The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) scored a significant legal victory for young adults in Pennsylvania as the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 to block the state police from arresting law-abiding 18-20-year-olds for openly carrying firearms during a declared state of emergency. The case, Madison Lara v. Commissioner Pennsylvania State Police, marks the second time the Third Circuit has ruled in SAF’s favor.
Joining SAF in the case were the Firearms Policy Coalition and three private citizens, including lead plaintiff Madison Lara. Represented by a legal team from Cooper & Kirk in Washington, D.C., and the Civil Rights Defense Firm in Pennsylvania, the plaintiffs successfully argued that the state’s restrictions violated the constitutional rights of young adults.
Circuit Court Upholds Broad Second Amendment Protections
The case has been through a rigorous judicial journey. After the Third Circuit initially ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, the state appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court remanded the case back to the Third Circuit for reconsideration in light of its recent Rahimi decision. However, the appellate court determined that Rahimi did not alter their analysis and reaffirmed its ruling, ordering the District Court to issue an injunction against the state police.
Writing for the majority, Circuit Judge Kent A. Jordan stated, “It is undisputed that 18-to-20-year-olds are among ‘the people’ for other constitutional rights such as the right to vote, freedom of speech, the freedom to peaceably assemble, and the right against unreasonable searches and seizures. We therefore reiterate our holding that 18-to-20-year-olds are, like other subsets of the American public, presumptively among ‘the people’ to whom Second Amendment rights extend.”
Judge Jordan, a George W. Bush appointee, was joined by Judge D. Brooks Smith, another Bush appointee, while Judge L. Felipe Restrepo, an Obama appointee, dissented.
SAF Stands Firm on Young Adults’ Second Amendment Rights
SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack praised the decision: “SAF has maintained all along that 18-20 year olds are unquestionably part of ‘the people’ contemplated by the Second Amendment who have the same rights to keep and bear that any other adult has. The Third Circuit already agreed with us once, and today it reaffirmed its decision.”
SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb also lauded the ruling, emphasizing that the Second Amendment is inclusive: “There is no language in the Second Amendment that applies only to some age-exclusive subset of the people. We’re delighted the Third Circuit once again has ruled in our favor, and we will continue defending that position.”
This decision strengthens protections for young adults’ right to bear arms and sets a precedent that could resonate in other jurisdictions, reaffirming the Second Amendment’s broad applicability across age groups.
It’s only twenty-seven words long for a reason.
While correct how do you intend to enforce that especially without consent of the governed? We lost a lot of this piece by piece over a century and may have to reclaim it the same way.
Great, now do New Jersey (the state where gun rights go to die).
It seems like gun owners have won victories since Bruen in every state except for New Jersey.
There are still a few pending in California, some of them for a lengthy period of time. We assume that this is likely due to the Ninth Circuit’s majority’s unwillingness to apply Bruen, a decision with which it vehemently disagrees but cannot overrule. Or they are being held to see how the last election turned out, perhaps hoping that some of Trump’s appointees would be replaced by impeachment or death.
More than a few in the 2nd circuit for similar reasons. Could be a fun year or three.
Your permits went from near unobtanium to fairly ok (compared to NY) but much like here you have a system that will fight every inch of rollback of their infringements. Think of it as being the reason we have warning labels on products just it being lawfare for civil liberties.
DDG,
I live in a state with very oppressive aspects of firearm laws, although not quite as egregious as New Jersey, New York, nor California. As far as I can ascertain, no one has filed any lawsuits against my state after the Bruen decision. What really angers me in that regard is that a recent lawsuit against New York was successful and would apply in my state–alas no one has filed suit.
I am really discouraged that all an entity would have to do (to overturn this particular aspect of my state’s firearm laws) is “copy-and-paste” the successful New York state lawsuit in my federal appellate jurisdiction. It is an exceedingly easy opportunity for a plaintiff’s attorneys to put a truckload of cash in their pockets for virtually no hours of work.
As long as we are talking about what age is correct to begin carrying arms, what was the age of the youngest American who was known to have fought armed in the American Revolutionary War?