Another Brick in the Wall

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

It is undisputed that 18-to-20-year-olds are among “the people” for other constitutional rights such as the right to vote (U.S. Const. art. I, § 2; id. amend. XVII), freedom of speech, the freedom to peaceably assemble and to petition the government (id. amend. I), and the right against unreasonable searches and seizures (id. amend. IV).15 Heller cautions against the adoption of an inconsistent reading of “the people” across the Constitution. 554 U.S. at 580. Indeed, wholesale exclusion of 18-to-20-year olds from the scope of the Second Amendment would impermissibly render “the constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense … ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.’” Bruen, 597 U.S. at 70 (quoting McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 780 (2010)).

We therefore reiterate our holding that 18-to-20-year olds are, like other subsets of the American public, presumptively among “the people” to whom Second Amendment rights extend.

Circuit Judge Kent A. Jordan
January 13, 2025
Lara v. Pennsylvania State Police

See also SAF WINS CHALLENGE TO PENNSYLVANIA CARRY BAN FOR YOUNG ADULTS – Second Amendment Foundation. The Firearms Policy Coalition also worked on this case. Every month my employer and I donate money to both organizations.

After bouncing around the court system, including a visit to SCOTUS. We now have a definitive ruling that 18-to-20-year olds are considered people. The anti-gun people fought this all the way. It seems unlikely they will be able to get SCOTUS to consider the case.

We now have another brick in the wall.

Share

7 thoughts on “Another Brick in the Wall”

  1. Excellent.
    So how long until they (18-20 year olds) will be able, under Federal law, to buy handguns?
    After all, the 2nd protects the Right to Keep and Bear Arms not the Right to Keep and Bear Long-Arms.

  2. Wonderful news! The courts finally figured out that the constitution was talking about humans! And it only took what, 200 years?
    16 to 20 years olds have been fighting and dying for this country since before it was a country. (That’s if one were interested in historical analogs that seem to be the latest liberal legal rage these days.)
    Think the courts might take another 200 years to figure out the second half of that sentence?
    Since we’re talking about people and bearing arms, How ’bout the “shall not infringed part”?
    Think they might start working on that here soon?
    Thank you, Joe, and thank your employer for us also! Without donations from people like you’all. This country would be a lot darker and bloodier.

  3. But, but, but- eighteen and twenty year olds don’t have the ‘maturity’ necessary to manage something as mysterious as owning and operating something so complex as firearms.
    What did the armed services do to confront this dilemma?

  4. Why are the State Police the defendants in this case. Anti-self defense they may be but they are operating in accord with statute as near as I can tell.

    • Is PA a “may issue” state, and the problem is that the State Police is exercising its “discretion” to deny 18 to 20 year old adults the right to carry?

  5. Pingback: Another Brick in the Wall | The View From North Central Idaho

Comments are closed.