Listed To This Article: Play in new window | Download | Embed
You can also subscribe via Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | RSS | More
PHILADELPHIA, PA — A recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has struck down Pennsylvania’s restriction on concealed carry for adults under 21, affirming that law-abiding young adults have Second Amendment rights. However, a coalition of 19 state attorneys general is now urging the court to reconsider, arguing that states should have the authority to impose age-based gun restrictions.
The case, Lara v. Commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Police, challenged Pennsylvania’s law that generally prohibits 18-to-20-year-olds from carrying concealed firearms in public and imposes further restrictions during declared states of emergency. The Third Circuit ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding the law unconstitutional. Now, attorneys general from states with similarly restrictive laws are attempting to overturn that decision, claiming it could impact firearm regulations nationwide.
Young Adults and the Right to Carry: A Historical Perspective
The court’s ruling aligns with the principle that the Second Amendment applies to all law-abiding adults, including those aged 18 to 20. Historical evidence strongly supports this interpretation.
During the Founding Era, young adults were not only allowed to possess and carry firearms but were required to do so in many cases. The Militia Act of 1792 mandated that all able-bodied males ages 18 to 45 keep and bear arms for service in state militias, directly contradicting modern laws that attempt to strip 18-to-20-year-olds of this right. There is no historical evidence from the 18th century suggesting that this age group was ever prohibited from carrying firearms.
In the 19th century, some states began enacting laws regulating the concealed carry of firearms, but these generally applied to all adults, not just those under 21. Open carry remained legal in most jurisdictions. It wasn’t until the late 19th and early 20th centuries that some states began placing restrictions on firearm purchases for individuals under 21, and even then, the focus was primarily on sales, not possession or carry.
Federal restrictions on firearm purchases for young adults did not emerge until the Gun Control Act of 1968, which prohibited federally licensed dealers from selling handguns to individuals under 21. However, this law did not prohibit those individuals from carrying or possessing firearms. Many states still recognize 18 as the legal age for both open and concealed carry.
Given this long history, the Third Circuit correctly recognized that no historical precedent exists for banning 18-to-20-year-olds from carrying firearms for self-defense.
State Attorneys General Push to Reinstate the Ban
Despite this strong historical backing, attorneys general from 19 states, led by Illinois AG Kwame Raoul, have filed an amicus brief arguing that the decision should be reconsidered by the full Third Circuit panel. The coalition includes representatives from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.
These states claim that age-based firearm restrictions are necessary for public safety and that the court’s decision threatens similar laws across the country. However, their argument ignores the fact that individuals under 21 have historically been expected to carry firearms for self-defense and militia service.
“States have the right to implement commonsense regulations to protect their residents from gun violence,” said Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, defending the restrictions. However, critics argue that these regulations unfairly strip legal adults of their constitutional rights without clear evidence that such bans reduce crime.
The Constitutional Argument
The Third Circuit’s ruling follows the framework set by New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022), which requires gun laws to be consistent with historical precedent. The court found no meaningful historical support for banning 18-to-20-year-olds from carrying concealed firearms. In fact, historical records show that young adults were expected to be armed for self-defense and militia service.
Furthermore, the ruling aligns with the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Rahimi (2024), which reaffirmed that gun regulations must be deeply rooted in historical tradition—not based on modern-day policy preferences.
Potential Nationwide Impact
If the attorneys general succeed in overturning this decision, it could embolden other states to impose further restrictions on young adults’ Second Amendment rights. On the other hand, if the ruling stands, it could set a precedent for challenging similar unconstitutional restrictions in other states.
This case also raises questions about the federal restriction on licensed firearm dealers selling handguns to individuals under 21—a law that could face similar constitutional challenges in the future.
What’s Next?
The coalition of attorneys general is requesting an en banc review, meaning the full Third Circuit would revisit the case. They also suggest sending the case back to the district court for additional historical analysis.
If the court upholds its ruling, Pennsylvania will be forced to respect the Second Amendment rights of 18-to-20-year-olds, potentially influencing similar cases across the country. If the ruling is overturned, young adults in Pennsylvania could once again find themselves stripped of their right to self-defense.
Key Takeaway for Gun Owners
This case underscores the ongoing legal battle over firearm rights for young adults. While anti-gun state officials attempt to defend restrictive laws, courts are increasingly recognizing that the Second Amendment applies to all law-abiding adults—including those under 21. Gun owners should stay informed and support legal efforts to ensure that no adult is denied their constitutional right to self-defense.
