A beyond horrific murder flashed before our eyes in recent weeks, and a nation collectively mourned Iryna Zarutska after the sickening attack that took her life on a public train in Charlotte, North Carolina. It was yet another stark reminder that evil strikes quickly, and it can happen at any time, in any place (particularly when, as in the case of the Charlotte suspect, the legal system appears incapable or unwilling to incapacitate repeat offenders).
Because of that very fact, the law-abiding citizens who choose to carry firearms for self-defense in public are again left frustrated by imaginary boundaries that continue to limit their ability to defend themselves. Firearm prohibitionists argue, “The presence of guns make places more dangerous.” Wrong. Bad people make places more dangerous. And some places may be more likely to attract or accommodate bad people than others, not the least of which are public transportation facilities, including subway stations, bus stops, etc.
If citizens cannot count on courts or policymakers to prioritize their safety, they are left to their own devices when situational awareness is simply not enough. Rules that restrict an individual’s right to bear arms for self-defense advantage criminals, and as public officials dither, lives are in danger.
NRA has often reported on the safety ills of the NYC subway system, even documenting that it was deemed contractually too dangerous for former New York Giants Quarterback, Eli Manning.
Recall that in the landmark United States Supreme Court decision Heller v. District of Columbia, it was noted that the Second Amendment’s protection of an individual right to keep and bear arms did not cast doubt on the validity of “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.” However, Justice Clarence Thomas in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen later warned that the expansion of “sensitive places” beyond historical precedents is unconstitutional:
[E]xpanding the category of “sensitive places” simply to all places of public congregation that are not isolated from law enforcement defines the category of “sensitive places” far too broadly. [New York’s] argument would in effect exempt cities from the Second Amendment and would eviscerate the general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense...”
Justice Thomas’s warning continues to be ignored.
Just last week, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled in Schoenthal v. Raoul, a case out of Chicago in which NRA-ILA filed an amicus brief, that broad limits on self-defense can continue.
The Chicago Transit Authority and Illinois state law prohibit carrying firearms on public transit. The Seventh Circuit, in reversing an earlier district court ruling, held that the Second Amendment “does not bar the people’s representatives from enacting laws-consistent with our nation’s historical tradition of regulation—that ensure public transportation systems remain free from accessible firearms.”
Not only is carrying firearms in public for self-defense clearly covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment, there is no historical tradition of banning firearms on public transit, even though forms of it existed in the Founding era. The Seventh Circuit essentially admitted as much, when it asserted: “We are in the project of comparing regulations, not places.” Then, “reasoning” from mid to late 19th Century bans on places like “ball[s] and fandango[es],” the court came up with a broad rule that firearm prohibitions in “in crowded and confined places” are presumptively permissible.
This tendency of courts to stretch historical analogies on “sensitive places” far past their breaking point is leaving far too many people in vulnerable locations to be victimized. Judge Kolar writes that the “sensitive places doctrine tells us that the appropriate balance allows for temporary restrictions in scattered discrete places where the risk is simply different…” The risk on public transit is indeed different. These places are inherently more dangerous and call for even more accommodation for self-defense rights. No one in the Founding era thought the solution to robberies of stage coaches and trains was to ban passengers from carrying guns.
Judge Kolar is concerned about the people’s representatives being able to ensure “public transportation systems remaining free from accessible firearms,” yet the people’s representatives are doing precious little to ensure the transportation systems remain free of violent criminals.
Public transportation in Chicago, in fact, is about as “insensitive” a place as exists in public life. According to a 2024 study done by the Illinois Policy Institute, over 1 in every 100,000 Chicago Transit Authority rides resulted in a crime. That’s about 1 crime every 3 hours, considering 765,566 rides per weekday on average. About 45% of all crimes reported at CTA stations result in an arrest, according to analysis of city data, meaning criminals have a better than even chance of getting away with their predations. And those are just the crimes that get reported. Many more do not, as few victims expect justice.
Daily there are headlines nationwide featuring the safety hazards of public transit. Attacks are often random. Carrying a gun on Chicago public transportation is illegal, but so are assaults, thefts, and harassment. Gun owners are obeying the law, but Chicago criminals are not.
Violence prevention and mental healthcare sometimes pose complex questions, but the self-defense part of the equation is simple: the need can arise wherever a person happens to be. Rulings like the one from the Seventh Circuit demonstrate the continued work needed to fend off ever-expanding “gun-free zones” that, like the may-issue permitting condemned by the Supreme Court, make carry the exception, rather than the rule.
Simply put, “sensitive places” show an insensitivity to the Second Amendment and the lives of the people it is meant to protect.
More Like This From Around The NRA
