Supreme Court Could Decide Case That Opens Door to a “Costco-Sized” Amount of Gun Control

Attorney and gun-rights YouTuber Tom Grieve warns that a seemingly narrow ruling out of the Seventh Circuit – Schoenthal v. O’Neill Burke – could lay the legal tracks for “a Costco-sized amount of gun control.” In his breakdown, Grieve says the case centers on Illinois’ ban on carrying firearms aboard public transit, but the real danger isn’t just the outcome; it’s the reasoning the court used to uphold it.

What Case Are We Talking About?

According to Grieve, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) assembled licensed Illinois concealed carriers to challenge the state’s public-transit firearm ban. The plaintiffs argued that under NYSRPA v. Bruen (2022), the state must justify modern restrictions with historical analogues from the Founding or early Republic – particularly where the law categorically bars carry in a common public setting. The plaintiffs said there are no founding-era laws barring arms on transportation (because nothing like modern transit existed), so the ban should fail.

Why a Transit Case Matters to Everyone Else

Grieve’s core point: watch the logic, not just the headline. Even if you never ride a subway, the Seventh Circuit’s reasoning becomes the “road they’ll roll down” for future restrictions. If courts endorse a framework today for “crowded, confined, hard-to-police” places, tomorrow’s targets could be anywhere that description arguably fits. That, he says, is the “sneaky gun control” – you don’t see the second-order effects until it’s too late.

Bruen’s Test – and the ‘Sensitive Places’ Pivot

Per Grieve’s explanation, Bruen instructs courts to ask whether the plain text of the Second Amendment covers the conduct (here, carrying on public transit) and, if so, whether the state can show its restriction is consistent with historical tradition; think schools, polling places, or legislative chambers in session – the classic “sensitive places.” Illinois argued transit is a natural extension of sensitive-place doctrine: it’s dense, confined, and difficult to police, so disarmament is justified.

The Seventh Circuit’s Bottom Line

As Grieve recounts it, the Seventh Circuit embraced that move. The court reasoned that the state may “temporarily disarm its citizens as they travel in crowded and confined metal tubes unlike anything the Founders envisioned,” and concluded there’s no Second Amendment violation. The panel said everyone agrees the plain text covers the desire to carry on transit, but held the government met its historical-tradition burden anyway.

A Concurrence That Signals More

Grieve notes one judge appointed by President Trump concurred in the outcome, flagging a “difficult jurisdictional question” about redressability when another unchallenged law also prohibits the same activity. Even so, the concurrence ultimately joined the result, which Grieve reads as the panel speaking with practical unanimity while keeping some procedural issues in reserve.

Grieve’s Warning: Reasoning Is the Real Ruling

“The wording you adopt today is the road you drive tomorrow,” Grieve emphasizes. Labeling transit as a sensitive place because it’s crowded and policed differently is, in his view, a doctrinal on-ramp to treat any crowded location the same way. Once courts accept that rationale, he says, the “whole truck” of future restrictions can follow – restaurants, grocery stores, festivals – maybe anywhere people gather.

From Subways to… Everywhere?

This is where Grieve’s analysis bites: the court admits the Founders never envisioned subways but then abstracts to a general principle – crowded, confined, hard to police – and retrofits it to history. My view: that’s precisely the maneuver Bruen tried to cabin. If the analogue can be any “regulatory principle,” not specific historical laws, then Bruen’s history test risks becoming a vibes test, limited only by a judge’s sense of modern risk.

The ‘Regulatory Principles’ Workaround

Grieve singles out the court’s closing line that the law “comports with regulatory principles that originated in the founding era.” He calls that code for having no direct analogue; if they had one, they’d cite it. I agree this is the doctrinal pressure point: does Bruen permit broad principles to stand in for concrete analogues? If so, sensitive-place designations could expand by characteristics (crowded, confined) instead of tradition (specific places historically disarmed).

Who Gets Hit First

Per Grieve, the immediate losers are people who depend on transit – often concentrated by age, income, and race – who now must disarm to commute, while suburban drivers carry lawfully door-to-door. He quips, “Remember next time someone pushes mass transit – it’s mass regulation.” Agree or disagree, the equity angle matters: blanket transit bans can selectively burden those without cars.

Could the Supreme Court Step In?

Grieve says this path could reach the U.S. Supreme Court, especially if FPC presses onward. The Seventh Circuit is not especially firearm-friendly, he notes, and the stakes are bigger than transit alone. If the Supreme Court wants to police how lower courts apply Bruen’s historical method – or stop the sensitive-places doctrine from ballooning – this is a clean vehicle. My take: the question SCOTUS may care about is whether courts can use generalized “principles” in place of specific analogues to justify categorical bans.

What Gun Owners Can Do Now

Grieve encourages viewers to stay engaged and support litigation – he specifically praises and supports the Firearms Policy Coalition. My two cents: beyond joining groups, keep an eye on how courts describe places as “sensitive.” Whenever you see functional descriptors (crowded, confined, hard to police) replacing historical exemplars (schools, polling places), you’re watching Bruen’s guardrails get nudged.

Quote of the Day – and Why Words Matter

Grieve closes with Pythagoras: “Silence is better than unmeaning words.” It’s fitting. In constitutional law, words become weapons – or shields – later. If courts bless a malleable “regulatory principles” shortcut today, it may be used tomorrow to convert ordinary public life into a patchwork of off-limits zones. That’s why, as Grieve argues, this “small” transit case could be the one we look back on and say: that’s when massive gun control got its doctrinal green light.