IL: Schoenthal v Raoul, Public Transpo Carry Ban

[Alamo]

FPC pursuing lawsuit against ban on licensed carry on public transportation in Illinois.

Illinois squawking about a court ruling in FPC favor, wants ban kept in place while litigation continues, and claims public safety will be jeopardized if licensed carry is allowed in interim. To support this cites some nut with history of weapons violations (yet walking around free) who shot and killed four sleeping people on a CTA train.

Judge is not amused and is calling a telephone hearing to address this “support.”

Defendants’ motion contains the following sentence: “Moreover, the potential safety
implications of the Court’s order are highlighted by a recent mass shooting on the CTAs Blue Line, in which four people were murdered with firearms three days after the Court’s order was entered.” Dkt. 110, at 8.

The two signatories of the motion must telephonically attend the hearing. Additionally, if the person who wrote this sentence is not one of the signatories to the motion, then that person must also telephonically attend the hearing. Counsel should be prepared to explain what reasonable inquiry was done as to the legal contentions and the evidentiary support for the factual contentions contained in this sentence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(b)(2), (3). For example— and by no way of limitation—counsel should be prepared to articulate the reasonable inquiry that was made to determine if the suspect in the CTAs Blue Line shooting possessed a concealed carry permit, and if so, whether he brought the gun onto CTA property to protect himself.

Moreover, counsel should explain the reasonable inquiry as to how the suspect was protecting himself from the sleeping homeless people when he allegedly shot them. If, after hearing the explanations as to any reasonable inquiry, counsel should be prepared to show cause why the factual and legal assertions in this sentence do not violate Rule 11(b).