I still don't understand how someone can argue that the Second Amendment isn't treated like a second-class right while also advocating for age restrictions beyond merely reaching adulthood. I mean, I can see saying kids can't buy guns. Kids don't get a lot of their rights, after all, so the case can be made that this is no different.
But when someone's old enough to vote, old enough to live alone, only enough to join the military, it's a different matter entirely.
For every other right, they have the full rights afforded every other citizen. They just see their right to keep and bear arms restricted.
So, a lot of people are fighting that. In Pennsylvania, that fight includes taking on the age-based carry restrictions. The Firearms Policy Coalition just filed motions for an injunction that would stop this process as the challenge goes through the court system.
The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of an amended complaint and a motion for preliminary injunction or summary judgment in Young v. Ott, a federal lawsuit that challenges Pennsylvania’s laws banning 18- to 20-year-old adults from carrying firearms for lawful purposes outside the home.
Background on Young v. Ott
Introduction to the Case
The case of Young v. Ott involves a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania by plaintiffs Hannah Young, Ariana Palmaccio, the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. (FPC), and the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) against James Ott, Sheriff of Blair County, Brian Szumski, Sheriff of Luzerne County, and Colonel Christopher Paris, Commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Police.Legal Claims
The plaintiffs are challenging the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s age restrictions on obtaining a License to Carry Firearms (LTCF), which currently prohibits adults under the age of 21 from applying. They argue that this restriction violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution by denying them and other similarly situated adults their right to bear arms for self-defense outside the home.Details of the Complaint
According to the complaint:
- The plaintiffs assert that the right to carry a handgun for self-defense is a core Second Amendment right, as affirmed by recent Supreme Court rulings.
- They contend that adults, including those aged 18 to 20, should not be excluded from this right as they are considered legal adults for most other purposes, such as voting and military service.
- Pennsylvania’s Uniform Firearms Act (UFA) requires a LTCF to carry a concealed firearm or to transport a firearm in a vehicle. However, the UFA prohibits issuing these licenses to individuals under 21, which the plaintiffs argue unlawfully targets a specific age group without proper justification.
The hope here is that the judge will declare the law unconstitutional and prohibit its enforcement. That should be easy because, well, it is. Blatantly so.
If legal adults under the age of 21 aren't worthy to be trusted with their gun rights because of their age, then why in the world do they get to help decide our elected leaders? If they're too irrational to have their gun rights, why do we enlist them into the military, then hand them firepower well beyond what any of us can own?
I'm genuinely baffled by this idea, and so I hope the judge does come down on this correctly.
However, I'm also a less than hopeful that it will. In Pennsylvania, it could sort of go either way, really, but I do think it's time we take these challenges farther up the food chain, so to speak, and hopefully get a ruling from the Supreme Court, particularly one broad enough to end the age-based discrimination all too common when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms.
