CHICAGO (CN) - Illinois maintained that the state's gun restrictions on public transit were constitutionally and historically sound to a Seventh Circuit panel on Wednesday.
The Illinois firearm statute requires people to obtain firearm owner's identification cards in order to get a concealed carry permit and a gun. Four men filed a lawsuit in 2022 challenging a provision of that law that prohibits firearm owners from carrying guns on public transportation unless those weapons are unloaded and secured.
A lower court ruled in favor of the gun owners in August 2024. Attorneys for the state of Illinois appealed that ruling in 2025, and argued that the gun restrictions on public transit follow historical precedent.
Alex Hemmer, the deputy solicitor general for the state of Illinois, told a Seventh Circuit panel Wednesday that the restrictions pass the constitutional muster set in the landmark 2022 Supreme Court case, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen,, which established that current firearm regulation must consistent with the historical tradition of firearm regulation.
"The restriction descends directly from a tradition of restricting access to firearms that are loaded and unsecured on passenger railroads in the 19th century, which itself descends from a tradition of restricting access to firearms in crowded spaces," Hemmer said of Illinois' statute.
U.S. Circuit Judge Amy St. Eve pointed out that the 19th century passenger railroads Hemmer referenced were managed by private companies.
"We're talking about private regulations and we have public transportation here. How far does your argument go with respect to private regulations at Bruen's second step?" St. Eve, a Donald Trump appointee, asked.
Hemmer said in the 19th century, railroads weren't ordinary corporations but rather quasi-public corporations that could exercise to eminent domain to build railroad tracks.
He added that, aside from the quasi-public nature of 19th century railroad companies, the Supreme Court has indicated that private regulations could be appropriately considered in the historical analysis.
In Bruen, for example, the court concluded that schools were "sensitive places" and as such could have firearm restrictions based on a secondary source that cited gun restrictions at both public and private universities.
John Ohlendorf, who represented the plaintiffs, said Hemmer's argument was a reach, particularly because he failed to mention the firearm restrictions on public transit when the Second Amendment was initially ratified. He maintained that asking what private companies did in the past has no bearing on the constitutional analysis of any particular case.
"Those are private rules," Ohlendorf said. "They're akin to my rules in my house that my kids can't have guns."
But Hemmer insisted that the gun restrictions on public transit are analogous to those "sensitive places."
"Like these sensitive places, public transit systems are owned and operated by the government, they're characterized by crowded and confined spaces and they're full of vulnerable individuals," he said.
Ohlendorf, an attorney with DC-based firm Cooper Kirk, reiterated that public transit spaces are not analogous to sensitive spaces. He noted in particular how Bruen identified only three sensitive places: legislative assemblies, courthouses and polling places - with the biggest unifier of these sensitive spaces being whether the government offers comprehensive security.
"The government does do that in places today, including this courthouse, which we all saw when we came in this morning," Ohlendorf said. "But anyone who has ever ridden on the L will tell you that the government does not similarly undertake to comprehensively secure that location."
U.S. Circuit Judge Joshua Kolar, a Joe Biden appointee, asked if the government always secured these so-called sensitive spaces.
Ohlendorf said yes, but noted that comprehensive security has evolved as the lethality of weapons has evolved.
"There's a difference in calling something a sensitive place, and making and treating it like a sensitive place," Oheldorf said. "If the government actually wants some place to be a sensitive place, we all know what it does. It secures the entrances, it has guards, and so forth."
Hemmer said even if Seventh Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision, it wouldn't affect the Metra and Chicago Transit Authority's no gun policy, which is reaffirmed by the no gun signs placed all over train and bus stops.
"Whatever happens here, those signs are still going to be there," Hemmer said.
U.S. Circuit Judge Kenneth Ripple, a Ronald Reagan appointee, joined St. Eve and Kolar on the panel. The panel did not indicate when it might issue a ruling.
Source: Courthouse News Service
