Staff Reports
The Supreme Court quietly declined to step in on a hot Second Amendment fight this week, letting a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruling stand that struck down Pennsylvania’s ban on emergency concealed carry for 18‑ to 20‑year‑olds. The case, captioned Lara v. Evanchick, now remains binding law inside the Third Circuit — and that should make responsible Pennsylvanians sit up and take notice.
Supreme Court denial keeps Third Circuit decision in force
The high court’s decision to deny certiorari means the appellate court’s finding — that Pennsylvania could not show a founding‑era tradition to justify excluding 18–20‑year‑olds from public carry during declared emergencies — survives for now. Under the Bruen framework, courts ask whether a modern restriction fits the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The Third Circuit said Pennsylvania failed that test, and the Supreme Court chose not to overturn or review that ruling. For people who value the Second Amendment, this is an outcome worth celebrating.
Immediate impact: Pennsylvania law in the Third Circuit
Practically speaking, the Third Circuit’s judgment governs cases in Pennsylvania and other states inside that circuit unless the state rewrites the law or a higher court changes course later. Advocacy groups that brought the challenge hailed the denial as a win, and Pennsylvania officials — including Acting Commissioner George L. Bivens of the Pennsylvania State Police — now must enforce state law in light of the court’s ruling. Don’t be surprised if lawmakers scramble to draft clearer statutes or if similar fights pop up in other circuits. A denial of review is not the same as a national ruling, but it sure changes the playing field locally.
Adults in emergencies deserve the same basic rights
Here’s the simple, blunt point: 18‑ to 20‑year‑olds are adults. They vote, they pay taxes, and many of them serve in the military. If the state trusts them with the latter, it should trust them to defend themselves and their families in a declared emergency. The idea that a bureaucrat or a statute can decide an adult is too immature to carry a firearm for self‑defense is paternalism dressed up as policy. Governor Josh Shapiro and the state’s law‑makers should ask themselves whether they’re protecting public safety or protecting power over law‑abiding citizens.
The legal fight isn’t over nationally, but this development is a clear signal: post‑Bruen cases about age and carry rights will keep coming. Conservatives who care about the Constitution should press the point: defend adult rights, demand rational laws that target true threats, and stop treating citizens like children. The Third Circuit did its job under existing Supreme Court doctrine, and the Supreme Court’s refusal to review lets that judgment stand — for now. If Pennsylvania wants a different result, the proper route is legislation consistent with the Constitution, not indefinite paternalism in the name of “safety.”
