BELLEVUE, WA – Plaintiffs in a case supported financially by the Second Amendment Foundation challenging a concealed carry ban on Illinois Public Transportation have filed a memorandum supporting their earlier motion for summary judgment in the case.
The memorandum was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division. Plaintiffs in the case are Benjamin Schoenthal, Mark Wroblewski, Joseph Vesel and Douglas Winston. They are all residents of counties in northern Illinois in the greater Chicago area, and all are SAF members. They are represented by attorney David Sigale of Wheaton, Ill. The case is known as Schoenthal v. Raoul.
Defendants are Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul and State’s Attorneys Rick Amato (DeKalb County), Robert Berlin (DuPage County), Kimberly M. Foxx (Cook County) and Eric Rinehart (Lake County), all in their official capacities.
According to the memorandum, Illinois bans law-abiding citizens, who are licensed to carry firearms under Illinois law from carrying their firearms for self-defense “on or into . . . [a]ny bus, train, or form of transportation paid for in whole or in part with public funds, and any building, real property, and parking area under the control of a public transportation facility paid for in whole or in part with public funds.” They contend the Public Transportation carry ban is unconstitutional.
“The State will not be able to demonstrate that the carry ban on public transportation is consistent with the historical tradition of firearms regulation,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We are supporting this case because it’s the right thing to do, and these plaintiffs rely on public transportation to travel to and from various places, including work, and they should be able to carry firearms for personal protection while in transit. However, current laws, regulations, policies and practices enforced by the defendants have made that legally impossible.
“Buses and commuter trains are public places, but they’re hardly sensitive places,” he added. “This ban amounts to a public disarmament policy for which there really is no historical foundation.”