US Supreme Court lets stand Illinois' public transit gun ban
Posted by wmtismykryptonite@reddit | Firearms | View on Reddit | 55 comments
Posted by wmtismykryptonite@reddit | Firearms | View on Reddit | 55 comments
Huge_scrotum@reddit
Question for those who may know - is it possible SCOTUS declined to hear this case because it may be found unconstitutional anyway after their ruling comes out on the Hawaii vampire rule?
AlphaTangoFoxtrt@reddit
The case is not even on final en banc judgement from the circuit. SCOTUS likely denied cert because it was heard en banc on September but a decision has not yet been issued.
Viper_ACR@reddit
Gotcha. That makes more sense then.
wmtismykryptonite@reddit (OP)
Benjamin Schoenthal, et al., Petitioners v. Kwame Raoul, Attorney General of Illinois, et al.
Show "Petition DENIED" but no documents available from April yet.
This brief to me has circular reasoning:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-541/396377/20260217112110875_25-541_Brief.pdf
Midnight_Rider98@reddit
Not directly, but if they issue a broad ruling in the Hawaii vampire rule case it could set a new standard that lower courts have to follow, similar to Heller or Bruen.
How that will play out in practice, well there's the Hawaii case as the proof in the pudding...
Best case a broad ruling regarding CC locations is issued that can be used to get summary judgment on IL's carry ban (or any other)
Worst case, and most likely in such a case, IL (or other places) will make changes to their bans to circumvent the ruling.
Bman708@reddit
As an Illinois resident, that's exactly what they would do.
BBQSauce61@reddit
As a former NYC resident, I concur.
SakanaToDoubutsu@reddit
That's almost certainly why they didn't take it. They haven't ruled on Wolford v Lopez yet, but when they do they're basically guaranteed to clarify Bruen on how they want lower courts to analyze restrictions on where it's legal for the government to restrict possession of firearms, and they'll want the 7th circuit to relitigate that case before the Supreme Court will consider taking it. This is pretty normal for how the court operates, and it's not at all unexpected that the court declined this case.
DickNose-TurdWaffle@reddit
Declining to hear a case could mean anything. Good call out though.
TheJewBakka@reddit
I lived in Illinois (not Chicagoland) for 2 years. State fucking blows.
wmtismykryptonite@reddit (OP)
Seems like living on rural IL gives you all of the downsides and no upsides of being couples to Chicagoland.
mcbergstedt@reddit
I mean it’s no different than any other government building so I get it, but it would probably be the places I’d want to carry
wmtismykryptonite@reddit (OP)
In a government building, they at least screen people at the entry. They don't even effectively screen people for fares on the Chicago 'L.'
thisassholeisstupid@reddit
Not allowing firearms on public transit effectively disarms anyone who relies on public transit from carrying anywhere not in walking distance.
GrimHoly@reddit
That’s like the place I most want to carry outside of churches. Subways and busses can be wild sometimes especially at night. And if you can’t carry there you indirectly cannot carry at your destination. It serves as an effective blanket ban on carrying in cities.
mcbergstedt@reddit
Basically another poverty tax for firearms
AlphaTangoFoxtrt@reddit
It's not on final en banc judgement yet. The odds of the court taking the case were abysmally low.
wmtismykryptonite@reddit (OP)
The district court's ruling was reversed by the 7th circuit in September. I don't see a petition for rehearing in banc. The writ of cert was denied by SCOTUS yesterday. What recourse do you see available?
Dirty_Blue_Shirt@reddit
I feel like this Supreme Court has behaved very differently with the second amendment compared to any other right.
Typically this Supreme Court has gone out of their way to take mostly narrow cases on other topics and made decisions that tend to answer very specific questions. But on the 2A they make these pretty broad decisions McDonald and Heller for example, but they are so broad that the states just ignore the results as the USSC never follows through when the cases make their way back. The lower courts are blatantly ignoring the broader decisions and the USSC is just letting it go.
GrimHoly@reddit
They are too scared to actually come out and say “a right is a right fuck off” this lets them dip their feet in but not actually have to decide one way or another. Hope the 3rd circuit forces their hands
PacoBedejo@reddit
If they take the 2A's plain language seriously, they're gonna have to grapple with the 10A... and the whole house of cards is built on gross misinterpretation of it.
https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/the-10th-amendment/
Dirty_Blue_Shirt@reddit
But here is where it’s weird. They ARE making those broad statements. It’s an individual right, laws have to be consistent with what was in place at the time of writing, etc. these are great statements for our side, they should nullify all kinds of laws currently on the books about carry, bans, etc
But they are refusing the narrow cases that they can use to force the lower courts to actually follow the rulings. The lower courts don’t like the wording so they are ignoring it.
GrimHoly@reddit
Here comes the problem tho. Who’s gonna enforce it? Do they have the balls to hold a Judge in contempt? Once that can of worms is opened what happens if there is a liberal court that broadly abuses the power. I hate it too but I think you are going to keep seeing this problem until SCOTUS opens that box
Dirty_Blue_Shirt@reddit
Not even close to that… we can’t even get them to take the case and tell these judges they are wrong. But at a minimum I wish they would clearly state things like magazine capacity bans are unconstitutional and selecting random features integral to protected arms cannot be banned (pistol grips, flash hiders, threaded barrels, etc)
GrimHoly@reddit
Agreed
GamecockInGeorgia@reddit
And here I am looking for the historical example of transportation related gun bans.
I love how the Supreme Court just ignores their own Bruen ruling.
Bad news friends, we’re not voting our way out of this.
Joice_Craglarg@reddit
But redditors told me this administration was pro gun! 😡
FlapperGasfire@reddit
It's better on guns than any in decades at a minimum. And before you claim a Trump quote disproves that, I'm talking about actual policy/outcomes. I know Trump isn't genuinely pro gun, but his administration's policies have tended that way more than any other recent administration.
Joice_Craglarg@reddit
Then why did Republicans enact the 'Bump Stock Ban' in my state? They're the reason my fellow Floridians can't enjoy FRTs with the rest of y'all.
juggarjew@reddit
Because in 2018 when it was passed they were a purple state, not as red as they are now. Theres even been talks around removing it, but I doubt that will ever happen.
wmtismykryptonite@reddit (OP)
It was part of a school safety bill, but GOP could have done better. After Garland v. Cargill, HB 6013 (2025) and HB 6021 (2026) were introduced, and failed in committee.
ktmrider119z@reddit
Oh? You cant enjoy FRTs?
I cant enjoy suppressors, full auto, modern semi autos, standard capacity mags, threaded barrels, thumbhole stocks, foregrips, flash hiders. I had to get a permit to own a gun, concealed carry is expensive and the "no guns" signs carry force of law.
FlapperGasfire@reddit
That's a drop in the bucket compared to the laundry list of things the Dems have done. Have you paid any attention to VA lately?
aluminumqueso@reddit
Have you seen the bullshit that recently got passed in California? It gets much worse than bump stock bans.
wmtismykryptonite@reddit (OP)
Comparatively less anti-gun.
Mountain_Man_88@reddit
Illinois requires a permit to own and a permit to carry, but people with two permits can't be trusted with guns in certain places? As a result, the only people with firearms on public transport will be those without both permits, who don't care about laws in general.
wmtismykryptonite@reddit (OP)
They "can't be trusted" in most places.
juggarjew@reddit
Its like they say, id rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6. Some people will carry anyway because they value their life more than a BS law.
asoupo77@reddit
The government is not your friend. Become ungovernable.
New_Ant_7190@reddit
In Comrade Governor Pritzker's Socialist Paradise of Illinois this won't make any difference. The apparatchiks will continue to work diligently to block the normals/serfs from having 2nd Amendment rights.
Ok_Muffin_925@reddit
The Supremes suck.
TerrificVixen5693@reddit
As always, it doesn’t matter which party, our gun rights continue to be erased by people who show up with private armed security details.
ThatBadFeel@reddit
Maybe we can crowdsource a bribe!
stankassbruh@reddit
lobby* wink wink
mynewworkthrowaway@reddit
(in minecraft)
csx348@reddit
Would take this L if it means a PICA W
TyburnCross@reddit
Ah, yes. Democrats & Republicans uniting on their mutual enemy: the poors
lundah@reddit
They keep fanning the flames of made up culture wars to distract you from the ongoing class war the rich have been waging on us all.
Bman708@reddit
Left or Right, elites gunna elite.
SaltyDog556@reddit
Hopefully the democrat voting gun owners can finally see the courts aren't going to save us and start voting strategically in states that haven't yet enacted this shit.
Diligent-Parfait-236@reddit
They already think that, and it's because of a slight Republican bias, so they'll make sure to vote Democrat extra hard.
SaltyDog556@reddit
While they write a gazillion letters and call their representatives 24/7 making sure they tell them to "read the room" and "why do they want to disarm them with fascism and shit".
OrraDryWit@reddit
“Declined to hear”
Cowards
GrimHoly@reddit
Could this be because of the vampire case and potentially the New York Times Square case already moving through the courts
ZeroPointSpecter@reddit
Democrats call the Supreme Court illegitimate, Corrupt and packed with right-wing judges, but rulings like this keep going their way. It’s a convenient contradiction.