Pennsylvania’s 21+ Concealed Carry Age Restriction Stays Overturned as Third Circuit Denies Rehearing

Listed To This Article: Play in new window | Download | Embed

You can also subscribe via Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | | More

PHILADELPHIA, PA — In a major victory for Second Amendment advocates, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has denied a petition for en banc rehearing in Lara v. Commissioner of Pennsylvania State Police, allowing its previous ruling to stand. The decision reaffirms that Pennsylvania’s restriction on 18-to-20-year-olds carrying concealed firearms is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

Despite efforts from 19 state attorneys general to challenge the ruling, the Third Circuit declined to revisit the case, solidifying the precedent that law-abiding young adults cannot be arbitrarily denied their right to carry firearms for self-defense.

Court Reaffirms Second Amendment Rights for Young Adults

The Lara case challenged Pennsylvania’s law, which generally restricted adults under 21 from obtaining concealed carry permits and imposed additional prohibitions during declared states of emergency. The Third Circuit had previously ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, recognizing that 18-to-20-year-olds are part of “the People” protected by the Second Amendment.

With the court refusing to rehear the case, that ruling remains in effect, securing the right of young adults to carry concealed firearms for self-defense. This outcome also calls into question similar restrictions in other states, potentially paving the way for broader challenges against age-based firearm bans.

Dissenting Judges Push for Reconsideration

While a majority of the circuit judges declined to revisit the decision, a group of dissenting judges—led by Judge Cheryl Ann Krause—argued that the court should have reconsidered the case. In a strongly worded dissent, Judge Krause contended that Pennsylvania’s law had historical precedent, citing various 19th-century regulations.

However, the court’s decision to deny the rehearing aligns with the Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022), which requires

modern gun laws to be consistent with historical traditions at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification in 1791. The original panel had already determined that there was no Founding-era tradition of restricting 18-to-20-year-olds from carrying firearms, making Pennsylvania’s law unconstitutional.

A Broader Impact on Gun Rights

This ruling could have nationwide implications, as many states still impose similar age-based restrictions on firearm carry. The Third Circuit’s decision could serve as a blueprint for challenging other laws that unjustly restrict the Second Amendment rights of legal adults.

Furthermore, this ruling calls into question federal restrictions that prohibit individuals under 21 from purchasing handguns from licensed dealers. The logic applied in Lara—that young adults cannot be arbitrarily excluded from their constitutional rights—may set the stage for future legal challenges at the federal level.

What’s Next? Could the Supreme Court Weigh In?

With the Third Circuit denying en banc review, the only remaining option for Pennsylvania is to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Given the high court’s recent emphasis on historical tradition in gun cases—including Bruen and United States v. Rahimi (2024)—Pennsylvania would face an uphill battle in trying to justify its restrictions.

If the Supreme Court declines to take up the case, the Third Circuit’s ruling will stand, further reinforcing that 18-to-20-year-olds cannot be denied their right to carry firearms for self-defense.

Key Takeaway for Gun Owners

The denial of en banc review is a win for Second Amendment rights and a significant step toward restoring full constitutional protections for young adults. This case highlights the shifting legal landscape following Bruen, as courts continue to strike down unconstitutional gun restrictions.

Gun owners—especially those in states with similar age-based carry bans—should watch for potential challenges in their own jurisdictions. This ruling could signal the beginning of a broader movement to restore full Second Amendment rights to all law-abiding adults, regardless of age.