Posted at entries to some Chicago L train stations is an unmistakable emblem: a black handgun with a red slash through the middle, warning that firearms are not allowed on board.
On Wednesday, attorneys will go before a federal appellate panel to argue whether those placards should stay in place.
The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is slated to review an Illinois law that prohibits concealed-carry permit holders from taking their guns on public transit. A federal district judge last year ruled in favor of four men who sued for the right to carry on Metra commuter trains and Chicago Transit Authority buses, prompting an appeal from the state attorney general and state’s attorneys for Cook and DuPage counties.
The underlying ruling is somewhat limited: Northern District of Illinois Judge Iain Johnston didn’t bar the state from broadly enforcing the law, and his order made clear he only found the statute unconstitutional as applied to the four plaintiffs.
But the appeal attracted amicus briefs from far and wide, a sign that advocates see it as a chance to clarify the Second Amendment legal landscape after recent seismic changes—most prominently the US Supreme Court’s finding in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n. v. Bruen that gun regulations must be consistent with the country’s “historical tradition.” Bruen, combined with a later holding on gun restrictions in United States v. Rahimi, has spurred federal courts to consider whether assault weapons bans, handgun licensing requirements, and other regulations have a historical analog.
If the appeals court agrees with the district judge in the Illinois matter, it could open the door to a broader challenge on behalf of concealed-carry holders across the state, said Erin Erhardt, litigation counsel at the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action.
Since the case looks “at one relatively narrow issue, that will be a good barometer to see how broadly or how narrowly the court is going to construe history,” said Erhardt, who filed an amicus brief on behalf of the NRA and the California Rifle & Pistol Association.
The Illinois case strikes at a crucial principle, said Shira Feldman, director of constitutional litigation at Brady United Against Gun Violence: the government’s right to restrict firearms in places deemed “sensitive.” Brady, along with the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, filed an amicus brief in favor of the transit ban.
“Public transit is a really good example of that, because kids have to take it to school, because it’s crowded, because you’re in an enclosed space where you can’t escape from,” said Feldman. “Recognizing this is exactly the kind of place where the government can regulate is incredibly important”
Historical Analysis
Attorneys for the state and counties put a similar focus on transit as a “sensitive” area. The Cook County state’s attorney’s brief noted that separate, independent regulations imposed by the transit bodies themselves also bar weapons from public transportation—meaning, they argued, that the district court didn’t have proper jurisdiction over the claims.
But if the state law is unconstitutional, those independent rules are by implication also invalid, the concealed-carry license holders said in their brief.
If they are “entitled to relief because the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect their right to carry firearms on public transportation, then there is not actually any legally binding rule against them entering these carriers with their firearms, regardless of which government entity purported to enact it,” they wrote.
A brief for the DuPage County state’s attorney and the Illinois attorney general pointed to a historical tradition of “limiting access to unsecured firearms on passenger railroads,” which they said accords with a history of firearm restrictions in crowded places.
The concealed-carry holders rejected that argument, arguing that the justifications for the ban “are historically unsupported and are so broad as to effectively neutralize the Second Amendment.”
The Ninth Circuit tackled similar questions last year in an opinion that permitted California to enforce a ban at bars and restaurants, but not at medical facilities or on public transit—though the Brady and Giffords brief argues that ruling makes clear that a law like Illinois’ would probably pass muster. Recent Fourth Circuit arguments over Maryland’s concealed-carry restrictions and a local Virginia ordinance prohibiting guns in parks both focused on the history of regulating guns in certain places.
A Question of Safety
Beyond the history and tradition, advocates sparred in their court filings over the effectiveness of gun bans.
Recalling a quadruple homicide on an L train last year, the NRA argued in its brief that “all a public transit ban does is prevent innocent, law-abiding victims from carrying tools to defend themselves—while doing nothing to ensure their safety against criminal attackers.”
But the presence of guns, Brady’s Feldman said, has not been shown to actually make people safer.
“That is particularly true in a crowded place like public transit, where you’re also in a moving vehicle,” she said. “If someone starts shooting, they’re very unlikely to be able to just shoot the person they mean to be shooting.”
Everytown for Gun Safety, which filed an amicus brief in the case, is backed by Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg Law is operated by entities controlled by Michael Bloomberg.
The concealed-carry permit holders are represented by David G. Sigale of Lombard, Ill., and Cooper & Kirk. The Illinois attorney general and DuPage County state’s attorney are represented by the Illinois Office of the Attorney General. The Cook County state’s attorney is represented by her office. The Brady and Giffords amici are represented by Mayer Brown.
The case is Schoenthal v. Raoul, 7th Cir., No. 24-2643, oral arguments scheduled 5/28/25.
To contact the reporter on this story:
To contact the editors responsible for this story: