvious those who actively vote against their own 2A interests do not prioritize the 2A in any meaningful way.  I do not believe voters who do this to themselves will generally revisit their voting priorities due to logical debate or kindness.  For now, I am with you in that I still have some 2A hope for the courts.  I know posting online does nothing to move the needle and therefore provide significant-to-me resources to support the legal fight.  We've seen painfully slow restoration of 2A rights with the courts and I still have a few remaining drops of patience.  When that runs out, my other recourse to consider is "the mailbox" as in moving my mailbox to another state where people generally vote pro-2A.  If I do so and take a chunk of tax dollars with me that the politicians here (and many voters) want to take and-- if enough others move the same way-- the IL D politicians will eventually have to pay attention.   Starve them of money and you eventually starve them of power.  It might not happen in my lifetime, and I might just be paving the path to a solution for later generations but at least I will enjoy meaningfully more 2A freedom until my time passes living in another state.  It also means I can then spend more time on forums talking about cool 2A related items and spend more money on my own interests vs. lawyers to fight nonsense feelgood local 2A infringements coming from the D party.

[ealcala31]

On 4/8/2026 at 9:41 PM, Yeti said:

As noted, it is obvious those who actively vote against their own 2A interests do not prioritize the 2A in any meaningful way.  I do not believe voters who do this to themselves will generally revisit their voting priorities due to logical debate or kindness.  For now, I am with you in that I still have some 2A hope for the courts.  I know posting online does nothing to move the needle and therefore provide significant-to-me resources to support the legal fight.  We've seen painfully slow restoration of 2A rights with the courts and I still have a few remaining drops of patience.  When that runs out, my other recourse to consider is "the mailbox" as in moving my mailbox to another state where people generally vote pro-2A.  If I do so and take a chunk of tax dollars with me that the politicians here (and many voters) want to take and-- if enough others move the same way-- the IL D politicians will eventually have to pay attention.   Starve them of money and you eventually starve them of power.  It might not happen in my lifetime, and I might just be paving the path to a solution for later generations but at least I will enjoy meaningfully more 2A freedom until my time passes living in another state.  It also means I can then spend more time on forums talking about cool 2A related items and spend more money on my own interests vs. lawyers to fight nonsense feelgood local 2A infringements coming from the D party.

I'm thinking along your lines. Selling guns ain't even that cool anymore. Almost every semi-auto firearm is neutered in some way. 2A

Edited April 9, 2026 at 03:07 AM by ealcala31

[davel501]

I wonder if the state will be able to successfully claim qualified immunity if someone is attacked in a poorly secured sensitive place. 

 

Maybe liability is the way to go here. 

[yurimodin]

Become ungovernable.