The Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied a petition for a rehearing in the Second Amendment Foundation’s victory in a case challenging Pennsylvania statutes that prohibit law-abiding young adults from carrying firearms for self-defense and prevents them from acquiring a state license to carry (LTCF) because of their age. The case is known as Lara v. Evanchick.
The petition for an en banc rehearing had been filed by attorneys representing the Commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Police. SAF is joined in the case by the Firearms Policy Coalition and three private citizens, including Madison M. Lara, for whom the case is named. They are represented by attorneys David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and John D. Ohlendorf at Cooper & Kirk, Washington, D.C.
Writing for the majority, Circuit Judge Kent A. Jordan explained, “The petition for rehearing filed by appellant in the above-entitled case having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this Court and to all the other available circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the judges of the circuit in regular service not having voted for rehearing, the petition for rehearing by the panel and the Court en banc, is DENIED.”
“We’re satisfied with the court’s decision,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “It’s an important win. The Third Circuit has affirmed that the Second Amendment applies to young adults, and that 1791 is the historical marker for understanding the right to keep and bear arms. Finally, the court has said 18-to-20-year-olds can open carry during a state of emergency in Pennsylvania.”
“We’ve been fighting this battle for more than three years,” noted SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, who is a Pennsylvania resident and practicing attorney in the state. “The court’s decision is an important step forward to getting this issue resolved.”
Wow ……wait does this mean New Jersey and Delaware will need to update their permitting requirements?
SAFEupstateFML,
That is my understanding since a decision in the Third Circuit is binding upon ALL of the territory of the Third Circuit–which of course includes New Jersey and Delaware.
It goes without saying that Pennsylvania will cry foul and demand that the U.S. Supreme Court overturn this Third Circuit decision, as well as demanding a stay of the ruling until the Supremes hear the case.
Well I will have to reach out to some people I know in those states as this will create some fun times. Is this two full circuits that came to this conclusion now or was the other one a district decision (year or so ago I think)
SAFEupstateFML,
I don’t recall if there were any similar Federal Appellate Court rulings–whether in the same circuit or a different circuit.
What I don’t understand is how there have been precisely ZERO lawsuits in the federal Appellate Circuit where I live. There are multiple laws in my state which firearms advocacy organizations have overturned in other federal Appellate Circuits. All those organizations would have to do in my Circuit is a literal “copy and paste” of their successful lawsuits on the other Circuits.
Money, ultimately it costs to bring a case all the way through and there are a lot of competing priorities. I don’t think we have age restrictions in the mix of over 2 dozen various lawsuits (some to be combined as they advance).
“Money, ultimately it costs to bring a case all the way through and there are a lot of competing priorities.”
Exactly, if you want real, tangible change, organize a fundraiser and start launching lawsuits.
Every bit helps, even 5 bucks a month with enough donators can fund those lawsuits…
Yes, and have a window open alternate Mondays from 4:30-5:00 PM, except for holidays. Because that’s how the left obeys the courts when they’re unhappy.
What holster is that in the photograph?
Looks like a belt version of my Safariland ALS paddle. I have one for a G20 when I hike with the Grizzly bears.
Yeah, its a Safariland ALS holster with paddle attachment.
When you hike with the grizzlies, what do they carry?
It’s a plastic holstein for a plastic gunm, clack clack
RE: “We’ve been fighting this battle for more than three years,” noted SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut,”
What’s there that takes longer than 3 seconds to decide? Just more Gun Control time consuming nonsense to make Gun Control appear like it runs neck and neck with the Second Amendment…case musta been a photo finish. Guarantee during the 3 years gottlieb and company did not air any of Gun Control’s dirty laundry leaving Gun Control to fight on another day.
What are you doing to undo anything again and what has it accomplished?
Not damn thing, pretty much what’s between her ears…
I believe that the 3 years includes the time that the case was tried in the US District Court and the time that it took the 3rd. Cir to release its opinion. Sadly, 3 years, while not typical, is not unheard of, regardless of the subject matter of the litigation.
If the democrats win in November, they will likely replace Justices Thomas and Alito on the Supreme Court…both in their 70s, when they die or retire….and that would give the democrat party total control over the Supreme Court…which means all of these victories will be meaningless…..the democrats will rule gun and magazine bans and confiscations Constitutional, and will rule the 2nd only applies to Militias….so if you want to buy, own or carry a gun…get out and vote in November and vote for Trump…
Like I say, judges can ruin your day.
Perhaps it’s time We The People quit putting our faith in judges of the supreme court.
Vote?? So we are Depending on an election to save The Bill of Rights.
That’s kinda iffy, especially when the Oath of Office doesn’t mean anything. And theres the problem, We The People tolerate a President who doesn’t protect the Constitution of The United States to the best of his ability.
“especially when the Oath of Office doesn’t mean anything“
Some do question the Oath:
“Trump tells court he had no duty to ‘support’ the Constitution as president
Matthew Chapman
October 11, 2023 5:25PM ET
Trump tells court he had no duty to ‘support’ the Constitution as president
Former President Donald Trump is arguing to a judge in Colorado that he was not required to “support” the Constitution as president, reported Brandi Buchman from Law & Crime.“
“a President who doesn’t protect the Constitution of The United States“
Yes, it seems we had one of those three years ago:
“Trump called for ‘termination’ of parts of Constitution in December
BY TARA SUTER – 08/23/23 11:19 PM ET
“A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post in December 2022.“
Miner49er,
I am not privy to the information that you provided. It may be totally true. Let’s assume for the sake of discussion that it is true: then that proves that Presidents, Governors, and Legislators can and do go rogue at any time which is the very reason that our nation’s Framers wrote the Second Amendment.
Of course “kinetic” solutions are the absolute LAST (and incredibly unsavory) resort when all else–free speech, elections, and the courts–have failed.
Uncommon, your point about the purpose of the Second Amendment is correct.
As for miner’s limited copy/paste smokescreen, here’s some context. As you know and have documented in the past, context is a weak point for miner.
The Presidential Oath of Office does not include the word “support” although it is included in the oaths for other federal officials and employees.
https://www.thoughtco.com/oaths-of-office-for-federal-officials-3368324
https://www.fedsmith.com/2021/01/06/oath-of-office-what-it-means/
“Trump tells court he had no duty to ‘support’ the Constitution as president…”
I found no record of Trump directly speaking or writing this himself, but his lawyers did. It is technically correct, and is a matter of parsing words, which better lawyers can do.
As for terminating the Constitution, I provide a passage from an article about this at Snopes. Miner oughta accept this one too, albeit begrudgingly.
“In sum, Trump posted on Truth Social that, what he believed to be, election fraud in the 2020 presidential election allows “for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.” For that reason, we rated this claim “Correct Attribution.”
Some onlookers of the Truth Social post interpreted the statement to mean that he was calling for the termination of the Constitution. After that, Trump issued a follow-up statement denying that claim, arguing that, in the original Truth Social post, he meant “steps must be immediately taken to RIGHT THE WRONG” of election fraud.”
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-termination-us-constitution/
So it is correct that Trump posted that language. It is also correct that a couple days later, having seen that some in the media and elsewhere were taking his language literally, he posted a correction.
Too true.
If Dems win both houses of Congress as well, they’ll stack the court with 6-8 complete Marxists so that everything will be up for grabs.
“If the democrats win in November, they will likely replace Justices Thomas and Alito on the Supreme Court…both in their 70s, when they die or retire….”
That’s what bit RGB square in the ass. They were so convinced Trump would lose and Hillary would replace her.
*Wrong*… 😉
I fled PA over a decade ago. Get out of the blue states before they won’t let you leave…
Where in Pa did you live? Life in the rural areas is still pretty sweet, even if we do have a moron for a Governor.
As we get closer and closer to losing all of our freedoms does anyone think it is by chance that our courts are stepping up and mentioning that we have a right to self defense and to own firearms?