A Pennsylvania appeals court has denied a petition to rehear a Pennsylvania case that challenged statutes prohibiting young adults from carrying firearms for self-defense and from acquiring a license to carry a firearm.
The Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has sided with a pro-gun rights group by refusing to rehear a case in which the group’s opponents sought to restrict the ability of young adults to carry firearms. The Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling on March 27 that denied a petition for a rehearing of the Second Amendment Foundation’s victory in a case that challenged statutes prohibiting law-abiding adults aged 18–21 from carrying firearms for self-defense and blocked them from acquiring a license to carry a firearm because of their age.
The appeals court’s decision to deny the petition by the defendant—the Commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Police—to rehear the case means it was standing by the opinion of the United States Court of Appeals that the defendant’s position—that the three young plaintiffs were “not among ‘the people’ to whom the Second Amendment applies”—was wrong.
In writing for the majority Circuit Judge Kent A. Jordan said in a March 27 ruling that “the petition for rehearing by the panel and the Court en banc, is DENIED.”
En banc is a legal term for when the entire bench of judges of a court hears a case rather than a small panel of selected judges.
In writing his dissent from the majority opinion, Judge Luis Felipe Restrepo argued that in the era when the laws were drafted, legislatures were authorized to “categorically disarm groups they reasonably judged to pose a particular risk of danger and that the modern-day judgment and Pennsylvania’s modern-day judgment that youth under the age of 21 pose such a risk is well supported by evidence.”
“A review of historical sources reveals that the Second Amendment’s plain text does not cover Appellants’ conduct because it would have been understood during the Founding era that Appellants are not ‘part of ‘the people’ whom the Second Amendment protects,” he wrote in his conclusion. “Further, the challenged statutory scheme here is ‘consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition. Because Pennsylvania’s statutory scheme does not violate the Second Amendment of the Constitution, I respectfully dissent.”
The plaintiffs in the case were Madison M. Lara, Sophia Knepley, and Logan D. Miller.
The defendant was then-Pennsylvania State Police Commissioner Robert Evanchick.
Mr. Evanchick was confirmed as Pennsylvania’s State Police Commissioner on June 6, 2019.
He was replaced by Colonel Christopher Paris in March 2023.
The Background
The three plaintiffs were joined in the lawsuit by two national gun rights organizations, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the Firearms Policy Coalition. Both groups have at least one active member who is an 18-to-20-year-old U.S. citizen and resident of Pennsylvania who wants to carry concealed firearms outside of their homes for lawful purposes.
In Pennsylvania, only residents who are 21 years of age or older may apply for a license to carry a concealed weapon, as clarified by the Pennsylvania State Police.
Anyone who carries a concealed firearm outside of their home or place of business “without a valid and lawfully issued license commits a felony of the third degree.”
Through the combination of three statutes, §§ 6106, 6107, and 6109, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania effectively prohibits 18-to-20-year-olds from carrying firearms in public places during a state of emergency.
The case of Lara v. Evanchick began in October 2020.
The three plaintiffs, who were in the 18–20 age range at the time, sued Mr. Evanchick to halt the enforcement of the statutes because they wanted to carry concealed firearms outside their homes for lawful reasons, including for self-defense.
Citing the 2008 U.S. Supreme Court case of D.C v. Heller, the plaintiffs argued that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry” firearms and “elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.”
The defendant filed a motion to dismiss on Jan. 8, 2021, arguing that the three young plaintiffs were not part of the group referred to as “the people” in the Second Amendment.
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania agreed, granting the defendant’s motion on April 16, 2021.
The plaintiffs appealed on April 23, 2021, arguing that the Commonwealth’s statutes violate the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, which states, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
A Brief of Amici Curia was filed by the attorneys general of 18 states and the District of Columbia on Sept. 29, 2021, arguing that states have the right to enact gun safety measures “to promote and protect against gun violence,” and that the state’s age-based regulations were consistent with measures being enacted in other states, which were upheld by other courts.
“Pennsylvania’s age-based regulations promote public safety and prevent gun violence,” they argued further.
The plaintiffs responded on Oct. 13, 2021, asking the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to “reverse the decision of the district court and remand with instructions to enter an injunction forbidding the Commissioner from continuing to enforce the challenged ban.”
The United States Court of Appeals placed the case on hold in January 2022, pending the outcome of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen case, in which residents of New York challenged the state’s “proper cause” requirement for those who wanted to carry a firearm outside of their home.
The Supreme Court ruled that the requirement violates the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment by precluding law-abiding citizens from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.
Following the high court’s ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals ordered that the attorneys for both parties file additional briefs to “address the impact, if any” of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen.
After a few more legal exchanges, the United States Court of Appeals issued its ruling on Jan. 18, disagreeing with Mr. Evanchick’s position that the plaintiffs were “not among ‘the people’ to whom the Second Amendment applies and that the Nation’s history and tradition of firearm regulation support the statutory status quo.”
“The words ‘the people’ in the Second Amendment presumptively encompasses all adult Americans, including 18-to-20-year-olds,” the court decided, adding there was no “founding-era law that supports disarming that age group.”
Mr. Evanchick appealed on Feb. 24.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied his appeal on March 27.
‘A Pretty Big Victory’
In a press release following the ruling, SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut celebrated the victory.
“We’ve been fighting this battle for more than three years,” said Mr. Kraut, who is also a Pennsylvania resident and practicing attorney in the state. “The court’s decision is an important step forward to getting this issue resolved.”
SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb agreed, saying, “It was an important win.”
This has been going on for a couple of years now,” Mr. Gottlieb told The Epoch Times. “The appeals court ruled in our favor.
“The Third Circuit has affirmed that the Second Amendment applies to young adults and that 1791 is the historical marker for understanding the right to keep and bear arms,” he said further. “Finally, the court has said 18-to-20-year-olds can open carry during a state of emergency in Pennsylvania.”
Mr. Gottlieb said the decision will have “a very big impact.”
“While it was the Third Circuit and will really only apply to the Third Circuit, it does impact all of the AGs who have similar laws in their states who filed their amicus brief. It’s a pretty big victory,” he said.
He also noted that it’s an important ruling for SAF as they have similar challenges going on in other states.
“We recently won one in California,” he said, citing the case of May v. Bonta (pdf) in which a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction to halt the enforcement of the state’s “sensitive place” law.
Mr. Gottlieb said SAF also has similar challenges going on in Washington, Illinois, West Virginia, Texas, Minnesota, and a few other states.
“Eventually, one of these cases will wind up before the Supreme Court,” he said, predicting that Lara v. Evanchick “is the one that might be there.”
“I’ve been very encouraged since the Bruen decision by the Supreme Court,” Mr. Gottlieb said. “We’ve had scores of victories at lower court levels and of course, the blue states aren’t too happy about it so they’re appealing them up the chain. I hope we get one of them before the Supreme Court so they can stop a few of the lower courts that haven’t ruled in our favor and reaffirm the courts that have ruled in our favor. It would clarify the Bruen decision to make sure the history and text of the Second Amendment goes back to 1791 when the Second Amendment was ratified.”
From The Epoch Times
