A Commonwealth of Pennsylvania law banning the carrying of firearms by those under the age of 21 has new life after an order by SCOTUS. The Supreme Court of the United States has granted certiorari, vacated the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and remanded the case back to the lower court to reconsider it in light of the Rahimi case.
The order reads:
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for further consideration in light of United States v. Rahimi, 602 U. S. ___ (2024).
The Pennsylvania law bans 18 to 20-year-old citizens from openly carrying firearms. The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) claimed that the law violates the Constitution because it disarms part of “the people.” The Second Amendment reads, “The right of the people shall not be infringed.” “The people” is understood to be the political class of the country. This group is people who can vote after reaching the age of majority, which in the United States is 18. According to FPC and SAF, this distinction means that 18 to 20-year-old American citizens are part of “the people,” and their rights are being infringed.
This case, Lara v. Paris, originally started in October 2020, two years before the landmark SCOTUS opinion in Bruen. At the time, states could rely on interest balancing to defend their laws, which is what the Keystone State did. In April of 2021, the District Court dismissed the case in favor of the defendants. The Plaintiffs would appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
During the appeals process, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Bruen. The court case changed everything. Pennsylvania could no longer use interest balancing to defend its law against constitutional scrutiny. The court could only use the original text, tradition, and history of the Second Amendment. A three-judge panel from the Third Circuit found the law unconstitutional in January 2024. The Commonwealth would ask for an en banc rehearing where the full bench would hear the case. If granted, the panel’s decision would be vacated. The Third Circuit denied the request in March of 2024. The following month, the District Court amended its judgment by the order of the Circuit Court and found for the plaintiffs, enjoining Pennsylvania from enforcing the law.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania would petition the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, asking the court to review the case. SCOTUS would grant cert, vacate the lower court’s decision, and remand the case to the Third Circuit for “consideration in light of United States v. Rahimi.” This grant, vacate, and remand (GVR) means the law has been revived for now.
Rahimi was another Supreme Court case during this lawsuit’s life span. Rahimi said that a citizen could be temporarily disarmed if they posed a threat to public safety. It will be up to the Commonwealth to prove that 18 to 20-year-olds pose an unusually high risk to public safety. Many states have argued that they do, claiming that the human brain isn’t fully developed until age 25, which leads to risky behavior. These arguments have so far failed in the courts.
FPC said it would continue to fight for the plaintiffs’ rights in the case. They believe that 18 to 20-year-olds have every right to bear arms in the United States and see this law as a violation of those rights.
“We will continue to litigate this case and work to secure the right to keep and bear arms for all peaceable adults throughout the United States,” FPC told AmmoLand News.
The Supreme Court GVR the case back to the Circuit Court. That doesn’t mean there will be a different outcome this time. It simply means the Circuit Court must consider the case using Rahimi. SCOTUS gave no descent or reasoning on the order list.
About John Crump
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
I don’t suppose Pennsylvania is going to raise the minimum age to 21 for people wanting to join their national guard.
It would have been nice to see exactly who on SCOTUS, made this decision. Ditto any dissenting members. My bet is that Clarence Thomas either dissented or was not part of the decision. Likely Turncoat Roberts and Kavanaugh were for it.
When saddled with all the responsibilities of adulthood, one is entitled to all the rights & privileges of adulthood, period.