January 21, 2025 – In a divided decision filed last week, a three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reaffirmed its prior decision in  Lara v. Comm’r Pa. State Police, holding that Pennsylvania’s ban on open carry by 18-to-20-year-olds during a declared emergency is unconstitutional because it violates the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court had remanded the case to the Third Circuit for further consideration in light of its decision in United States v. Rahimi, which upheld the constitutionality 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), the provision in the Gun Control Act barring the possession of firearms by persons subject to certain restraining orders.  In Rahimi, the Court explained that the Bruen test only required a  historical analogue, not a historical twin, and that “the people in this country have understood from the start that the government may disarm an individual temporarily after a ‘judicial determinatio[n]’ that he ‘likely would threaten or ha[s] threatened another with a weapon.”

Under Pennsylvania’s Uniform Firearms Act of 1995 (“UFA”), 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§6101-28, Pennsylvania normally allows those 18 years and older to open carry openly carry firearms in public without a permit. In contrast, a license, which is only available to persons 21 or older, is required to carry firearms concealed.  Certain sections of the UFA prohibit anyone without a concealed carry permit from carrying a firearm in public (whether openly or concealed) while a state or municipal emergency declaration is in effect. These provisions effectively ban 18-to-20-year-olds from carrying firearms while an emergency declaration is in effect.

The majority affirmed its original decision and held that it properly followed the Supreme Court’s precedents in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruenand Rahimi. In accordance with those decisions, the court considered “whether the challenged regulation is consistent with the principles that underpin our regulatory tradition,” not whether a “historical twin” of the regulation exists. According to Judge Jordan, the court’s “prior analysis reflects the approach taken in Bruen and clarified in Rahimi. Founding-era laws reflect the principle that 18-to-20-year-olds are ‘able-bodied men’ entitled to exercise the right to bear arms.”  The majority also rejected the state’s claim that the case is moot since there is no current emergency order in place. In dissent, Judge Restrepo argued that people under 21 could be barred from carrying firearms because “young people at the Founding bore arms only at the pleasure of their guardians.” 

Having determined that Rahimi supported its prior analysis, the Third Circuit ruled that the challenged provision in the UFA violates the Second Amendment and again reversed the district court.  The case was remanded to the district court with instructions to enter an injunction forbidding the Commissioner from arresting law-abiding 18-to-20-year-olds who openly carry firearms during a declared state of emergency.

Renzulli Law Firm will continue to monitor and provide updates on legislation, regulations and cases concerning the right to keep and bear arms. If you have any questions about cases involving the Second Amendment or the firearm industry, please contact John F. Renzulli or Christopher Renzulli.