PITTSBURGH – A federal judge has dismissed with prejudice litigation from a trio of young gun owners and a pair of non-profit firearms rights organizations who argued state laws violated their Second Amendment rights, finding that the argument fell outside the auspices of the U.S. Constitution.
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 declared unconstitutional under the Second 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 Second 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 Second and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution.”
Counsel 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.
The dismissal motion added that the state law being challenged, the PUFA, withstands the examination process of “intermediate scrutiny” and added it was untrue that [PUFA’s] restrictions on the ability of 18-to-20-year-olds to open carry firearms during declared emergencies violate the Second Amendment.
Moreover, the motion explained the age restriction would eventually terminate when the plaintiffs reach the age of 21.
UPDATE
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Judge William S. Stickman IV ruled to dismiss the case with prejudice on April 16, finding that the plaintiffs’ claims failed as a matter of law.
“An examination of the challenged provisions, individually and read together, shows that the prohibitions effectuated are not as broad as have been characterized by plaintiffs. There is no question that Section 6109(b) requires that a person be at least 21 years old to obtain a license to carry a concealed firearm,” Stickman said.
“Pennsylvania generally permits the open (i.e., non-concealed) carrying of firearms without a license. However, that right is limited with respect to public streets and public property in times of declared emergencies by the provisions of Section 6107.”
Stickman added that the plaintiffs’ rationales “evade Second Amendment scrutiny.”
“Plaintiffs do not cite any federal case that holds that either age-based restrictions imposing limitations on the ability to own or carry firearms, or age-based limitations on the issuance of licenses, facially implicate the Second Amendment under the first step of the Marzzarella test and similar tests used in other circuits. Nor is the Court aware of any such case(s),” Stickman said.
“Over 12 years after the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller, the established consensus of federal appellate and district courts from around the country is that age-based restrictions limiting the rights of 18-20-year-old adults to keep and bear arms fall under the ‘longstanding’ and ‘presumptively lawful’ measures recognized by the Supreme Court in Heller as evading Second Amendment scrutiny.”
Stickman pointed out that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and many other post-Heller decisions have found that “licensing requirements are generally viewed as longstanding and presumptively valid restrictions and generally do not implicate the Second Amendment”, along with there being “broad consensus among federal courts that individuals under the age of 21 may face restrictions consistent with the Second Amendment.”
“The restrictions imposed by Pennsylvania's statutes are much narrower than characterized by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs (and all 18-to-20-year-olds) are not precluded from ‘the right to bear arms in public in any manner’ as they argue. The limitations only apply to public streets and public property,” Stickman said.
“Further, even there, plaintiffs are permitted to keep and bear arms for a wide array of purposes, including the defense of their persons and property, hunting, target shooting and a variety of occupation-based purposes. At its core, the Second Amendment protects the right of a citizen to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Pennsylvania’s statutes expressly preserve this right, along with other purposes, including sporting and recreational uses of firearms.”
“In light of the consensus amongst federal courts that age-based restrictions – including restrictions more severe than imposed by the Pennsylvania statutes at issue – fall under the class of ‘longstanding’ and ‘presumptively lawful’ regulations recognized in Heller, the Court is compelled to find that the age-based restrictions at issue here fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment,” Stickman ruled.
The plaintiffs were 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 was 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