Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Transit Carry Case — Another Blow to the Second Amendment

Chicago is consistantly one of the most dangerous cities in the U.S. and now you must be disarmed to use public transportation.

Once again the Supreme Court had a chance to step in and they didn’t. In a all too familiar pattern for gun owners the highest court in the land punts on another chance to defend our constitutional rights. This leaves us law-abiding gun owners are left dealing with the consequences.

What Happened

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to Illinois’ ban on carrying loaded concealed firearms on public transit. By doing this they are leaving the restriction in place.

The case, Schoenthal v. Raoul, involved concealed carry permit holders who challenged the law as unconstitutional. The part that is always missed in these types of restrictions is that these plaintiffs are people already vetted and approved by the state for carry.

Originally, a district court agreed and struck the ban down. But that ruling was later reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The Seventh Circuit has long been a proponent of gun control. Now we have the Supreme Court refusing to intervene. On the surface, this looks like a procedural decision, but the impact is much bigger.

What This Means

In Illinois, concealed carry permit holders can now only carry unloaded firearms on public transit. That is what is crazy, the state will let you carry, but not in a way that allows you to actually defend yourself.

They are disarming you in environments where there are large crowds and response times can be slower from law enforcement. As always criminals are not exactly known for following the rules. This leave you, the law-abiding gun owner, vulnerable and defenseless.  

Why This Matters

To us here at 2 If By Sea Tactical, this is where things get serious. This is not just about carrying on public transit in Illinois. To us, it’s about whether the courts are willing to actually enforce the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen was supposed to set a clear standard. That standard was that the government must justify gun restrictions using text, history, and traditions at the time of the founding.

However, what we are seeing is several courts twist themselves in knots in attempts to get around that standard. Decisions like this raise a real question does that standard actually mean anything if the Court won’t enforce it? Also one must ask why is the Supreme Court not even enforcing their own standard?

We are seeing this all over the country at various levels among state and district courts. Lower courts are upholding questionable restrictions and then appeals courts reinforce them. What is even more disturbing is, while one could expect this from lower anti-2A courts, the Supreme Court continues to decline to step in.

The end result of this pattern is that these state and local restrictions stay in place and violate the rights of law-abiding gun owners. The greatest danger here is that if you can restrict one constitutional right, what is to stop a court from restricting another?

Real-World Impact

For us everyday Americans, especially in places like Chicago, this creates a serious problem. We often have to us public transit to get around these cities. For many, it is the primary way many individuals commute to and from work.

These types of places are exactly where people are most exposed and vulnerable. We also see increased attacks on public transit all over the country as criminals often use this mode of transportation due to its low cost and easy access.

Now we have a court, and be default the Supreme Court, telling aaw-abiding citizens they must be disarmed in those spaces while criminals, unsurprisingly, will not.

What Comes Next

By refusing to hear this case, the Supreme Court has effectively allowed this restriction to stand. We know other state will follow this model, including here in Minnesota. States will continue to increase the list of “sensitive places” and add more restrictions. We can expect more legal challenges to continue, but they move slowly. That means in the meantime, gun owners are left navigating a patchwork of restrictions.

This isn’t just about public transit. It’s about how far “sensitive place” restrictions can go. This is because if public transit qualifies, what’s next? We must demand our Supreme Court to defend our right to self defense. That is the very right they themselves stated we have. It is the Supreme Courts highest priority in its very creation, the defense of individual rights of U.S. citizens. Rights delayed are rights denied. When courts refuse to act, those delays start to look permanent.

Here at 2 If By Sea Tactical we strive to bring you the best experience in the firearms world.  As we continue to grow the media arm of 2 If By Sea, make sure you keep tuning in to our Youtube and Rumble channels and right here at “The Patriot’s Almanac” to stay informed on the latest happenings in the firearm world! But we are not lawyers, so this isn't legal guidance. We are proud to be Southern Minnesota source for all things 2A.

Stay sharp, stay informed, and stay ready.