The current conservative and pro-2nd Amendment U.S. Supreme Court is upending decades of firearm law, tossing some long-stable anti-gun laws into question. Seemingly daily, new cases come to light in various state and federal courts that highlight the various approaches that judges are taking.
In a recent Pennsylvania case that wound its way to a federal appeals court, called Lara v. Comm’r Pa. State Police, the plaintiffs challenged three sections of Pennsylvania’s Uniform Firearms Act, which together prohibited 18-to-20-year-olds from carrying firearms outside their
homes during a declared state of emergency. At the time the lawsuit was filed, Pennsylvania had been under various states of emergency for nearly three years.
The plaintiffs argued that the statutory scheme violated their Second Amendment rights. The lower court ruled against the plaintiffs, holding that the restrictions fell outside the scope of the Second Amendment. But on appeal, the Third Circuit reversed. Applying the Supreme Court’s recent decision in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, the Third Circuit held that 18-to-20-year-olds are presumptively among “the people” protected by the Second Amendment.
The court found no persuasive historical evidence showing 18-to-20-year-olds could be categorically banned from carrying firearms in public.
The Third Circuit sent the case back to the lower court and instructed it to enter an injunction prohibiting the Commissioner from enforcing the laws against 18-to-20-year-olds carrying firearms openly during a state of emergency.
Meanwhile, in United States v. Jones, the Ninth Circuit federal appeals court upheld the federal prohibition on handgun possession by adults under 21, rejecting a Second Amendment argument that even adults under age 21 should be able to possess handguns. The federal law at issue in that case criminalizes the sale or transfer of handguns to individuals under 21. The court held that the law did not violate the Second Amendment because the age restriction was substantially related to the government’s compelling interest in public safety. The court found evidence that 18-to-20-year-olds are disproportionately involved in violent crime, and that restricting their access to handguns promotes public safety.
While this federal law applies only to federal jurisdictions, the reasoning of the Jones case could be a model for state courts that are hearing challenges to state laws setting 21 as the minimum age for firearms possession or carrying. Opponents of state age restriction laws may rely on Jones to argue that prohibiting or restricting 18-to-20-year-olds from carrying firearms violates their Second Amendment rights. However, the outcome of such challenges would depend on how state courts interpret and apply their own state constitutions and laws. Jones does not directly invalidate or preempt state laws setting the minimum age at 21, but it provides a precedent that could be influential.
Call or email Bill Lane if you have been charged with a firearms crime in Massachusetts state court. The law of firearms and who may legally possess them is undergoing a great deal of reconsideration by parties on both sides of the question, those that want to permit wider possession of guns, and those that fear that guns are a threat to public safety that must be reined in.