Court panel reverses order affirming state gun law

Current legislation bars adults under 21 from receiving carry permits

A three-judge panel of the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals this week reversed an order by a district judge in Pittsburgh affirming Pennsylvania laws that prohibit adults under the age of 21 from receiving firearms carry permits.

Two of the appeals court judges in a majority opinion -- Kent A. Jordan and D. Brooks Smith -- agreed that the order issued by District Judge William S. Stickman IV, upholding Pennsylvania's Uniform Firearms Act, should be reversed and that an injunction should bar the enforcement of the law that bans carry permits for young adults.

The lawsuit challenging the state firearms laws was filed by three individuals in 2020.

The third judge on the panel, L. Felipe Restrepo, filed a dissenting opinion because, he argued, historical precedent indicated that persons under 21 at the time of the nation's founding were still considered minors and were not "part of 'the people' whom the Second Amendment protects."

The issue is pertinent to Blair County because a 19-year-old woman from Altoona, Hannah Young, is a plaintiff in a similar lawsuit filed in November with the U.S. District Court in Johnstown.

Young and another 19-year-old, Ariana Palmaccio of Luzerne County, joined with two nonprofit civil rights groups, the National Rifle Association and the Firearms Policy Coalition Inc., to challenge the state's bar against issuance of carry permits to adults under 21 years of age.

The primary defendant in the case is State Police Commissioner Colonel Christopher Paris.

Other defendants include Sheriffs James Ott of Blair County and Brian Szumski of Luzerne County, who are responsible for issuing carry permits in their respective counties.

The Johnstown case has been put on hold by District Judge Stephaine Haines pending the outcome of the 2020 case that was filed before Judge Stickman in Pittsburgh.

The issue has gone all the way up to the United States Supreme Court, which in June ruled in yet another Second Amendment case (United States v. Rahimi) that a federal law banning carry permits for individuals who commit domestic violence is legal and within the scope of traditional law dating back to the founding fathers.

The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals was ordered by the Supreme Court to review its order overturning Stickman's affirmation of the ban under the Uniform Firearms Act in view of the ruling in the Rahimi case.

The Second Amendment simply states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The question raised by the State Police Commissioner is whether the young adults subject to the ban are part of the "people" who are protected.

The majority opinion noted "that the constitutional right to keep and bear arms should be understood according to public meaning in 1791."

It went on to state: "It is undisputed that 18- to 20-year-olds are 'among the people' for other constitutional rights such as the right to vote, freedom of speech, the freedom to peaceably assemble and to petition the government and the right against unreasonable searches and seizures."

In 1792, able-bodied men were required to enroll in the militia and to arm themselves upon turning 18, the majority opinion stated.

"That young adults had to serve in the militia indicates that founding-era lawmakers believed those youth indeed should keep and bear arms," the majority reasoned.

The State Police Commissioner, however, retorted that when the Second Amendment was ratified, nine states set the threshold for militia service at 16 years of age.

Restrepo, in his dissent, stated, "At the Founding, people under 21 lacked full legal personhood. Indeed, there is no disagreement that at the time of the Founding, people under 21 were considered 'infants' in the eyes of the law."

The young adults at the time "had few independent rights," he argued.

He concluded the challenged statutory scheme here (the Uniform Firearms Act) is "consistent with this Nation's historical tradition."

Since the decision by the 3rd Circuit was issued earlier this week, the attorneys for Young and Palmaccio have asked that Haines vacate her stay order and allow their case to move forward.

The lawyers for the State Police Commissioner are requesting the stay remain in place.