In layman’s terms: The Supreme Court reversed a pro-Second Amendment ruling allowing 18-to-20 year olds to carry firearms
This week, the United States Supreme Court sent a case dealing with restrictions on young adults carrying firearms back to the Third Circuit Appeals court to be reheard in the context of a very recent SCOTUS ruling. In so doing, it reversed a pro-Second Amendment ruling which has been widely viewed as a loss for 2nd Amendment right, although there are opinions that consider this a strategic move as well.
In the case of Paris v. Lara, the United States Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari, vacated (or reversed) the judgment and remanded (or sent back) to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for further consideration in light of United States v. Rahimi.
The case in question dealt with Pennsylvania laws that temporarily restricted young adults from carrying firearms during declared states of emergency. Initially, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled in favor of the Second Amendment (an obvious ruling in that Constitutional rights are granted equally to all legal adults) allowing these young adults to carry, but the Supreme Court’s latest action has temporarily suspended that victory.
In Rahimi (decided in June of 2024), the Supreme Court upheld a federal law that bars anyone subject to a domestic-violence restraining order from possessing a gun in an 8-1 vote. Rahimi was decided after the case in question. How Rahimi applies to this case is a bit of a mystery.
The Supreme Court is basically telling the Third Circuit court to do a reanalysis of the Constitutional rights of the 18-to-20 year olds in light of the Rahimi case which attempted to clarify the relatively straightforward Bruen test requiring historical analogues to any gun-control law.
This is a material loss (at least temporarily) for young adults in that age range.
Second Amendment Foundation Executive Director, Adam Kraut, issued the following statement on Twitter regarding the Supreme Court decision:
As was noted in our brief to the Supreme Court, we believe that vacature of the Third Circuit’s opinion was unnecessary given Rahimi would not make a difference in the outcome. Regardless, the Supreme Court did GVR the case. We will continue to aggressively litigate this matter before the Third Circuit which already found that 18-20-year-olds are part of ‘the People’ and that this nation’s history required these adults to be armed along with a corresponding absence of any restrictions. SAF will continue to do the necessary work required to restore the right to keep and bear arms for these 18-20-year-olds.
Second Amendment Foundation Executive Director Adam Kraut on SCOTUS denying cert in LARA:
— SAF (@2AFDN) October 15, 2024
“As was noted in our brief to the Supreme Court, we believe that vacature of the Third Circuit’s opinion was unnecessary given Rahimi would not make a difference in the outcome. Regardless,…
Constitutional scholar and Second Amendment lawyer, Mark Smith, of Four Boxes Diner Youtube channel considers this business as usual, though.
In summary, he explains that the Supreme Court hears about 70 cases in a yearly term and in general that includes two to three Second Amendment cases. So far SCOTUS has heard (or will hear shortly) two such cases.
As for the third, Mark asserts, “What we really want is the third gun-related Second Amendment case to be Snope v. Brown (Formerly Bianchi) because as I see it there’s no more important case in American gun law right now that we need resolved in our favor and it should be resolved in our favor is that AR-15s and semi-automatic rifles are protected arms under the Second Amendment… now this should be a slam dunk…”
We will continue to cover the 3rd Circuit handling of this case.
