Summary
This Third Circuit order denies a petition for rehearing en banc regarding the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s prohibition on individuals aged 18 to 20 carrying firearms in public during statewide emergencies. A dissenting opinion argues that the panel majority incorrectly applied historical analysis under District of Columbia v. Bruen and United States v. Rahimi, contending that Reconstruction-era laws and modern scientific evidence support the state's regulation. The dissent urges en banc review to correct what it views as a fundamental error in Second Amendment jurisprudence and to allow the state to develop a sufficient historical record on remand.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Third Circuit should grant panel or en banc rehearing of its decision holding Pennsylvania's restrictions on public firearms carry by persons aged 18 to 20 during statewide emergencies unconstitutional.
- Whether historical evidence from the Founding era, Reconstruction era, and nineteenth century supports Pennsylvania's restrictions under the historical-tradition framework of District of Columbia v. Heller, New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, and United States v. Rahimi.
- Whether the case should be vacated and remanded to allow Pennsylvania to develop a further historical record in light of intervening Second Amendment decisions.
Holdings
- The petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc was denied because no judge who concurred in the decision requested rehearing and a majority of the judges in regular active service did not vote for rehearing.
Key quotations
“the petition for rehearing by the panel and the Court en banc, is denied.” (at 1)
“Under a correct reading of the extensive historical record and a faithful application of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Bruen and Rahimi, Pennsylvania’s statute passes constitutional muster.” (at 3)
“For all of these reasons, I respectfully dissent from the Court’s denial of rehearing en banc” (at 18)
Factual background
Pennsylvania law restricts persons aged 18 to 20 from carrying firearms publicly during statewide emergencies through provisions of the Uniform Firearms Act, including 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 6106, 6107, and 6109. The restriction was challenged under the Second Amendment. The dissent argued that historical firearms regulations, modern crime statistics, developmental science, and changes in firearm technology support Pennsylvania's legislative judgment that persons under 21 pose a particular public-safety risk during emergencies.
Procedural history
The case arose from a challenge to Pennsylvania's Uniform Firearms Act provisions governing firearms possession and public carry during declared emergencies. The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania entered judgment, and the Third Circuit issued a merits decision in Lara II, 125 F.4th 428 (3d Cir. 2025). Appellants then sought panel and en banc rehearing. The court denied the petition because no participating judge who concurred in the decision requested rehearing and a majority of active judges did not vote for rehearing. Judge Krause dissented from denial of rehearing en banc.