Here's something that should concern every gun owner I know.
The Supreme Court declined to hear **Schoenthal v. Raoul** last week, which means Illinois' ban on carrying firearms on public transit stays on the books. But here's what's really troubling—this isn't just about buses and trains. It's about a dangerous new framework that anti-gun judges are using to expand "sensitive places" into basically anywhere politicians don't want you armed.
The Seventh Circuit upheld Illinois' transit ban by arguing that "crowded and confined spaces" are historically valid places to restrict firearms. Let me translate that for you: if a place is busy, enclosed, or hard to escape, the state thinks it can prohibit carry.
Think about how insane that logic is.
That opens the door to banning guns in train stations, public parks, entertainment venues, downtown areas—anywhere officials decide feels too "sensitive." Bruen was supposed to stop this kind of interest-balancing, but lower courts are finding creative ways around it.
Here's what really gets me: the court admitted the Second Amendment *plainly covers* carrying on public transit. Everyone agreed on that. Yet they still upheld the ban because they think Illinois' "historical tradition" argument is persuasive. That's not what Bruen promised us.
The Supreme Court explicitly warned against expanding sensitive places to include all "places of public congregation" or areas that are simply crowded—because that would "eviscerate the general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense." They said there was "no historical basis" for declaring Manhattan a sensitive place just because it's crowded.
But that warning is being ignored. And now lower courts have another precedent to cite when they want to carve out more exceptions to your rights.
The practical impact is real. In cities like Chicago, where transit is a lifeline for millions, law-abiding citizens are now effectively disarmed during their commute. And let's be honest—crimes often happen exactly where people are most vulnerable and least able to escape.
A cert denial isn't a ruling on the merits, which means the Supreme Court hasn't endorsed this dangerous reasoning. But the practical effect for gun owners in Illinois is the same: the ban stands, and the "crowded and confined" precedent is now part of the legal landscape.
If SCOTUS wants to save Bruen from becoming meaningless, they're going to have to draw firmer lines. Because right now, your right to bear arms exists only wherever the government decides conditions are "calm and convenient" enough to tolerate it.
That's not a right. That's a privilege.