Illinois gun ban challenge heads to appeals court with DOJ involved

DOJ to argue in Illinois gun ban appeal as Seventh Circuit hears Barnett v. Raoul. Case could reach U.S. Supreme Court.

concelled weapon on a man — The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that concealed-carry licenseholders may keep their firearms when traveling on public transportation as long as it is unloaded and secured while onboard.

By Greg Bishop
The Center Square

CHICAGO - A gun rights advocate says that the U.S. Department of Justice coming to argue in front of an appeals court against Illinois’ gun ban is significant.

Oral arguments are scheduled for Sept. 22 in the case Barnett v. Raoul, challenging the state’s gun and magazine ban. A federal district court found the law unconstitutional last year after a four-day bench trial.

In the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, the U.S. Department of Justice motioned to be allowed time to argue.

“This appeal concerns whether Illinois’s Protect Illinois Communities Act, which prohibits so-called ‘assault weapons,’ can withstand scrutiny under the Second Amendment, which protects Americans’ right to ‘keep and bear Arms,’” the motion said. “Because of the federal government’s interest in ‘protect[ing] the Second Amendment rights of all Americans,’ Executive Order No. 14,206, Protecting Second Amendment Rights, … the United States filed a brief as amicus curiae supporting Plaintiffs-Appellees. The United States believes that its participation in oral arguments will be helpful to the Court.”

A concealed-carry licenseholder can keep his firearm with him as long as it is unloaded and secured during his time on public transit...

The motion was granted.

Gun rights advocate Todd Vandermyde said it’s monumental.

“We have the United States Department of Justice not only filing an amici brief on behalf of the challenges to the Illinois gun ban, they have asked for time to come in and argue the government’s position,” Vandermyde told The Center Square.

The case is expected to go to the U.S. Supreme Court regardless of whether the appeals court sides with plaintiffs or with the state of Illinois.

How law enforcement interprets a recent appeals court ruling in a separate case challenging the prohibition of carrying concealed firearms on Illinois mass transit is still unclear.

The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled earlier this month in the case Schoenthal v. Raoul, reversing a lower court and upholding the law.

“A concealed-carry licenseholder can keep his firearm with him as long as it is unloaded and secured during his time on public transit,” the court said. “Under Illinois’s regulation, a citizen can step off the transit system, reassemble their firearm, and go about their day with no further infringement on their rights.”

Vandermyde said this leaves open significant questions.

“What's this going to look like when you have five, six, a dozen people waiting for the bus? And as the bus pulls up, they all reach under their coat or whatever, pull out a handgun, unload it, clear it, and then place it in a briefcase or purse or satchel or something like that, and then board the bus?” he asked.

...the decision “does not change how Illinois law enforcement enforces conceal carry laws in the state.”

The Cook County Sheriff's Office said it would be “premature to comment on how any part of the decision would be enforced.”

“We understand the appellate court has not issued the appellate mandate for this decision and the decision remains pending,” the office said. “We intend to have discussions with the Attorney General’s and the State’s Attorney’s Offices regarding the procedural posture of this decision and when it will take effect, and what the practical effect of the decision will be on public safety and enforcement of the concealed carry laws of Illinois.”

Illinois State Police said the decision “does not change how Illinois law enforcement enforces conceal carry laws in the state.”

Vandermyde said he still doesn’t know.

“They didn't give us any definitive, you know, ‘we're going to arrest you if you do this.’ Well, if they come out and say that and they've effectively negated your ability to carry, you know, if you were forced to use public transit.”

Plaintiffs in the Schoenthal case said they are reviewing the decision on what their next steps will be.

TELL THE SENTINEL WHAT YOU THINK

Do we need more gun-control laws? .::. Here is how and where to sent it

Legal experts call arrest of Wisconsin judge 'extreme and unnecessary'

Federal authorities walked Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan out of her Milwaukee courtroom in handcuffs.

by Judith Ruiz-Branch
Wisconsin News Connection

MILWAUKEE - Legal experts and advocates are outraged over the arrest of a Milwaukee judge last week who was charged with helping an undocumented defendant avoid arrest by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Federal authorities walked Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan out of her Milwaukee courtroom in handcuffs. They said she allowed an undocumented defendant appearing in her courtroom to use a side door exit to avoid ICE agents who were waiting for him. The agents later apprehended him.

Protests have since broken out in response to the arrest and legal experts are calling the charges extreme and unnecessary.

John Gross, clinical associate professor of law at the University of Wisconsin Law School, described it as a photo op for federal prosecutors.

Dugan is charged with obstruction of proceedings and concealing a person, and faces up to six years in prison and a $350,000 fine.

"Federal law enforcement is trying to send some kind of message to let state officials know that they will try to aggressively prosecute anyone who can be viewed as interfering in any way with their agenda," Gross contended.

In a post on X last week, Tom Homan, President Donald Trump's border czar, warned anyone who impedes enforcement efforts or conceals "illegal aliens" will be prosecuted. Dugan is charged with obstruction of proceedings and concealing a person, and faces up to six years in prison and a $350,000 fine.

Ray Dall'Osto, partner at Gimbel, Reilly, Guerin and Brown, has practiced law in Milwaukee since 1977. He said the complaint against Judge Dugan contains misperceptions and factual inaccuracies. It is common practice for lawyers and defendants to use side doors in courtrooms like Dugan's, Dall'Osto explained, which often have full dockets.

What is uncommon and unprecedented, he pointed out, is having six officers from different federal agencies show up unannounced to a state courthouse for one immigration arrest.

"This is part of the Trump administration's gathering and requiring all federal law enforcement, no matter what, whether it's alcohol, tobacco, and firearms or DEA or FBI, to basically become immigrant catchers," Dall'Osto asserted. "Unfortunately, that's taking them away from the real crimes."

He argued Dugan is being targeted as part of a larger agenda the Trump administration has against judges. Removing her from the bench in the interim, he added, places a significant burden on an already taxed judicial system in Milwaukee.

"Again, this is highly atypical when you have offenses of this nature, particularly of someone who is not a flight risk, who is a known upstanding citizen and a lawyer and a judge, to do that, that's outrageous and totally unnecessary."

Other interesting articles:

Last month's abortion pill ruling was a 'Political Stunt'

Planned Parenthood strongly believes the electorate will ultimately decide the issue

by Mark Richardson
Illinois News Connection

Illinois - Women's health groups in Illinois and across the country are angered by a pair of federal court rulings last month on the abortion drug mifepristone.

A Texas judge's ruling rolled back the federal Food and Drug Administration's approval, effectively banning the drug.

The same day, a Washington State judge ruled the FDA must keep medication abortion drugs available in over a dozen Democratic-led states, including Illinois.

Everything is currently on hold while an appeals court sorts it out. Cristina Villarreal, chief of external affairs at Planned Parenthood of Illinois, said the Texas ruling was the result of "judge shopping" by anti-abortion groups.

"With the Texas case," said Villarreal, "it's kind of ridiculous that a judge in Texas can make decisions for people who can become pregnant in Illinois, where we have clearly said we support the right to choose."

Mifepristone was approved in 2000 by the FDA. The drug has been used by over 5 million patients.

However, in his ruling, Federal Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk suggests the FDA had not properly tested the drug and has ordered it off the market.

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year, essentially giving the power to states to regulate abortion access.

Since then, most "red" states have put restrictions on the procedure, while others have made abortions generally available.

Villarreal said Planned Parenthood strongly believes the electorate will ultimately decide the issue.

"In the ballot box, we've seen that voters are - again and again - trying to protect the right to choose," said Villarreal. "We know that the American public supports access to abortion care."

In the meantime, Villarreal said Planned Parenthood of Illinois will continue to offer all abortion-care options available.