The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which governs New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware, announced its decision not to rehear a case en banc pertaining to the rights of 18, 19, and 20-year-olds to keep and bear arms. It is a victory for the Second Amendment because it leaves in place the Third Circuit ruling in January in favor of young adults.
The case is called Madison Lara v. Commissioner PA State Police. It established that 18, 19, and 20-year-olds are part of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment, reinforcing the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
Beyond interpreting the Second Amendment and its applicability to young adults, the case also generated debate regarding the relevant historical period for assessing Second Amendment rights. Predictably, proponents of a founding-era perspective (which focuses on 1791 as directed in Bruen), argued for a broad interpretation of individual gun rights, while advocates of a late 19th-century time frame sought to restrict individual rights.
The recent ruling by the Third Circuit aligns with established Supreme Court precedent (Bruen) and rejects the late 19th-century perspective, favoring instead the understanding of the Second Amendment as of 1791.
Mark Smith, legal scholar, author, and Youtube channel host of “Four Boxes Diner” opined that, “It is anticipated that other federal courts will draw upon this precedent, further solidifying the understanding of the Second Amendment as rooted in its founding principles.”
Interestingly, Judge Krause’s dissent essentially hinged on an emotional argument that engaged the “public safety” interest-balancing test prohibited by Bruen. He wrote:
While the scarcity and limited lethality of their weapons gave our Founding generation little reason to fear the danger of youth gun violence, today’s legislatures have good reason to do so. And because that group is especially prone to impulsive, violent behavior, Pennsylvania’s legislature reasonably decided that allowing them to carry firearms in public during statewide emergencies, when emotions already run high and violence may be widespread, would pose a particular danger to public safety. That judgment reflects precisely the type of determination that led our Founders to categorically disarm other groups they deemed to be dangerous and puts Pennsylvania’s statute comfortably within the Nation’s historical tradition even at the “First Founding.”
