The Supreme Court has sent shockwaves through Second Amendment debates by vacating a key ruling from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals regarding young adults’ right to carry firearms as reported by Amy Howe for SCOTUS Blog and others. This ruling comes after a challenge to Pennsylvania’s law barring adults under 21 from openly carrying firearms during a state of emergency. With the Supreme Court’s decision to vacate and remand the ruling, this case is now headed back to the lower courts for another review. But what does this mean for gun rights advocates and young adults? Let’s take a closer look.
A Closer Look at Pennsylvania’s Law
Pennsylvania’s law in question prohibits 18- to 20-year-olds from openly carrying firearms during a state of emergency, a situation that restricts their rights, even though these individuals are legally considered adults in many other respects. The law was initially struck down by the Third Circuit, which ruled in June 2023 that the Second Amendment presumptively applies to all Americans, including young adults. The court found no historical precedent for stripping this age group of their right to carry arms, making the law unconstitutional. This decision was celebrated by gun rights advocates, as it seemed to solidify the Second Amendment rights of young adults in Pennsylvania.
Supreme Court Sends the Case Back
However, the case took a sharp turn when the Supreme Court vacated this decision and sent it back to the Third Circuit for reconsideration in light of the court’s 2024 decision in United States v. Rahimi. The Rahimi case focused on the broader question of whether modern firearm regulations need to perfectly mirror historical laws to be constitutional. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, suggested that even if a modern regulation doesn’t exactly match historical restrictions, it could still be close enough to pass constitutional muster. Pennsylvania Attorney General Michelle Henry seized on this ruling, arguing that the Third Circuit had “overread” the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which required courts to find a historical analog for gun regulations.
Rahimi’s Ripple Effect
The Rahimi ruling has caused confusion in lower courts, with judges now wrestling over how closely modern laws need to align with historical regulations. Jared Yanis, host of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News, highlighted this shift in his commentary. According to Yanis, Pennsylvania officials believe that Rahimi clarifies the legal standard for reviewing Second Amendment cases, which is why the Supreme Court sent the case back for reconsideration. While Yanis expressed disappointment over the setback for gun rights, he remains cautiously optimistic, noting that the case isn’t over yet. The Third Circuit could still rule in favor of young adults after reviewing the case under this new framework.
The Historical Argument
Cam Edwards, writing for Bearing Arms, points out that the state of Pennsylvania has leaned heavily on 19th-century laws that restricted firearms for minors as part of their defense. However, Edwards argues that these historical laws aren’t a perfect comparison. In the 1800s, the age of majority was often 21, whereas today, 18-year-olds are generally considered adults. This distinction makes it harder for Pennsylvania to justify a blanket ban on adults under 21 carrying firearms during emergencies. Edwards suggests that Pennsylvania’s argument may not hold up under modern scrutiny, as it seems overly broad to deny an entire age group the right to carry based on their potential for crime.
Confusion in Lower Courts
One of the main issues here is the confusion surrounding how lower courts are supposed to apply Supreme Court precedent in Second Amendment cases. The 2022 Bruen ruling generally requires courts to find a historical law that justifies a modern regulation. But Rahimi complicates this by suggesting that a law doesn’t need to be an exact historical match. Mark W. Smith of The Four Boxes Diner explained that this uncertainty is why the Supreme Court decided to vacate the Third Circuit’s decision and remand the case. According to Smith, this isn’t necessarily a loss for gun rights advocates – it’s just part of the process of figuring out how Rahimi and Bruen fit together.
A Delicate Balance
As we await the Third Circuit’s reconsideration, it’s important to recognize the delicate balance at play here. While some justices, like Roberts, are open to a broader interpretation of what constitutes a “historical analog,” others remain more rigid. Gun rights advocates argue that young adults who can vote, marry, serve in the military, and enter into contracts should also be able to exercise their Second Amendment rights. As Yanis pointed out, it’s hard to justify sending someone off to war with a gun, only to tell them they can’t carry one at home.
The Impact on Young Adults
For young adults, this case represents much more than a legal battle – it’s about their right to self-defense. Mark Smith underscored this in his video, explaining how essential it is for individuals aged 18-20 to be able to protect themselves, especially in today’s climate. Some areas in the U.S. are arguably more dangerous than a war zone, making the right to carry firearms a necessity rather than a privilege. Smith contends that denying this right because of age is both unfair and unconstitutional.
A Setback for Gun Rights?
Despite the setback, many Second Amendment advocates remain hopeful that the Third Circuit will uphold its original ruling. According to Edwards, Pennsylvania’s reliance on outdated laws may ultimately be its downfall. In today’s society, 18- to 20-year-olds are treated as adults in most aspects of life, and the state’s attempt to use 19th-century statutes to justify its law may not withstand the scrutiny of a modern court.
What Comes Next?
With the case heading back to the Third Circuit, all eyes will be on how the court handles the reconsideration in light of Rahimi. While it’s possible that the court will maintain its previous ruling, there’s also a chance it could reverse course. If the Third Circuit rules against young adults, it could set the stage for another Supreme Court showdown, further shaping the future of Second Amendment rights in the United States.
Why This Case Matters
This case is a critical test of how the courts will interpret Second Amendment rights for young adults going forward. As Yanis and Smith both emphasized, the decision could have broad implications for gun laws across the country. If the courts rule that states can restrict the right to carry firearms for young adults, it could lead to similar restrictions elsewhere. On the other hand, a ruling in favor of young adults could solidify their rights nationwide.
Restriction Based on Age
Looking at this case, one has to wonder: should the rights of young adults be restricted based on age alone? After all, these individuals are entrusted with numerous adult responsibilities, from voting to military service. Denying them the right to carry a firearm seems like an arbitrary line to draw, especially when you consider the high stakes involved in personal safety. It’s clear that this debate is far from over, and the courts will have to grapple with these complex questions in the months to come.
Clarifying Positions
The Supreme Court’s decision to vacate the Third Circuit’s ruling and remand the case represents a significant moment in the ongoing battle over Second Amendment rights. While some see this as a setback, others view it as an opportunity for the courts to clarify their position on gun rights for young adults. Whether the Third Circuit will uphold its original ruling or reverse course remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: this case will have lasting implications for how we interpret the right to bear arms in the United States.
To dive deeper into this topic, read the full articles on the SCOTUS Blog here and on Bearing Arms here, and check out the full videos on the Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News YouTube channel here and on The Four Boxes Diner’s YouTube channel here.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa writes about homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Whether it’s canning vegetables or setting up a rainwater harvesting system, Lisa’s goal is to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.