The Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned a lower court ruling from Pennsylvania that allowed residents under 21 to carry firearms in public, though the justices declined for now to hear arguments in the case themselves.
At issue was a state law that barred 18-to-20 years olds from open carrying firearms during declared states of emergencies. The court’s decision tosses a federal appeals court ruling that found the law violated the Second Amendment.
The Supreme Court did not explain its ruling and no dissents were noted.
Pennsylvania, like 31 other states, sets 21 as the minimum age for certain gun rights. The state barred 18-to-20 years olds from openly carrying firearms during a state of emergency, including the one declared during the Covid-19 pandemic.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned a lower court ruling from Pennsylvania that allowed residents under 21 to carry firearms in public, though the justices declined for now to hear arguments in the case themselves.
At issue was a state law that barred 18-to-20 years olds from open carrying firearms during declared states of emergencies. The court’s decision tosses a federal appeals court ruling that found the law violated the Second Amendment.
The Supreme Court did not explain its ruling and no dissents were noted.
Pennsylvania, like 31 other states, sets 21 as the minimum age for certain gun rights. The state barred 18-to-20 years olds from openly carrying firearms during a state of emergency, including the one declared during the Covid-19 pandemic.
— John Fritze in Supreme Court leaves in place Pennsylvania law barring people under 21 from carrying guns
WTF? We have a letter from one of the founders explicitly telling his (then) 15 year old nephew to make a gun “the constant companion of [his] walks”, and George Washington himself acknowledged the bulk of the Continental Army were roughly the same age as Sergeant Martin (Whose arms was it supposed to protect if not the Continental Army’s?) wasn’t . There is no historical analog for disarming even minors.
Argue the case under the equal protection clause instead of 2A. Adults 18-20 have the same rights as adults 21 to whatever. Then use the same arguments for alcohol and tobacco. An adult is an adult, with all the rights and responsibilities.
Why not both?
The cited article is poorly written clickbait.
What actually happened: Third Circuit struck down the 18-20 open carry ban based on Bruen — but without reference to the SCOTUS Rahimi opinion, which had not yet come down at that time. (Third Circuit would probably have been better served to have waited a few weeks to see what SCOTUS would do with that pending case before ruling.) State sought cert with SCOTUS; SCOTUS simply granted the petition and summarily told the Third Circuit to look at it again in light of Rahimi.
So SCOTUS did not reach the merits at all — it just prudentially noted that there was an intervening SCOTUS decision that required the appellate court to redo their papers. My guess is that the Third Circuit panel will reach the same decision as before.
Out of curiosity around how many such cases are we likely to see over the next several months? Oh and re that gas mask question you had, there is a way to get a better “usually” sufficient seal through use of some specialized beard oil but it was more intended for the Sikhs we had who typically didn’t have full on beards so stuff for me to look up and see what is still floating around on emails.
If “other cases” means other 2A prohibitory cases that will be remanded for reconsideration in light of Rahimi, there may be some but probably not many. I do not think you’ll see case involving AWB’s, magazine limits, CC restrictions, etc., remanded for reconsideration under Rahimi — I read that decision as requiring an analysis of a prohibition or a class of people as requiring a consideration of whether there was a determination that such persons were in fact “dangerous” and thus could be disarmed.
If there were other Court of Appeals decision that came out before March that involved challenges to such prohibitionary laws, the cert petitions would already be on file, and would have already gotten the same treatment. It’s possible there are some others pending, but I doubt it.
Once Rahimi came out in later June, subsequent lower courts facing the issue are going to include Rahimi analyses in them.
It’s possible that there were some Court of Appeals decisions that came out shortly before Rahimi (or shortly afterwards without discussing it) that are in the pipeline, but I doubt there are many (or even any). When there is an impending release of a SCOTUS decision on a major constitutional issue, lower courts will almost always wait for that guidance, rather than shoot first and potentially have to redo it later. As indicated above, I’m surprised that the Third Circuit didn’t hold its opinion to see what SCOTUS did in Rahimi, especially when the Rahimi oral argument pretty clearly telegraphed that the court was likely going to reverse.
An adult is an adult and should have the same rights privileges and responsibilities as any other adult no matter the age.
Some don’t mind allowing an 18,19, 20 year olds serve in the military and risking injury and death for their country; but, they are too
young to have a beer or carry a gun.
Someone correct me, but the article seems to say that SCOTUS really did nothing and the PA law is still in effect.