In layman’s terms: Illinois attempted to blame a Judge’s decision to block an unconstitutional law restricting concealed carry for a mass shooting in Chicago. The judge held their feet to the fire.
On October 2, in the case of Schoenthal v. Raoul, Federal Judge Iain D. Johnston denied the State’s motion to stay a preliminary injunction in a case challenging a ban on concealed firearms on public transportation. In other words, the judge denied the State’s request to keep a ban on concealed carry in place while the case was heard.
Presiding over the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division, Judge Johnston decided, “Cook County Defendants’ motion to stay [110] is denied for the reasons stated on the record.”
As we previously reported, on August 30, the Judge entered a narrow ruling in support of a few individual concealed carry permit holders but generally identified the law as unconstitutional and unable to pass the Bruen test.
What is significant about the recent development in this case is that the State tried to make an argument that the judge’s ruling had some kind of causal effect on a mass shooting that happened within days of the ruling.
Here’s the back story.
On September 4, a horrific mass killing took place on the Chicago Blue Line train when Rhanni Davis, 30, allegedly methodically murdered four passengers, some of whom were sleeping. He has been arrested and was in possession of a 9mm Glock handgun.
In requesting a stay on the preliminary injunction, the State subsequently made the statement that:
Moreover, the potential safety implications of the Court’s order are highlighted by a recent mass shooting on the CTA’s Blue Line, in which four people were murdered with firearms three days after the Court’s order was entered.
The Judge was so incensed by this statement he ordered the State to attend a telephone conference on October 2, demanding that, “if the person who wrote this sentence is not one of the signatories to the motion, then that person must also telephonically attend the hearing. Counsel should be prepared to explain what reasonable inquiry was done as to the legal contentions and the evidentiary support for the factual contentions contained in this sentence.”
The State had already desperately tried to backpedal this statement in a filing before the court, which ultimately failed to impress the judge, again leaning on the “public safety” argument:
The sentence appears in a section of the brief which argues that the public interest overwhelmingly favors a stay of the judgment, one of three factors courts look to when determining whether a stay is warranted…. Therefore, the undersigned counsel believed that the sentence in question was appropriate in the context of the public safety argument…. To the extent the sentence could be interpreted in that way, the sentence is hereby withdrawn.
In another filing by the office of the Attorney General, the State groveled before the Judge:
The disputed sentence was not intended to state, suggest, or imply that this Court’s order was in any way responsible for or specifically related to the shooting referenced in the stay motion, and apologizes to the Court for any such inference that may have been mistakenly created.
Firearms Policy Coalition reported on X the following exchanges during the phone hearing:
Judge: Your sentence says you need a stay because the order is killing people
Illinois: We didn’t mean that, we just wanted to show that an order relaxing gun regulations has potential public safety implications
J: Why did you cite a news article in your motion and not the studies you say you have?
IL: Example intending to connect to-
J: -the court’s order
IL: -the potential public safety implications-
J: -of the court’s order
Judge: The CCW act passed in 2014. How many prosecutions of CCW holders carrying on public transit have happened since then?
Defendants: Don’t know
J: How many arrests of CCW holders carrying on public transit have happened since then?
Ds: Don’t know
J: Any evidence of CCW holders accidentally firing guns since 2014?
[silence]
J: Any evidence of CCW holders shooting someone on public transit since 2014?
IL: It was illegal before this
J: So? People break the law all the time. Any evidence of CCW holders shooting someone since 2014?
Ds: Don’t know
J: Any evidence that plaintiffs are criminals?
IL: No
J: Any evidence that CCW holders have had licenses revoked for carrying on public transit?
IL: Don’t know
J: Ever prosecute anyone for carrying on public transit?
[silence]
Judge Johnston has poked a very obvious hole in the State’s methodology of attempting to punish the many (law-abiding) for the actions of individuals – in this case, the murderous actions of one person who was likely not a vetted permit holder.
We will continue to follow this story.
