PITTSBURGH – The Commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Police is seeking to dismiss litigation from a trio of young gun owners and a pair of non-profit firearms rights organizations arguing state laws have violated their Second Amendment rights, for failure to state a claim.
Madison M. Lara of Verona, Sophia Knepley of Denver, Logan D. Miller of Boyertown, the Second Amendment Foundation of Bellevue, Wash. and the Firearms Policy Coalition of Sacramento, Calif., initially filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 16 versus Col. Robert Evanchick, of Harrisburg.
The lawsuit asked that Pennsylvania’s state statutes preventing anyone below the age of 21 from obtaining a license to carry a firearm be decl,ared unconstitutional under the 2nd and 14th Amendments, believing it discriminates against lawful firearms owners in the age range of 18-20 years old.
The suit further contended that a state law, the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act of 1995 – which prohibits the firearms carrying on public streets or property during an emergency declared by a state or municipal officials – also violates the Second and 14th amendments.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has been under a state of emergency since January 2018, when Gov. Tom Wolf declared the heroin and opioid drug epidemics a formal and statewide disaster emergency.
Wolf also declared a statewide emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic in March.
“Defendant has prohibited, absent a license to carry firearms, a particular class of persons, including plaintiffs and those similarly situated, from carrying a firearm in their pockets for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in case of conflict with another person, in direct violation of the 2nd and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution,” the suit stated.
“Defendant has likewise prohibited a particular class of persons, including plaintiffs and those similarly situated, from transporting firearms, unless going directly to and directly back from very limited locations, as specified in 18 Pa.C.S. Section 6106, in direct violation of the 2nd and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution.”
UPDATE
Representation for Evanchick filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on Jan. 8, finding that it had failed to state a claim using a two-pronged analysis established in District of Columbia v. Heller.
“First, we ask whether the challenged law imposes a burden on conduct falling within the scope of the Second Amendment’s guarantee (recognizing the preliminary issue in a First Amendment challenge is whether the speech at issue is protected or unprotected),” the dismissal motion postulated.
“If it does not, our inquiry is complete. If it does, we evaluate the law under some form of means-end scrutiny. If the law passes muster under that standard, it is constitutional. If it fails, it is invalid.”
The dismissal motion added that the state law being challenged, the PUFA, withstands the examination process of “intermediate scrutiny.”
“It would appear that the regulatory scheme established by Sections 6106 and 6109 [of the PUFA] with respect to 18-to-20-year-olds survives intermediate scrutiny and requires the dismissal of plaintiffs’ constitutional challenges thereto,” the commissioner’s dismissal motion read.
“Additional support for this position can be found in the several other decisions which have employed this means-end analysis to deny challenges by 18-to-20-year-olds to federal and state laws which they claimed were ‘an unconstitutional infringement on 18-20-year-olds ‘right to use handguns in self-defense’ established in Heller.”
The motion added that it is untrue that [PUFA’s] restrictions on the ability of 18-to-20-year-olds to open carry firearms during declared emergencies violate the 2nd Amendment – because, regardless of a person’s age, there has never been a case that has established a 2nd Amendment right to open carry firearms under any circumstances.
“[The law] does not entail a complete ban on open carrying of firearms during emergency declarations. Indeed, this section carves out an exception for persons who are ‘actively engaged in a defense of that person’s life or property from peril or threat.’ So even if Heller commands that the 2nd Amendment embodies a right to open carry a firearm for purposes of self-defense, [the law] explicitly allows for that contingency,” the motion read.
Moreover, the motion explained the age restriction would eventually terminate when the plaintiffs reach the age of 21.
“The restrictions in Section 6107 are not permanent and will evaporate upon the termination of the emergency declaration(s) or – in the case of plaintiffs– upon reaching the age of 21. Referencing prior cases which have examined the 2nd Amendment rights of 18-to-20-year-olds, the Seventh Circuit has held that age-based restrictions do not burden rights under the 2nd Amendment, in part, because they are of a temporary nature,” per the motion.
“Thus, as applied to plaintiffs, the restrictions on open carrying of firearms will end upon the termination of the declared emergency, and the restrictions on concealed carrying of firearms will end upon plaintiffs aging out of the age-based limitations.”
For counts of constitutional rights violations, the plaintiffs are seeking various declarations that 18 Pa.C.S. Section 6107, its derivative regulations, and all related laws, policies and procedures violate plaintiffs’, and those who are similarly situated, right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the 2nd and 14th Amendments to the U. S. Constitution, nominal damages and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, costs, attorney fees and expenses to the extent permitted, and grant any and all other equitable and/or legal remedies this Court may see fit.
The plaintiffs are represented by Joshua Prince of Prince Law Offices in Bechtelsville, Adam Kraut of Firearms Policy Coalition in Sacramento, Calif, plus David H. Thompson, Haley N. Proctor, John D. Ohlendorf and Peter A. Patterson of Cooper & Kirk, in Washington, D.C.
The defendant is represented by Sarah J. Simkin and Scott A. Bradley of the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office, in Harrisburg.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-01582
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com