In layman’s terms: a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit cements victory for Pennsylvanian 18-20 year olds who wish to carry openly during a state of emergency
On February 26, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied Pennsylvania’s petition to rehear a case challenging its ban on 18-to-20-year-olds open carrying during declared states of emergency, maintaining the 2nd Amendment victory we reported on in January.
This case was supported jointly by the Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition, two gun rights groups who backed the individual plaintiffs.
In the case of Lara v. Paris, Circuit Judge D. Brooks Smith issued a 20-page decision accompanying the denial of the state’s request to have the case reheard en banc, nearly all of which consisted of a dissenting opinion from Judge Krause.
Judge Krause’s dissent is significant because she is also involved in the consolidated Siegel/Koons v. Platkin case addressing New Jersey’s sensitive places carry bans. Judge Krause, an Obama appointee, was one of the three judges that ruled to reinstate much of the “carry killer” law. In Lara v. Paris, Krause gives four reasons for dissenting:
Founding-era sources conclusively demonstrate that legislatures were authorized to categorically disarm groups they reasonably judged to pose a particular risk of danger, and Pennsylvania’s modern-day judgment that youth under the age of 21 pose such a risk is well supported by evidence subject to judicial notice.
Second, in light of this historical tradition at the Founding, en banc review would allow us to apply the proper historical methodology and consider the myriad laws throughout the 19th century that reflect a continuation of this Founding-era tradition, further bolstering the Constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s law.
Third, even if this overwhelming historical evidence were not enough, en banc review would permit us to vacate and remand this case to give Pennsylvania the opportunity to marshal historical support before the District Court in light of recent developments in our Second Amendment jurisprudence.
And fourth, the majority gives short shrift to the Supreme Court’s admonition that “cases implicating unprecedented societal concerns or dramatic technological changes may require a more nuanced approach.”
Judge Krause’s opinion would be hard to reconcile with any other Constitutionally-protected right, but is nonetheless not surprising to those acquainted with her typical positions on Second Amendment cases.
Should the State wish to further appeal this decision, their only remedy is the Supreme Court.
