Major breaking news from the U.S. Supreme Court: a petition for certiorari has been filed in the case of Shanthal v. Raoul, challenging Illinois’ blanket ban on law-abiding citizens carrying firearms on public transportation. The petition — led by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) — argues that this prohibition violates the Second Amendment and misapplies the “sensitive places” doctrine established in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and NYSRPA v. Bruen (2022).

A federal district court originally ruled that Illinois’ transit gun ban violated the Second Amendment, but the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision, citing private 19th-century railroad rules — a move heavily criticized as historically irrelevant and constitutionally flawed. The plaintiffs now seek Supreme Court review to correct what they call a “fundamental misunderstanding” of both the text and historical tradition of the Second Amendment.

Under Bruen, the government must justify firearm restrictions by pointing to a historical tradition of regulation. The Supreme Court previously identified only three examples of historically “sensitive” locations:

1. Legislative chambers
2. Courthouses
3. Polling places

Illinois’ ban on guns in buses and subways, the petition argues, falls far outside those narrow limits.

The SAF and FPC brief stresses that public transportation is not historically “sensitive” — and that banning firearms in these spaces disproportionately harms lower-income citizens who rely on buses and trains daily for work and self-defense.

The petition advances what it calls the “Comprehensive Security Doctrine.” In essence, if the government wishes to disarm citizens in a specific location, it must fully provide armed protection in their place — metal detectors, trained guards, and comprehensive screening.

This mirrors conditions at places like courthouses or the U.S. Capitol, which are protected by armed security, not mere “no guns allowed” signs. Without such security, the plaintiffs argue, disarming law-abiding individuals leaves them vulnerable to armed criminals who ignore gun bans.

The brief presents extensive historical documentation showing that, during the founding era, Americans were often encouraged or required to bring firearms into churches, meeting houses, and other public spaces for defense. Far from banning carry in “crowded” or “vulnerable” areas, early American laws recognized the necessity of being armed in public for self-protection.

Even Founding Father John Adams acknowledged during the Boston Massacre trial that colonial citizens had every right to be armed in congested urban areas — provided they did so peaceably.

This petition could become a landmark Second Amendment case. The Supreme Court has not yet defined clear boundaries for “sensitive places” after Bruen, leaving lower courts divided and inconsistent. Shanthal v. Raoul provides the justices a chance to set national precedent and determine whether governments can ban carry in modern spaces like buses, subways, and airports without providing full security.

If the Court grants cert, this case could pair with the Wolford v. Lopez challenge out of Hawaii — together reshaping the post-Bruen landscape and clarifying how far states can go in restricting public carry.