Gun News

Gun-Free Zones on Trains? Major Federal Appeals Court Case May Decide the Future of 2A Rights on Public Transit ~ VIDEO

The fight for Second Amendment rights just rolled into a critical stop—Chicago’s Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In a pivotal oral argument in the case Schoenthal v. Raoul, a three-judge panel considered whether Illinois and Cook County can legally ban law-abiding gun owners from carrying on public transportation. This case could reshape how far the government can go in declaring “gun-free zones” in everyday spaces like buses and trains.

What’s the Issue & Why It Matters

Illinois law currently bans even concealed carry permit holders from carrying firearms on public transportation. So if you’ve jumped through all the hoops to legally carry, you’re still stripped of your right to self-defense the moment you board a train or bus. The district court already ruled this kind of blanket ban unconstitutional, agreeing it violates the Second Amendment. But now, the government is appealing, hoping the Seventh Circuit reverses that win for gun owners.

This case isn’t just about Chicago trains. If the Seventh Circuit rules against the Second Amendment, it could open the door for governments across the country to slap “no guns” signs on subways, buses, and any other shared public space—and get away with it. That’s why this case is drawing national attention.

The Bruen Standard: Government Bears the Burden

Mark Smith, host of Four Boxes Diner and a constitutional attorney, broke down the legal battle in plain terms. Under the 2022 Supreme Court ruling in Bruen, any gun control law must first pass the text of the Second Amendment—and then align with history and tradition from the Founding era (1791). Once the right is implicated (and a public carry ban clearly is), the burden shifts to the government to prove a historical basis for the restriction.

Here’s the kicker: Illinois and Cook County couldn’t point to a single Founding-era law banning guns on public transportation—because there wasn’t any.

Instead, they relied on late 1800s private railroad policies. That’s not enough. As Smith explains, private railroad companies in the 1800s aren’t government actors, and the Constitution only limits government actions—not private rules from over 75 years after the Second Amendment was ratified.

Are Trains “Sensitive Places”?

The state argued that public transportation should be treated as a “sensitive place,” like a courthouse or polling station—where guns can be restricted. But as Smith points out, the Supreme Court made it clear in Bruen that being “crowded” or full of “vulnerable people” isn’t enough to declare a place gun-free.

At the Founding, even churches (arguably crowded and vulnerable) didn’t ban guns—in fact, congregants were sometimes required to be armed. What made a location “sensitive” in 1791? Actual, comprehensive security—armed guards, metal detectors, or state protection. A McDonald’s with Secret Service protection for one day during a Trump visit? Maybe. But every day, train cars in Chicago with no armed guards or security screening? That doesn’t cut it.

The Standing Problem: A Legal Double Standard?

Smith also highlighted the frustrating legal obstacle gun rights plaintiffs constantly face—standing. Even though it’s obvious these citizens are being denied their right to carry, courts still tie up cases for years, arguing over whether they even have the right to sue. Meanwhile, activist plaintiffs suing over immigration or social policy get fast-tracked emergency rulings.

It’s a two-tiered system—and it’s time that changed.

What’s Next?

Smith doesn’t expect a win at this stage. With a panel of judges appointed by Reagan, Trump, and Biden—but leaning against gun rights—he predicts the court may rule against plaintiffs either on standing or the merits. But that just sets the stage for a bigger battle ahead—potentially at the Supreme Court.

This is how we advance: step by step, court by court, always fighting to restore the Second Amendment to its full force. And if this bad ruling comes down, expect a strong push for an en banc rehearing or a cert petition to SCOTUS.

Bottom Line:

If the courts say the government can ban guns on subways with no historical justification and no actual security, then no public place is safe from becoming a gun-free zone. That’s why Schoenthal v. Raoul matters—and why we must stay engaged, informed, and ready for the next round.

Stay alert. Stay armed. Stay free. Stay dangerous.
Subscribe to our friend Mark Smith at Four Boxes Diner on YouTube for more legal breakdowns like this.