If you're a regular reader of Bearing Arms you're probably at least someone familiar with the Lara v. Paris case out of Pennsylvania, where the Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld a lower court decision recognizing the right to carry for adults younger than 21. That was a hugely important decision, but the Firearms Policy Coalition and the National Rifle Association say the state is "acting like that decision doesn't exist", particularly when it comes to another ongoing lawsuit dealing with under-21s and the right to bear arms. 

The dispute in Lara centered on the fact that while Pennsylvania allows for under-21s to openly carry a firearm in most circumstances, it prohibits them from doing so during a declared state of emergency. And since under-21s aren't able to apply for a concealed carry license, their ability to carry was curtailed while the state was under overlapping "emergencies" for several years. In December, 2024 the Third Circuit reversed a lower court decision upholding the prohibition; remanding the case back to the District Court and ordering the judge to "enter an injunction forbidding theCommissioner from arresting law-abiding 18-to-20-year-oldswho openly carry firearms during a state of emergency declared by the Commonwealth."

Again, that was a big decision, but it didn't directly touch on the ability of under-21s to carry a concealed firearm, which is the more common way of bearing arms for self-defense. FPC and the NRA have teamed up in a related case called Young v. Ott that specifically targets the ban on concealed carry for young adults, and is urging a district court to follow the Third Circuit's lead and grant an injunction that would allow under-21s to apply for a carry license. Recognizing the right to bear arms generally is important, but unless they can carry a concealed firearm the plaintiffs can essentially only exercise that right when walking, and can't exercise that right at all while in Philadelphia, where open carry is prohibited. 

When Plaintiffs filed their motion for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, the State sought a stay pending a decision in Lara v. Commissioner Pennsylvania State Police, 125 F.4th 428, 431 (3d Cir. 2025) (“Lara II”). Now, displeased with the result in Lara II, the State acts like the case does not exist. This Court does not have that option. It is bound to follow Lara II’s holding that 18-to-20-year-olds have full Second Amendment rights and to rule in Plaintiffs’ favor.

... Plaintiffs cannot get a concealed carry permit, and they cannot carry “openly” in a car or in Philadelphia, and therefore they generally cannot carry at all in any of the places they go in a car. The State’s attempts to distinguish Lara II as not having “wrestle[d] with the availability of concealed carry licenses as opposed to open carry,” or its claim that “the Supreme Court has explicitly blessed concealed-carry restrictions that do not prohibit open carry,” are, therefore, irrelevant. 

In their brief the defendants maintain that under-21s may not possess the right to bear arms at all, and if they do that right is satisfied by their ability to openly carry absent any state of emergency. But as FPC and NRA point out, those with concealed carry licenses can carry in places where open carriers cannot, so the two practices are hardly equal. To add to that, I'd argue that the individual plaintiffs in the case, who are both young women, may not want to publicly display a firearm on their hip if they don't have to, knowing it might actually make them a target of someone who thinks they could snatch the gun away and render them defenseless. 

The Third Circuit may not have had to explicitly state that adults younger than 21 can carry in whatever manner suits them best, but they certainly hinted at that outcome in Lara II. The judge in Young v. Ott should grant the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction and end, at least for the moment, the state's charade that the Second Amendment rights of young adults can be curtailed at the whim of the legislature.