The Second Amendment has no age limit. It says "the right of the people," not "the right of the people if they're old enough to drink." While it's long been understood that kids are different, lawful adults are denied gun rights all the time.
And a challenge to one example is one step closer to winning.
In states that require gun permits, those are usually relegated exclusively to those over 21. To some degree, it makes sense. After all, you can't buy a handgun from a licensed dealer if you're under 21, so why would you need to carry one?
Beyond the fact that "need" isn't in the Second Amendment, such so-called thinking ignores the fact that adults can be given a handgun before their 21st birthday. They can borrow one, too. So, they can lawfully have a handgun, and it's the right to keep and bear arms, after all.
Pennsylvania is one of those states that prohibits permits for adults under 21. The Second Amendment Foundation's challenge to that law was just sent to conference.
From a press release:
he U.S. Supreme Court has distributed a Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) case, Madison Lara v. Commissioner Pennsylvania State Police, for conference to be held on Monday, Sept. 29.
The case seeks to vindicate the firearm carry rights of young adults by challenging Pennsylvania state law which prohibits them from carrying firearms during a declared state of emergency. Joining SAF in the case are the Firearms Policy Coalition and three individuals.
“We agree with the commonwealth that cert should be granted in this case, and this conference distribution is one step closer to that goal,” said SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “We are hopeful that the Supreme Court steps in and puts to bed once and for all the question as to whether 18-20-year-olds are part of ‘the People’ who share the same Second Amendment rights as their older counterparts.”
Originally filed in 2021, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has twice ruled in SAF’s favor. After the initial ruling, the commonwealth appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court which, in turn, remanded the case back to the Third Circuit to reconsider in light of the Court’s ruling in Rahimi. The Third Circuit determined that Rahimi had changed nothing about their analysis and once again ruled for SAF and the plaintiffs. After being denied en banc review by the Third Circuit, the commonwealth has once again petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case.
“If you’re an adult, then you should be able to fully exercise your Second Amendment rights, period,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The Third Circuit has made the determination that 18-20-year-olds are members of ‘the People’ more than once, and we are hopeful the Supreme Court will follow suit and determine that adults under 21 have the same rights as other American adults.”
The start of that last paragraph is especially important, in my book.
These are people who are old enough to enlist in the military, vote, sign contracts, and a host of other things that we consider "adult." These are things that require someone to be responsible for themselves to some degree or another. Yes, people at this age can be stupid--I sure was--they're still adults. They deserve to be treated as such.
Ending these age restrictions is vital if we're going to pretend to respect the Second Amendment.
I suspect that the Court will hear a case like this sooner or later, so they might as well start here, then kill the entire thing, because constitutionality requires historical analogs to the law in question, and there simply isn't any that should apply.
