Gilbert Ambler (00:00):
Hi, I am firearms attorney Gilbert Ambler, and I'm back to talk about an exciting recent case where a federal judge in Illinois found that as applied to plaintiffs, in that case, a ban on firearms and public transport was unconstitutional. I want to talk about the ramifications for this, especially the possible future ramifications for carry on airplanes and how the judge really dodged that question in this case. But before we dive into this, if you have not yet hit that subscribe button, what are you waiting for? Hit subscribe, like, comment with your thoughts, share with your friends. That way you and your friends can keep getting this important Second Amendment related information. Now, the case here, and I'm not even going to try to list the title of this case because I know I'm going to butcher, we will drop it in the comments it's against, Rahul is the defendant and the plaintiff's name I would butcher, so I'm not going to do that.
Gilbert Ambler (00:51):
But the claim here was that it was unconstitutional to prohibit these plaintiffs from carrying firearms on public transportation in Illinois. And first, I do want to point out this was not a challenge. Well, it was a facial challenge. It was not a facial decision, meaning the judge did not decide it was unconstitutional for everyone. The judge simply decided, limited to these people who are before me, the ones actually making the complaint. It's unconstitutional as it applies to them. And one of the things that the judge did was really, actually before we dive into that, I do want to talk about the fact that the judge just demonstrated displayed a lot of self-awareness because he drops a footnote on page two of the decision saying, look, I know this is going to be referenced by the media as Trump appointed judge allows loaded guns on public transportation.
Gilbert Ambler (01:43):
He said, I put a lot more effort into this decision and a lot more thought and tried to apply fairly the law that I believe should be applied here in such a way that I don't want to see this decision reduced to such a footnote. So I thought that was a lot of self-awareness from the judge because that footnote was almost verbatim what some news sources described this decision as. Next, I want to talk about how the judge looked at this case, and I want to talk about the fact that one of the first things he did was reject an argument from the government. He called it an eye-popping argument that the government could regulate firearms simply on things that they owned on property that they owned. He said, that is not something that you can do. The Second Amendment is not something that just doesn't apply whatsoever on property that the government owns.
Gilbert Ambler (02:32):
And we have seen other jurisdictions making this argument. Notably, we've seen the city of Philadelphia making this argument a lot that they can control what goes on on their property. And as a proprietor of the property, they can decide who should be allowed to possess guns and who should not be allowed to possess guns. The judge in Illinois said That is an eye popping argument. He said, this argument doesn't have any merit. He's not going to make a decision on that. He's going to essentially ignore that argument. Instead, he reached what he called the main event, which was a bru analysis. And the bru analysis, of course, as all of my listeners I'm sure are familiar with, asks, whether there's a historical tradition dating back to the time of founding that would help the government demonstrate that their restrictions are constitutional. Now, one of the really interesting things here was how the judge described the Rahimi case because the Rahimi decision came out as this case was ongoing.
Gilbert Ambler (03:30):
And I thought his description, in fact, I think it's, I'm mad I didn't come up with it. I think his description of Rahimi is the best description I've seen yet he called Rahimi analogous to an Allen charge. And an Allen charge is a jury instruction where a judge instructs a jury that might be deadlocked, for lack of a better term, try harder. Go back into the jury room and continue working on this. See if you can figure it out. Essentially, that's what this judge said Rahimi was. He said, Rahimi didn't change anything about Bruin. All Rahimi did was say, try harder. Look at bru, apply the tests that we have laid out. And that's what the judge did here to find that public transportation as supplied to these defendants was unconstitutional to restrict firearms. But I also thought it was notable, a couple of things.
Gilbert Ambler (04:18):
I thought it was notable that he said nothing in the decision I control searched the word airport and airline. He said he mentioned airports only a couple of times and did not get into weather. Firearms could constitutionally be prohibited in airports, but I think it logically follows that if it is unconstitutional to restrict firearms in buses and on subways and trains, that at least domestic flights might be unconstitutional in the same way. And part of the reason is because the judge at the same time in rendering this decision, part of the reason I'm saying that is because the counter argument to that, the counterpoint is to say, well, airlines probably are a sensitive place and we know that they're a sensitive place because they have increased security. You've got to go through a metal detector to get into them. They've got armed TSA and armed guards standing around.
Gilbert Ambler (05:14):
So they are a sensitive location. And I think that is a valid argument. But this judge did not think that was a valid argument. In fact, he discussed the idea that a sensitive area is somewhere that has more security and basically said he doesn't necessarily buy into that because the Supreme Court has said polling places are probably sensitive areas and they don't necessarily have increased security. And so the judge said, I'm not going to decide this issue, but I'm not certain that's the correct test. And so if it is not a correct test to determine sensitive area as to how much security it has, then I would question what would differentiate an airport from a bus or subway or train. And of course, I think you're going to run into different problems with international flights, but at least for domestic flights, maybe there's a crack here, at least in this district in Illinois, to bring an argument that it is unconstitutional to restrict firearms in the airport terminal.
Gilbert Ambler (06:13):
One of the final things I thought really notable about this case was the judge looking at pro-gun restrictions, if you will, pro-gun laws from the founding area. And he said there are some pro-gun mandates maybe is the best term to use out there from the founding era that required travelers to have firearms. And so a couple of states around the time of founding actually said if you were going more than a mile from your home or if you were going abroad, you had to bring a weapon with you. And of course, the idea back then in the 17 hundreds and the early, late 18th century, late 17 hundreds, we didn't have, as you all can obviously understand, we didn't have a dedicated nine one one phone line to call. So you had to be responsible for your own safety, and if you were traveling, they wanted to make sure you were bringing the tools necessary. Personally, I would like us to all go back to an era and all revisit in an error when everyone, and where everyone is responsible for their own safety. I think that is one of the most admirable things you can be as a gun owner is responsible for your own safety and the safety of those around you. If you enjoyed this content, hit that subscribe button, share it with your friends. Until next time.
Credit: Gilber Ambler, Esq. The Commonwealth’s Gun Rights