In a major win for gun rights advocates, the Pennsylvania Superior Court has ruled that Philadelphia’s law requiring a license to openly carry a firearm is unconstitutional, at least as applied to one man. In a June 23, 2025 opinion written by Judge Victor P. Stabile, the court concluded that the city’s restriction violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
This decision stems from the case Commonwealth v. Sumpter, where the appellant, Riyadh Sumpter, was convicted for openly carrying a handgun without a license in Philadelphia.
As reported by Elizabeth Daley of Law360, the Superior Court found that treating residents of Philadelphia differently from those in other parts of the state could not stand under constitutional scrutiny. “Everywhere else in Pennsylvania, people aren’t committing a crime when they open carry,” said Sumpter’s attorney, Leonard Sosnov. “There is no legitimate basis for the people in Philadelphia to have reduced rights.”
The Law That Triggered the Case
The statute at the heart of this case is Section 6108 of Pennsylvania’s criminal code. It makes it a crime to openly carry a firearm in a “city of the first class”, which in Pennsylvania, uniquely, means Philadelphia, without a license. That license, by state law, is only available to individuals aged 21 and older. Yet across the rest of Pennsylvania, open carry is perfectly legal at age 18 without a permit.
According to the Superior Court opinion, this means someone who is legally allowed to open carry in rural Pittsburgh could face criminal prosecution for the same act just by walking across Philadelphia’s city limits. Judge Stabile concluded that this discrepancy placed an undue and unconstitutional burden on people in Philadelphia.
The Equal Protection Twist
Unlike many gun rights cases that hinge on the Second Amendment, this one took a different path. Sumpter’s legal team didn’t focus on whether he had a right to carry under the Second Amendment. Instead, they framed their argument around the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
As explained in the Washington Gun Law video hosted by attorney William Kirk, this was a strategic masterstroke. “We’re not so much concerned with the validity of the law,” Kirk said, “but whether Sumpter is unfairly treated under the law compared to others in Pennsylvania. That’s an equal protection issue.” He described it as a legal “chess move” that avoided the traditional Second Amendment deadlock many courts often reach.
Strict Scrutiny Seals the Deal
The court applied strict scrutiny, the highest legal standard used when fundamental constitutional rights are involved. Under this test, the government must prove that its law is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest. The state’s main argument? That Philadelphia’s higher rate of gun violence justifies tougher restrictions.
But the court wasn’t buying it.
As Judge Stabile noted in the opinion, recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings like New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022) and United States v. Rahimi (2024) have clarified that the right to bear arms outside the home is indeed a fundamental right. Once that was established, the state’s justification for treating Philadelphia differently fell apart.
No Historical Support, Either
The Commonwealth tried to cite a 1721 law banning the firing of guns in Philadelphia without a special license as historical precedent. But the Superior Court dismissed that too, pointing out the obvious: firing a gun and simply carrying one are not the same.
As Judge Stabile wrote, “Carrying a gun in public in Philadelphia and shooting a gun in public in Philadelphia are two very distinct actions.” The court said this law offered no valid historical analog to justify the modern licensing disparity.
Previous Rulings No Longer Hold Water
For years, Pennsylvania courts relied on a 2014 ruling in Commonwealth v. Scarborough, which upheld Section 6108 using a lower legal standard called rational basis review. But as noted in the court opinion and emphasized by Mark W. Smith of the Four Boxes Diner, Scarborough failed to consider the later Supreme Court decisions that upgraded the right to bear arms to “fundamental.”
Smith stressed how important this shift was. “When a court rules in favor of gun rights using language from Heller, Bruen, or Rahimi, those words become ammunition in future legal battles,” he said. “This wasn’t just a win for Sumpter. This is a precedent we can use nationwide.”
Dissenting Opinion Misses the Mark
Not everyone on the panel agreed. Judge Timika Lane issued a dissent, arguing that Bruen and Rahimi didn’t apply because Sumpter had never even tried to apply for a license. She believed Pennsylvania’s law wasn’t invalidated by the Supreme Court decisions and would have upheld Sumpter’s conviction.
But the majority didn’t buy her argument. They clarified that this wasn’t about whether licenses can exist. It was about the unequal application of a law based solely on geography.
A Creative Legal Shift With Big Implications
The move away from a Second Amendment argument to an Equal Protection strategy could mark a turning point for gun rights litigation. William Kirk praised this pivot as a game-changer, explaining that it forces courts to confront discrimination in application, rather than weighing abstract gun rights against public safety.
By framing the issue as discriminatory treatment of similarly situated individuals, Sumpter’s team avoided the often politicized and historically murky debates that surround Second Amendment cases. It was about fairness, not firearms.
Public Safety Isn’t a Free Pass
The court also struck down the state’s claim that Philadelphia needed special rules due to higher crime. Citing District of Columbia v. Heller, the court pointed out that “the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.” Public safety matters – but it doesn’t justify violating fundamental rights.
Mark W. Smith echoed this idea, stating, “Interest balancing was already done when the Second Amendment was ratified. Courts aren’t supposed to redo that analysis every time a city wants tighter restrictions.”
More Than Just a Win for Sumpter
This ruling doesn’t just vacate Riyadh Sumpter’s conviction. It opens the door for broader legal challenges. It signals to lawmakers that creating isolated zones of reduced constitutional rights won’t survive serious scrutiny.
As the court clearly stated, “§ 6108 places persons within the City of Philadelphia at a special disadvantage in the exercise of their Second Amendment right. The Commonwealth has failed to articulate a compelling interest.”
A Case That Could Reshape the Battlefield
This decision fascinates me not only because it’s a win for gun rights, but because of how it was won. We’ve seen for years how Second Amendment cases often stall in courts that are reluctant to weigh in on gun debates. But by pulling the issue out of the usual lane and into an equal protection argument, Sumpter’s team used the Constitution’s own framework to turn the tide.
It’s also a lesson in legal creativity. Sometimes, the best route isn’t straight ahead. It’s to step aside, change the framing, and surprise your opponent. That’s exactly what happened here – and it worked.
A Precedent With National Potential
The implications of this decision go beyond Pennsylvania. If a law that treats citizens differently based solely on their city of residence can’t survive in Philly, the same logic could be applied elsewhere. Local gun restrictions, especially those that add extra layers of burden on fundamental rights, could soon face their own equal protection reckoning.
This ruling might not make headlines like a Supreme Court case, but for constitutional rights, it’s another domino falling in favor of liberty.
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 is our dedicated Second Amendment news writer and also focuses on homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Lisa aims to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.