Appeals Court Declares Pennsylvania’s Gun Restrictions for Young People Unconstitutional
U.S. Circuit Judge Kent A. Jordan has stated in a recent opinion that the Second Amendment is applicable to all adults, rather than being restricted to those aged 21 and over.
A federal appeals court has ruled that Pennsylvania laws that impose restrictions on gun possession for young individuals are unconstitutional, in a recent split decision.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed Pennsylvania’s ban on 18- to 20-year-olds openly carrying firearms during emergencies, following a remand from the U.S. Supreme Court in 2024.
The majority opinion of the panel reaffirmed their previous conclusion, stating that the law violates the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, even in the context of recent Supreme Court rulings regarding a New York gun law and a federal gun law, known as Bruen and Rahimi.
“We conclude that our prior analysis aligns with the principles established in Bruen and clarified in Rahimi,” wrote U.S. Circuit Judge Kent A. Jordan for the majority. “We have addressed ‘whether the challenged regulation is consistent with the principles underpinning our regulatory tradition,’ rather than seeking a ‘historical twin’ of the regulation. Given that our prior analysis is upheld by Rahimi, we will once again reverse and remand the District Court’s judgment.”
In 2020, Pennsylvania adults and gun advocacy groups filed a lawsuit against the laws, claiming they infringe on the constitutional rights of individuals aged 18 to 20. In 2021, U.S. District Judge William Stickman IV determined that the restrictions pertained to actions outside the Second Amendment’s scope, citing a ruling from the Supreme Court in 2008.
Related Stories
Following this ruling, justices directed the Third Circuit to reevaluate its earlier decision regarding Pennsylvania’s open carry ban.
In his latest opinion, Jordan stated that the Second Amendment extends to all adults, not just those above 21, and criticized Pennsylvania officials for relying on restrictions enacted long after the nation’s founding.
The only founding-era legislation cited by officials was a law that prohibited carrying weapons or hunting on lands that were not privately owned.
“Although the statute may have restricted the right to carry a weapon publicly, it did so without distinguishing 18-to-20-year-olds from any other demographic in Pennsylvania. While the Commissioner is not required to find an exact contemporary equivalent for the historical regulations, he does not sufficiently demonstrate that the Pennsylvania law disarming the Appellants is analogous to the founding-era rule he references,” Jordan explained.
“Our insistence is not for a precise historical counterpart; we merely require that he provides something genuinely comparable in principle, and the 1721 Pennsylvania statute does not meet that standard,” he added.
Judge D. Brooks Smith joined Jordan in the majority opinion.
In dissent, Judge L. Felipe Restrepo aligned himself with Pennsylvania officials, arguing that while the Supreme Court recognizes a person’s right to carry firearms outside their home, a thorough analysis of constitutional texts and other historical documents indicates that the Second Amendment does not protect 18- to 20-year-olds.
“An examination of historical texts indicates that during the Founding era, it would have been understood that individuals aged 18 to 20 were not ‘part of ‘the people’ that the Second Amendment safeguards,” he stated. “Additionally, the law in question aligns with this country’s historical regulations and the principles underpinning our regulatory practices.”
There has been no response from the office of Pennsylvania Attorney General Michelle Henry regarding this matter.
The Firearms Policy Coalition, a plaintiff in the lawsuit against the laws, celebrated the ruling.
