The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Philadelphia, reaffirmed its stance on Monday that Pennsylvania’s laws prohibiting 18- to 20-year-olds from carrying firearms in public during a state of emergency violate the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment. This decision comes even after the U.S. Supreme Court ordered a reconsideration of the ruling.
Supreme Court Rulings Influence but Do Not Alter Decision
Despite the Supreme Court’s directive to review the case in light of its recent rulings, the appeals court stood firm. The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen established that modern firearms laws must align with the historical tradition of firearm regulation. Furthermore, the Court clarified this standard in United States v. Rahimi, stating that modern restrictions do not need a “historical twin” to be lawful.
Judge Kent Jordan, writing for the majority, asserted that the previous analysis already aligned with these guidelines. He emphasized that Founding-era laws supported the right of 18- to 20-year-olds, considered “able-bodied men,” to bear arms. Judge D. Brooks Smith concurred, further solidifying the majority opinion.
Dissent Highlights Disagreement on Historical Interpretation
In a dissenting opinion, U.S. Circuit Judge L. Felipe Restrepo, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, argued that the Founding Fathers permitted young people to bear arms only under the supervision of their guardians. His interpretation suggested that the state could lawfully restrict firearm possession for those under 21.
Victory for Gun Rights Advocates
The ruling marks a significant win for gun rights groups, including the Second Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition. These organizations, along with several young Pennsylvania residents, challenged the state’s restrictions in 2020. Celebrating the decision, the Second Amendment Foundation described it as a critical precedent for advancing Second Amendment rights.
While Pennsylvania Attorney General Michelle Henry’s office, which defended the restrictions, declined to comment, the impact of this ruling will likely resonate in future legal battles over gun rights. The case, Paris, Commissioner, Pennsylvania State Police v. Madison, underscores the ongoing debate over the balance between public safety and constitutional freedoms.
